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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
But why would this constitute news except to story-dry science journalism? In what sense does he have any more authority on such a subject than, say the Pope or authors of any sacred texts?
Hawking argues, perhaps proves, that our something could have arisen out of somebody else's nothing purely by self-driving physical processes. We have no reason to challenge that assessment (and haven't read his book yet). But the fact that he's a famous physicist gives him absolutely no 'authority' about such issues.
For one thing, God could have created the rules of physics and the starting stuff in which this happened.
The point is not to get into the God food-fight, but simply to say that while we might wish to invest authoritative wisdom to someone, to cure our angst for an answer, it is not to be found in this kind of scientific pronouncement (and likewise for those who say that since they can explain everything by evolution, therefore there's no God).
Everyone can have an opinion, and can rest it on whatever facts s/he takes as most cogent. Scientific arguments may be able to account for a phenomenon. As scientists we have perhaps a duty to point out when religious arguments about the material world are simply wrong (for example the young-earth or the Intelligent Designer arguments). There, authoritativeness has meaning and it's OK for the news media to report it as such.
It's also fine to cite Dr Hawking's reasons for why what we call the universe could have self-ignited. But it is a continued misrepresentation of science, especially by journalists, to headline scientists' opinions as if they carry authority, when in fact they don't, and can't. Making that kind of hero, to sell copy which is the bottom line here, is wrong.
We should have a more proper public understanding of what science actually is, and what it isn't. Science journalists should be more properly trained.
Even if in a given case we would choose to listen to someone who knows a lot about the world to see why he thinks as he does.
I think you have this backwards. I would say, Stephen Hawking has *just as much* right to postulate about the existence of God as a "so-called" expert on God (a priest, for example). Why didn't you choose to theme your article "What right does the Pope have to say that God exists"? Dr Hawking is, after all, as informed or better than anybody in the mechanics of the universe, so he is as much an expert in these matters (or more) than a theologian, I think.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Hawking has every right to postulate whatever he wants. That's not the point -- the point is that just because he's famous and knows his physics, this doesn't mean he knows anymore than the rest of us about whether God exists. And yet his ideas are given more weight on the subject, as though he's got some special insight.
ReplyDeleteIt's right in the sense that you make your point, Texbrit. But the Pope, or ministers, are titled as supposed experts on just that question. Whether anyone should accept the validity of their expertise is up to each person.
ReplyDeleteBut God is at least their job. Science's job is different, and we should be clear about that, so should journalists, I think.
But it is absolutely fair to ask how anybody in any profession can claim to speak knowledgeably about this. That was the essence of some of the protestant reformation: we have to speak individually to God. No authority has the authority to intervene.
But given that one of the main theses of religion/God is about the creation of the universe, Dr Hawking must be supremely qualified to weigh in(and be quoted) on this, no?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Anything he has to say on the physical creation of the universe is what we should be paying attention to. However, that doesn't tell us (or him, really) anything about the role of a deity in its creation.
ReplyDeleteWe don't only pick on Hawking, by the way. We've posted a number of times on the conflation of scientific expertise with religion. For example, here we pick on Dawkins: http://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2009/05/strident-atheist-scientists.html
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that this was likely a sales-generating gimmick as well, there are plenty of other incentives for Hawking to come out with such a statement. And yes, in this case, a sensational headline serves valid purposes.
ReplyDeleteFor one, Hawking's previous "see the mind of God" quote has been frequently used by apologists in an abuse similar to the case of Einstein.
For two, science has made great strides indeed if a God is no longer required to "fill the gap" for the creation of the universe. This is a perfectly legitimate point for a scientist to make.
For three, if we bring out the regress question of "God could have made the laws allowing for this something-out-of-nothing", we similarly deny that any explanation for the creation of any universe is satisfactory. This includes a theistic explanation. (For any possible universe, any decider between possible universes is itself possibly different, including `natural laws' or `gods'.) It is important to note that if Hawking is correct, this famous question of theologians is either answered or fundamentally self-defeating.
Finally, the objections to "conflating science and religion" assume that religion and science have no intersection. In the case of the origins of the universe, I can hardly see how such a stance is defensible.
Insofar as the origins of the universe are considered partially "religious" in expertise, Hawking can claim expertise. As to the sensational treatment of this story, almost any treatment of this subject matter by the media would be sensational.
Scientists like Hawkins are the atheist's priests. We all have a stake in the argument about the origins of the universe, even atheists.
ReplyDeleteGod created the laws of physics. And guides creation and evolution. It's all in His plan.
ReplyDeleteZachary, do you think science will eventually be able to answer the question of whether a deity had a hand in the beginning, however far back science pushes it, or how many details are explained? To Stephen Hawking and those who agree with him this may be a non-question, and they can be satisfied that physics explains the origin, but a believer will never be.
ReplyDeleteFrancis Collins has said that fundamentalists should stop insisting that science can't explain things like the evolution of flagella (yes, already well explained, but still questioned by some), because science will eventually fill in all the gaps. But that, to Collins, doesn't diminish his deity. In that sense, no matter how well it satisfies someone for whom such evidence is convincing, science can never explain away religion to a believer.
What we accept depends on our criteria for evidence.
Jennifer's exactly right -- there's always a way out.
ReplyDeleteI think we all (commenters here) understand the issue. What one accepts as relevant material facts is personal. We know the kinds of facts that science uses and presents. We know that things science hasn't yet figured out, like the big bang before Hawking's new book (assuming he has in fact figured it out), it will say it will eventually figure out.
ReplyDeleteBut religion deals with ideas about truth that are above, beyond, or additional to material truth. At present, science can't say much about that that goes beyond using technical sounding rhetoric to state opinions (such as evolutionary arguments about why natural selection favored belief).
There is genuine conflict when it comes to religious-based claims about the material world and, as Collins said, science will show when they are simply wrong as best we can tell.
There is nothing in what we or commentators have said that prevents anyone from expressing an opinion about these issues. What we think is objectionable, and its just our opinion, is the blurring by the media of science and ultimate understanding.
We would not take the Pope, for example, as knowing anything relevant to whether evolution is true or not (John Paul pronounced that it is). Nor the Britawks (Dawkins or Hawkings) about whether religion is true.
@Texbrit
ReplyDelete"Scientists like Hawkins are the atheist's priests. We all have a stake in the argument about the origins of the universe, even atheists."
Let's not conflate the sort of authority usually given to scientists with the sort of authority commonly given to priests.
@Anne:
"To Stephen Hawking and those who agree with him this may be a non-question, and they can be satisfied that physics explains the origin, but a believer will never be."
I argue that this is a non-question independently of whether or not one is a theist. As I noted, invoking regress to render an answer like Hawking's unsatisfactory would apply to any answer, theistic or not. It's the same reason why many classical variants of the cosmological argument fail; God becomes an equally unsatisfactory and arbitrary answer as "natural superlaw". Whether or not this is all emotionally gratifying is a different story, but it is for this reason that many believers will not be satisfied. Why should they be? It gives the wrong answer!
"In that sense, no matter how well it satisfies someone for whom such evidence is convincing, science can never explain away religion to a believer."
Right, because (interventionist theistic) believers do not usually construct their beliefs on evidential concerns. And yes, a religious person could accept Hawking's conclusions and still believe that God intervenes "through natural laws" (as Jennifer does) even where the gaps are filled. Unless additional properties are given to God, the distinction between such a theist and most atheists is linguistic. Up to empirical concerns, they can agree entirely. None of this is news to me.
The question is then whether or not we are impressed by catch-all responses and whether or not there is reason to reject them. I think that there is, but that's a discussion for a different time.
@Ken/Anne:
I think our main disagreement lies in how broad we allow our definitions of religion to be. In my case, I've been intending theism as belief in a mystical God who intervenes in this world. This definition captures the majority of religious adherents, as it includes religions which accept revelation and miracles.
And the universe just got a little less theistic.
Of course Hawking has not disproved every form of religion/God ever. (No physics equation can, even in principle, refute the broadest definition of god. Actually, nothing can.) With such variety - also note that some forms are restatements of naturalism - such a thing is not possible. However, a demonstration that God is not a necessary hypothesis is extremely important for theists and atheists alike. And yes, it is of sufficient public interest to merit a headline.
It means that up to our understanding of the natural universe, religion is at best a redundancy. Do you expect that this idea can be comfortably accommodated within the majority of religious systems? Even our standard examples of scientifically-oriented religious folks might have problems with such a statement. There is a reason that Gould's NOMA is considered unsatisfactory by science/religion compatibilists.
"Nor the Britawks (Dawkins or Hawkings) about whether religion is true."
Scientists can say that certain forms of religion are false and claim epistemic authority on that matter. I wish we could all refrain from the singular usage of `religion'. I don't think that Dawkins (or any other prominent atheist) pretends to have a disproof of deism or Spinozan pantheism, for example.
I wish I had an interventionist view that there is a God, whether or not my feeble human brain can understand it/him/her, that would provide some sense of moral order or ultimate justice, etc. Not to mention eternal life and peace. Of course, my idea of moral, order, and justice are just my own personal view.
ReplyDeleteScientists can in principle claim some authoritativeness about real-world (materialistic) claims by anyone, religious or whatever. That is clear. If someone argues the world is 6000 years old or was covered entirely by a flood, that is basically testable.
One-off hypothesized 'interventions' such as answering a prayer for the survival of one's ill child can hardly be tested as explanations, even by scientists. There are various epistemological reasons, not just whether one believes someone's prayer was answered.
One cannot (or I at least cannot) frame a hypothesis about 'God' (I put it in quotes since as you say these words have many different meanings) that can be subject to the ideas we currently have about scientific inference. And those epistemological ideas (like inductive reasoning, or parsimony, or falsifiability) are themselves historically temporary as criteria of various sorts replace earlier criteria. Smart people accepted Aristotelian criteria for inference for close on 2000 years. Then Galileo came along and we gave it up for a different scientific method.
It's arrogant to claim we know 'the' way science works or truth is revealed.
I think it is also presumptuous to judge others' judgment about God. Who can argue, for example, with Darwin's plaintive statement, after the death of his daughter and after his observations of Nature, that the wanton carnage he saw simply was not consistent with the God that he was told existed and managed the world.
At the same time, it is presumptuous to judge others' judgment about God who seeing the same carnage, or having the same unbearable grief over a lost child, that this is too awful for their NOT to be some higher reason.
Those of us who choose to think about these things from our various points of view, as opposed either simply to ignore religion and go about our material lives, or else to accept some doctrine on faith, will never agree about the Truth, perhaps, or even how we would know it.
All I'd say is that I think science tells us more every day about how the material world seems to work, as best our instrumentation and so on enable it today, and knowing we're likely to be wrong, perhaps seriously, tomorrow.
Science may mold my personal take on these issues about religion. I can be personally convinced of my point of view, and I could try to persuade others to share it (I don't do that because I feel it's unseemly and presumptuous). I may be totally convinced.
But science is not an authority on the ultimate questions that people hunger to have answered, each in their own way.
Zachary, to me it's simple. Some people believe and some people don't, and it's very hard to convince either to see it from the other's point of view.
ReplyDelete@Anne:
ReplyDelete"Zachary, to me it's simple. Some people believe and some people don't, and it's very hard to convince either to see it from the other's point of view."
I agree entirely, except, of course, that what remains to be done from there is hardly simple.
@Ken:
"I wish I had an interventionist view that there is a God, whether or not my feeble human brain can understand it/him/her, that would provide some sense of moral order or ultimate justice, etc. Not to mention eternal life and peace. Of course, my idea of moral, order, and justice are just my own personal view."
You could read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason for a (almost entirely) non-intervening sort of deity which satisfies these items. Of course, what you want is a basis for believing such things, and unfortunately, assertion of a deity only moves the question one step back from bald assertion of the values and comforts you desire.
"It's arrogant to claim we know 'the' way science works or truth is revealed."
Of course we don't know `the' way science works. Science is an inexact business and methodologies change. That's not the problem nor what I would require. Instead, what I would ask for is much broader: a reasonable approach to truth-valued claims. Right now, modern science is a big part of this reasonable approach, but if we found a superior method, the reasonable approach would be to adopt it. Which brings us to this:
"I think it is also presumptuous to judge others' judgment about God. Who can argue, for example, with Darwin's plaintive statement, after the death of his daughter and after his observations of Nature, that the wanton carnage he saw simply was not consistent with the God that he was told existed and managed the world.
At the same time, it is presumptuous to judge others' judgment about God who seeing the same carnage, or having the same unbearable grief over a lost child, that this is too awful for their NOT to be some higher reason."
Who can argue? Many do and on both sides, because there is, beneath the emotive business, a logical and evidential aspect to the problem of evil. Does this mean that we go to the funeral of a lost child and hold up a sign saying "this doesn't mean there is/is not a heaven"? Of course not, but if this same parent were to tell me that God was necessary if there is to be any happiness in such a world, I would inform her that she is wrong, because her emotional experiences do not entitle her to general claims. I would also argue that this is a terrible and solipsistic attitude. That's not all that I would say, but I would at least say that.
This is often slandered as heartlessness, but my greatest motivation for skepticism and critical thinking is a humanistic one. If a grieving father and friend started pouring his life savings into psychics for hope, I would make a serious effort, whatever his immediate feelings, to convince him that he was engaged in futile superstition. The bottom line is that a comforting belief is not necessarily a legitimate or valuable belief. Frequently, the exact opposite is true.
Similarly, should I excuse without comment statements along the lines of the following: "Without Jesus, my life is purposeless and meaningless. I would be worth nothing." This is an incredibly common statement where I live, and I could pick far uglier ones which are just as common. Other examples are similar: "if evolution is true, then there is no morality." "Purpose cannot come from non-purpose." "If I were not a Christian, I would probably murder and rape people."
Why do you suppose it is that so many people are only satisfied with theistic answers? What do you think is going on in their heads? Is it really some nonchalant "He is or He isn't, and I'll just opt for He is"?
"Science may mold my personal take on these issues about religion. I can be personally convinced of my point of view, and I could try to persuade others to share it (I don't do that because I feel it's unseemly and presumptuous). I may be totally convinced."
ReplyDeleteThis is the other interesting part about the treatment of religious questions, and one, might I add, that plays right into the hands of the "new atheist" authors. Why is it considered inappropriate to question religion? What is it that makes people so uncomfortable? Why the almost constant attempts to censor atheistic skeptics or else assign them equivalent moral status with jihadists? This rather undermines the innocuous treatment given religion before, treating it as primarily/largely/comfortably a relabeling of naturalism with perhaps some other desirable additions. For one, this is almost never true. For two, even where it is, the plague may be over, but nevertheless the bacillus lurks in linen-chests and in the walls, and may one day send its rats forth again to die in a happy city; the veneration of the holy texts and doctrines always allows for revivalism. History is riddled with such events, several of which are ongoing. Do you really think that this very recent secularization of religion is a guarantee? As far as we have gotten, this is not yet a stable state of affairs. Much of the modern American right is composed of (1) previously apolitical fundamentalists, and (2) active movement of Christians from mainstream/liberal denominations to evangelical ones.
But it would be presumptuous to question faith-based claims.
Now how am I to consistently reject and challenge fundamentalism but not liberal religion if I assent to the following statement: the ethics of an action often depend on the truth-value of relevant information. For example, if it really was true that Africans were a naturally inferior breed, incapable of self-control, and anyhow happier as slaves, would it have been right to free them? Perhaps not. Ok, so we have to challenge these racialist ideas to assert the contrary in a way that would convince others. Similarly, the falsity of fundamentalist doctrine is crucial to the legitimacy of opposing it. But what if I had cut down all the laws in England to catch the devil and the devil turned round to meet me? Where then would I flee? What would I say to a fundamentalist who could with all honesty say "ah, but I believe on faith, and are you not a hypocrite to say that faith is only legitimate so long as it is consistent with what you believe"? How can I tell such a person that he is wrong and be taken seriously? Because if he is right, he might well be morally obligated to despise homosexuality and threaten children with hell fire. If I can't question faith-based claims, comforting or not, then I must leave these ideas alone.
When beliefs are held on emotional grounds with deep personal identification at stake, a critic will be naturally treated as a hostile entity. Politics and religion both have this quality: they often create partisan, rather creepily deindividuated minds.
Ok then, so all we have to do is not question it and everything will be just fine, right?
Right?
Unfortunately, even if we atheists were to sit the entire process out, religious violence, indoctrination, abuse, misinformation, and religiously-motivated hatred would continue almost entirely uninterrupted. If we lived in a world where religious belief was actually a personal belief and secularization was both complete and stable, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's not. It's politicized, mixed through our institutions, funded by our money, proselytized, influences our domestic and foreign policies, and occasionally shows up in violent form. Moreover, almost all of these bad aspects of religion are grounded in the most venerated books and teachings on our planet.
ReplyDelete"But science is not an authority on the ultimate questions that people hunger to have answered, each in their own way."
If science is not, religion is definitely not. It's authority is contrived and asserted, but never vindicated. By the previous, it is intellectually and morally irresponsible to accept faith-based answers or treat them with prejudice. It is also the height of laziness to lend equivalence to these answers and rationalistic/scientific ones.
The "something from nothing" question is, given Hawking and taken to regress beyond him, self-defeating, and the truth of this hinges on argument (and I could be wrong), independently of whether or not somebody likes it.
These are all valid points, and it is neither simple nor answerable except in each person's judgment. We have our views, and we are scientists. The question of what to say to grieving parents is not an easy one.
ReplyDeleteWe would not agree for politeness' sake with arguments about the factual world that are based on received texts that are simply wrong. But we feel less confrontational about it, in terms of public forums.
It is in Brecht's play 'Galileo', and I vaguely remember having seen it in a biography of Galileo (but can't track it down, if true) that the Pope wrote him, saying that millions of peasants have only God to give them surcease and succor for the lives they had to lead, so why did he (Galileo) persist in taking that one solace from people?
The issues will not go away, and the resurgence of fundamentalistic religion around the world, in this same era in which science is making great strides in understanding so many fundamental question, is itself a sad and perplexing fact to us.
At least, in a reasoned world, we could agree on where the limits of science are, and the reasons those who wish to extrapolate the findings beyond those limits--one way or the other--do that.
But we get beyond the world of proof here, and the discussions won't end in the foreseeable future, even among those who are honest about the issues, and for whom they are not simply political talismans.
Zachary, you make many fine points, but we're now far beyond our original and fairly simple point, which was that science doesn't have any inside knowledge about whether God is real. The discussion of good and evil, and the role of religion in the world is a separate one, and one that we don't address. The reason for that is that as scientists we don't feel we have any special insights into these issues, so don't want to inflict our personal feelings and beliefs on people who come to this blog. That doesn't mean we wouldn't happily talk with you about it all over a cup of tea.
ReplyDelete@Ken/Anne:
ReplyDeleteHaha yes, I started enjoying the coming-together of concepts overmuch and created a monster. I probably touched directly or else skimmed along the borders of several dozen "big questions" and other massively controversial topics.
A few final notes nearer to our original topic:
"The reason for that is that as scientists we don't feel we have any special insights into these issues, so don't want to inflict our personal feelings and beliefs on people who come to this blog."
That's a valid concern, but one must notice the ever-presence of value judgments in many of the postings here (and about everywhere). Is it better that they are left implicit? There are pros and cons, I suppose, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where one can conceal relevant values without affecting the quality and/or honesty of writing, particularly when we move beyond technical matters to something like media criticism.
"...which was that science doesn't have any inside knowledge about whether God is real."
...only for certain types/properties of God which are usually unrepresentative of popular religion. We agreed before that types of God are in principle incapable of even admitting evidence, much less direct contradiction through observation. Of course, I hope that you will apply this standard to Collins as well, who argues that his theistic beliefs are - at least in part - supportable by evidence, and similarly, I hope that you echo this criticism for Templeton seminars, where topics range from "Jesus might have healed through quantum mechanics" to Polkinghorne's apologetics. I think you'll have far more trouble getting the religious to agree with you about religion than you will with atheists. But ah, I'm starting to drift away from the topic again...
I still want to note this because discussions of the relationship between science and religion often assume that the controversy and trouble is all the work of recent atheist authors. This is false both chronologically and by magnitude and so far as I can tell has always been so to an extreme degree. Believe it or not, I think that both of you agree with Dawkins more than Collins on this matter, at least as much as this thread reveals.
"That doesn't mean we wouldn't happily talk with you about it all over a cup of tea."
That would be enjoyable, but I don't think that you two are in the Southeastern US, much less within walking distance of my university library which is about as far as I go during the semester.
I'm unsure when I'll get to reviewing this book, but Hawking had already clearly stated his views of something along the lines of no boundaries for past universes; that is, no beginning with an infinite number of past universes. I suppose that he'll elaborate on his view that this universe belongs to an infinite number of past universes. However, I wonder if he'll also mention the implications of Poincare-Zermelo recurrence. For example, such a World Ensemble would not only create a single universe similar to our universe, but also an infinite number of past universes. Well, at least according my calculations:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iscid.org/papers/Goetz_Sonnet_061506.pdf
Anyway, nobody on paper can refute that an infinite number of randomly generated past universes could generate an infinite number of universes similar to our universe. But the difficulty involves compelling evidence of such a World Ensemble, apart from claiming that such a World Ensemble is needed to randomly generate our universe. Also, perhaps there could be no such thing as an infinite number of discrete objects such as space-time universes. Additionally, a proposal of such a World Ensemble apparently relies on a infinite regression of chance from an infinite number of past universes.