Stephen Hawking gives up on God!

[YourMaster]

I thought you guys would find this amusing (I know I do):

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

It gets better:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

But not to be outdone by himself, he continues:

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/...ritain_hawking

Is this science "coming out of the closet" (or just Hawking gone wild)? Coming next ... science pride parades

[ENeGMA]

Stephen Hawking gave up on God a long time ago. He's always been an atheist.

Out of all the things I hate (and believe me, there are many) the sensationalist media is right near the top. Just after Nazis.

I mean this "article" is just several quotes taken out of context and mixed in with misleading and erroneous (in equal measures) commentary by some idiot.

That said, I'm sure Hawking is right about this fact. I mean either the result of physics is going to be a physical (that is, natural) understanding of the universe of physics will be a failed project, ultimately.

It'd be rather odd for a physicist to believe that physics couldn't ultimately explain the physical world, especially an atheist naturalist like Hawking.

[gharfish]

God, for him, before now (he's 68) was completely unidentifiable in 'his' personal traits; right ? It was as simple as could be: He had a mind and possessed the immense intelligence anyone would expect a creator God would have, and the same goes for his creative powers. That's it. That's all. So...not really a religious man before this latest book!


>

[YourMaster]

God, for him, before now (he's 68) was completely unidentifiable in 'his' personal traits; right ? It was as simple as could be: He had a mind and possessed the immense intelligence anyone would expect a creator God would have, and the same goes for his creative powers. That's it. That's all. So...not really a religious man before this latest book!

I doubt he ever truly entertained the idea of a god, certainly not a personal god (but I also doubt he was ever something like a deist either ... or if he ever was it was a very long time ago). Scientists have always had an unspoken rule of giving lip service to religion (in order to avoid controversy so they can focus on science, and of course not put their funding at risk by deeply offending anyone). I think those days are beginning to come to an end. I think the reason could be that very dangerous forms of religion are beginning to take root, and scientists are taking notice (and beginning to feel a responsibility to move people away from the potential abyss of a new religious dark age).

[showmeproof]

Hawking is an atheist. To paraphrase a quote from the History of Time Hawking postulates that to find a grand unifying theory might be equivalent to knowing the mind of God. He says this in much the same way Einstein quipped "God does not play dice". What he means is that to if we are able to unite the quantum with the Theory of Relativity we might actually get a glimpse of the causation of the beginning of the Universe; a natural explanation.

[gharfish]

He denies being an atheist. He says he is an agnostic.


>

[Oolon Colluphid]

Maybe we could merge this with "The Grand Design" (the title of Hawking's book) thread.

I was under the impression Hawking was previously a Christian. He used to attend his local Anglican service anyway.

[element771]

Maybe we could merge this with "The Grand Design" (the title of Hawking's book) thread.

I was under the impression Hawking was previously a Christian. He used to attend his local Anglican service anyway.

This is correct but according to what I have read in the past, he identified himself as an agnostic and denied atheism.

This may have led some to think that he was a closet theist but I guess his new book throws a wrench into that idea.

[YourMaster]

Ultimately no one should care that much that a prominent scientist is an atheist or agnostic or whatever ... right? I'm certainly not relying on Hawking to form my worldview. I just slapped this story on here because I thought it would be of interest (but I'm pretty sure Hawking acknowledges that just because a god may not be necessary -- that in itself doesn't automatically preclude the idea).

[Jon_Day]

I think it's hilariously appropriate for this forum, especially considering some of the outrageous claims regarding the supposed "beginning of the universe" and the "requirement" of God. I've heard over, and over, and over again that there must be a God in order for there to be a universe, or for the Big Bang to have occurred. In addition, I have heard over, and over, and over again that the Big Bang is "the beginning of the universe", when that is a blatantly incorrect statement...and has not been claimed by the scientific community...but rather that the Big Bang was a change in the state of things...not a beginning to all things.

Oh...and I have also been told several times over that noted physicists and thinkers, including Hawking back up this assertion. In fact, as is the usual fashion, I have been completely insulted, degraded and called an "idiot" for suggesting otherwise.

[YourMaster]

I think it's hilariously appropriate for this forum, especially considering some of the outrageous claims regarding the supposed "beginning of the universe" and the "requirement" of God. I've heard over, and over, and over again that there must be a God in order for there to be a universe, or for the Big Bang to have occurred. In addition, I have heard over, and over, and over again that the Big Bang is "the beginning of the universe", when that is a blatantly incorrect statement...and has not been claimed by the scientific community...but rather that the Big Bang was a change in the state of things...not a beginning to all things.

Oh...and I have also been told several times over that noted physicists and thinkers, including Hawking back up this assertion. In fact, as is the usual fashion, I have been completely insulted, degraded and called an "idiot" for suggesting otherwise.

Right, and on that basis I fully agree with your sentiment

Saying god isn't necessary, isn't apparent, and our universe had to happen according to the laws of physics, pretty much sinks the ship for metaphysical cosmological arguments. Of course if you ask me Hume accomplished that centuries ago! The metaphysicist can still ask why, but they no longer have science to hang their hats on (they never really did in the first place, but they obviously thought they did). Hopefully they'll stop using arguments like we can't reach zero by continually dividing a number in half, but the arrow still hits its target, therefore an infinite regress is impossible (or so called hotel paradoxes, or whatever). The worse thing is they never really acknowledged or understood the inherent limitations of these sorts of devices in the first place (because of confirmation bias). I think some physicists finally had enough with apologists jumping on stage and using a misconstruction of cosmology and physics as proofs in their arguments.

[gharfish]

Well, if God isn't necessary then IMO a creative force really kind of is (at least that). Correct me if I am wrong, but in some eastern religious 'schools of thought', that creative force is God. But - a big but, (sorry :), it lacks *personal characteristics* and is *mindless.* That being the case, it isn't properly speaking God. Hinduism, by the scriptures, is this way.


>


>

[YourMaster]

Well, if God isn't necessary then IMO a creative force really kind of is (at least that). Correct me if I am wrong, but in some eastern religious 'schools of thought', that creative force is God. But - a big but, (sorry :), it lacks *personal characteristics* and is *mindless.* That being the case, it isn't properly speaking God. Hinduism, by the scriptures, is this way.

Hawking is saying "no creative force is necessary whatsoever" (he's not suggesting a deist type of god is necessary, rather he's saying no intangible or supernatural force is necessary at any point in the process). That claim doesn't just create problems for "personal god" religions, it deprives all religious systems of a scientific basis. The only thing left for apologists is ad hom attacks against Hawking (and I expect that will begin to happen in short order). What remains to be seen is how willing the rest of the scientific community will be to defend this position (even though they know it's correct). There's a lot of politics involved here (and on this basis I sort of wonder why Hawking decided to take such a risk and make such strong statements, regardless of how true they are). I was sort of happy with a more timid debate. Hawking is simply at a different level than guys like Dawkins. Although Dawkins is a great biologist, evolution simply isn't as damaging to apologetic arguments as physics is (and I'd say Hawking is far more accomplished than any other scientist I can think of who's been willing to make this sort of public statement).

This may sound weird coming from me, but I hope he takes the sting out of his comments (at least a little bit). I just think that this sort of realization could impact many people in a bad way; and unless science develops technological alternatives to religion, it might be cruel to try and inform everyone about everything. Moreover, he needs to qualify his statements more. He knows that we don't know everything. Whether or not we can figure out ways to avoid the need for a deity or creator of some sort doesn't preclude the idea. My real objection to theism isn't so much theism itself (although I'm not a theist), but rather how it manifests in many cases. I think the reason religion can compel people to do crazy things is because of unwarranted faith in ideas that are in many cases demonstrably false.

[gharfish]

Sure. I know that Hawking is now saying in this new book that no creative force is necessary. I only said what was my opinion: that a creative force, if just impersonally mindless a "G/god," was necessary - at least that. For example: Brahma's nature (Hinduism).

You say that Hawking's assertion creates problems for "personal God" religions. And that is that it deprives them of a scientific basis. This one man's opinion is powerfully conclusive! Given who he is, he must be right (?)

What other problems do you think this will create for all religious systems, if any more?


>

[YourMaster]

Sure. I know that Hawking is now saying in this new book that no creative force is necessary. I only said what was my opinion: that a creative force, if just impersonally mindless a "G/god," was necessary - at least that. For example: Brahma's nature (Hinduism).

You say that Hawking's assertion creates problems for "personal God" religions. And that is that it deprives them of a scientific basis. This one man's opinion is powerfully conclusive! Given who he is, he must be right (?)

What other problems do you think this will create for all religious systems, if any more?

Agreed, it's one guys opinion (and that's it). People can extrapolate from it whatever they like. Certainly Hawking has a little bit of weight in the scientific community, and because of that he may have opened up a can of worms (we'll have to wait and see). There are very few theoretical physicists these days who think our universe is all there is. While this isn't news to me, it will be news to many people.