Stephen Hawking and Atheism
Professor Stephen Hawking created quite a stir last year with the publication of his book The Grand Design that he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, in which he states emphatically that there is no heaven and no God. He repeated this assertion in a Discovery Channel special aired on August 7, 2011 (I personally found the camera zooming in and out of his eyeball to be a bit creepy and degrading, but the abandonment of sophistication and taste in television production in favor of gross sensationalism is a topic for a different discussion). In an interview earlier this year with writer Ian Sample, Hawking said, “There is no heaven or afterlife…that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” All this is in contrast to his 1988 bestseller A brief History of Time in which he alludes to God as a possible explanation for the creation of the universe.
There’s been an avalanche of comments praising or criticizing this assertion, depending what one’s predisposition on the subject might be. Much of the disagreement, however, has been waged on philosophical, theoretical, or ecclesiastical grounds, some of it quite esoteric. I’d like to add my two cents in, but I want to try approaching it in a more uncomplicated and basic way if I can.
First, Hawking has a sort of popular celebrity status, a rare achievement for a scientist, perhaps matched only by Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein. His bestseller gave him name recognition, but his disability also plays a role. His brilliance and accomplishments in the face of his medical condition makes him a genuine hero figure. His appearance in the wheelchair subliminally adds a mystical or magical quality, as well as a certain fascination (which is what the producers were trying to exploit with the weird eyeball-zooming).
The point here is that people tend to give the opinions of celebrities far more weight than they might otherwise deserve. It’s how Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected governor of California. So when Hawking declares something, most people take it as very important, sometimes even as gospel. When he said there is no God, it garnered a lot more attention than if the same statement was made by an equally brilliant person with less name recognition. This is why so many felt the need to respond instead of shrugging it off as just another assault on religion.
But contrary to popular perception, some his pronouncements of late have been scientifically unsound. Hawking made his mark in the 1970s with his theoretical work on black holes and gravity. But within scientific circles, his description of black holes is by no means universally accepted, and is hotly disputed by equally brilliant physicists because of certain established laws and observations that his theories ignore. He was never able to fully solve the mysteries surrounding gravity, nor succeed in his efforts to satisfactorily reconcile quantum physics and relativity. On the occasion of his winning the prestigious Copley medal in 2006 for this earlier work, physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose of Oxford University, who wrote The Emperor’s New Mind and had also worked with Hawking, praised him for his achievement, but also commented, "I wouldn't say that the work that Stephen has done more recently is of the same calibre. It's much more speculative." Penrose further observed that while Hawking’s work was significant, he had not originated any new theories as had past winners like Einstein and Darwin, stating, “His contribution is in the context of existing theories.” So whatever the cause for the charisma, there is no magic, and Hawking is no Einstein. I mean no offense by this, just as I’m sure Hawking meant no offense by implying that believers in God are just frightened children.
One of the problems with science today is the tendency of scientists to present speculation, hypothesis and theory to the public with an air of absolute certitude and fact. The growing public skepticism toward the integrity of science is largely in response to this intellectual dishonesty (this subject is addressed in great detail in Behind The Cosmic Veil). For instance, we hear physicists speaking of dark matter as an established fact when everyone of them knows full well it is an imaginary substance conjured to solve a gravitational enigma for which they have no explanation (there are too many examples of this to even begin to mention them all here). Established science has no problem embracing imaginary solutions as long as they are pronounced by one of its own prophets, but vehemently rejects anything offered up from outside that inner circle. This elitism goes hand in hand with the dishonesty. It appears that Hawking in his latest work has slipped into this arena, stating speculation as if it were hard fact. I believe this is what Penrose alluded to in his considerate but frank comments.
If we allow the Hawking mystique to descend from its deific loft amidst the heavenly hosts to take its rightful place alongside the rest of we mortals here on earth, we can then have an objective look at the foundation for Hawking’s atheistic stance and weigh it on its merit.
At the heart of Hawking’s statement is the assertion that the universe is self-explanatory, or in other words, all the elements of the universe are sufficient to explain the existence of the universe without any need for any outside agency, in this case God. He asserts that the law of gravity is all that is needed to have produced the Big Bang and the resulting cosmos. This is unfortunately yet another example of supposition being presented as fact. It is certainly not scientific. There are perhaps hundreds of highly qualified physicists toiling to solve the puzzle of the origin of the universe, and I think many would be indignant that Hawking could sweep away all their labors as irrelevant by solving the problem with a simple proclamation!
Just a quick review of what we (don’t) know about gravity reveals how outrageous Hawking’s claim is. Most are not aware, for example, that we cannot measure gravity. Seems incredible, but it’s true. The reason why is that there is no substance of gravity to measure. Electromagnetism, for example, is conveyed through particles that can also express themselves as waves. Particles and waves are both physical substances that can be measured. When a magnet pulls on a paperclip, we can measure the particles causing that attraction. But our best efforts over many decades have failed to discover a graviton (a particle of gravity), nor any wave of gravity. Although physicists believe that they will find these with more powerful and sensitive instruments not yet developed, none can say with certainty that gravitons must exist. The truth is that we’re not 100% sure what gravity actually is. Even when it’s spoken of as a force, we can only do so by what it does. Unlike the other basic forces, we cannot call it a force based on what it is. It remains one of the greatest mysteries of science. As strange as it sounds, we may one day concede that gravity doesn’t meet the requirements of a force (the supergeometric model described in Behind The Cosmic Veil shows a way that gravity can be reasonably explained other than the traditional view of a magnetic-like attraction). The best we can do is to measure the effects of gravity, and this we can do quite well.
Processes in the universe are a result of cause and effect. More specifically, every physical effect must have a physical cause in contact with the effect. In the case of the magnet and the paperclip, the stream of particles from the magnet is a form of physical substance, and it’s this physical substance contacting the paperclip that causes the effect of it’s movement toward the magnet. Now think of the moon being held in its orbit around the earth by the force of gravity. But wait—didn’t we just say that we have yet to discover a graviton? Without a graviton, what is the physical substance that touches the moon to cause the effect of keeping it in orbit with the earth and preventing it from flying off into space? So far as we’ve been able to determine, there isn’t one. And remember—just because most physicists believe that we will eventually discover gravitons does not necessarily make it so. There’s a very real possibility they don’t exist. So as far as we can tell, the moon is held in orbit by an effect from the earth that is not touching the satellite in any physical way. This falls under the category of what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” When you really get the gist of it, you’d have to agree—it is kind of spooky.
So where does gravity come from? We know that local gravity is always associated with mass. The accepted view is that mass generates or emits the force known as gravity. How then does a physical object acquire mass? We don’t know. The best working hypothesis we have is that matter acquires mass through the activity of a theoretical particle called the Higgs boson. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas was supposed to find it. It didn’t. The CERN LHC collider that went online in 2009 was finally going to be big and powerful enough to find it. It hasn’t. It’s starting to sound a lot like a graviton. Just last month, it was reported that scientists are running out of places where it could be. If they don’t find it—and by their own current assessment, there’s a very real chance they won’t—then what physicists call the Standard Model of the universe, which has served as the framework for science’s understanding of the universe, will collapse.
So without knowing what gravity actually is (not just what it does), and without being able to explain the mass that is supposed to be the source of gravity, we can’t completely define yet how everything in the universe actually works. Now if you’re going to credit the creation of the entire cosmos to a single elementary force, you had better be darned sure you know most everything about it. Yet Hawking has (forgive me) the arrogance to declare with finality that the “law” of gravity is sufficient to explain the creation and existence of the universe? To me, this simple but solid refutation speaks louder than any philosophical argument.
One final thought. For the universe to have created itself, it would have had to precede itself. That’s a temporal paradox that would need to first be solved. Hawking hasn’t, nor has anyone else. It’s not for lack of trying. But until it is solved, the statement that the universe created itself is scientifically irrational. What’s sad is that Hawking must obviously know this. So the only other possibility is that he is promoting a personal agenda, the motivation for which we can only speculate (although I have my own private thoughts on the matter). And he’s using his celebrity to feed it to an unsuspecting public that admires and trusts him. It’s very dishonest. The objectivity he once had has for some unknown reason apparently been lost along the way.
None of this is being offered as an argument for the existence of God. No one’s been able to scientifically prove or disprove God—for now, both faith and atheism still remain outside the domain of science and in the realm of belief. The only point here is that Hawking’s particular argument by which he seeks to disprove the possibility of a Creator is completely without scientific merit.
Professor Stephen Hawking created quite a stir last year with the publication of his book The Grand Design that he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, in which he states emphatically that there is no heaven and no God. He repeated this assertion in a Discovery Channel special aired on August 7, 2011 (I personally found the camera zooming in and out of his eyeball to be a bit creepy and degrading, but the abandonment of sophistication and taste in television production in favor of gross sensationalism is a topic for a different discussion). In an interview earlier this year with writer Ian Sample, Hawking said, “There is no heaven or afterlife…that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” All this is in contrast to his 1988 bestseller A brief History of Time in which he alludes to God as a possible explanation for the creation of the universe.
There’s been an avalanche of comments praising or criticizing this assertion, depending what one’s predisposition on the subject might be. Much of the disagreement, however, has been waged on philosophical, theoretical, or ecclesiastical grounds, some of it quite esoteric. I’d like to add my two cents in, but I want to try approaching it in a more uncomplicated and basic way if I can.
First, Hawking has a sort of popular celebrity status, a rare achievement for a scientist, perhaps matched only by Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein. His bestseller gave him name recognition, but his disability also plays a role. His brilliance and accomplishments in the face of his medical condition makes him a genuine hero figure. His appearance in the wheelchair subliminally adds a mystical or magical quality, as well as a certain fascination (which is what the producers were trying to exploit with the weird eyeball-zooming).
The point here is that people tend to give the opinions of celebrities far more weight than they might otherwise deserve. It’s how Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected governor of California. So when Hawking declares something, most people take it as very important, sometimes even as gospel. When he said there is no God, it garnered a lot more attention than if the same statement was made by an equally brilliant person with less name recognition. This is why so many felt the need to respond instead of shrugging it off as just another assault on religion.
But contrary to popular perception, some his pronouncements of late have been scientifically unsound. Hawking made his mark in the 1970s with his theoretical work on black holes and gravity. But within scientific circles, his description of black holes is by no means universally accepted, and is hotly disputed by equally brilliant physicists because of certain established laws and observations that his theories ignore. He was never able to fully solve the mysteries surrounding gravity, nor succeed in his efforts to satisfactorily reconcile quantum physics and relativity. On the occasion of his winning the prestigious Copley medal in 2006 for this earlier work, physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose of Oxford University, who wrote The Emperor’s New Mind and had also worked with Hawking, praised him for his achievement, but also commented, "I wouldn't say that the work that Stephen has done more recently is of the same calibre. It's much more speculative." Penrose further observed that while Hawking’s work was significant, he had not originated any new theories as had past winners like Einstein and Darwin, stating, “His contribution is in the context of existing theories.” So whatever the cause for the charisma, there is no magic, and Hawking is no Einstein. I mean no offense by this, just as I’m sure Hawking meant no offense by implying that believers in God are just frightened children.
One of the problems with science today is the tendency of scientists to present speculation, hypothesis and theory to the public with an air of absolute certitude and fact. The growing public skepticism toward the integrity of science is largely in response to this intellectual dishonesty (this subject is addressed in great detail in Behind The Cosmic Veil). For instance, we hear physicists speaking of dark matter as an established fact when everyone of them knows full well it is an imaginary substance conjured to solve a gravitational enigma for which they have no explanation (there are too many examples of this to even begin to mention them all here). Established science has no problem embracing imaginary solutions as long as they are pronounced by one of its own prophets, but vehemently rejects anything offered up from outside that inner circle. This elitism goes hand in hand with the dishonesty. It appears that Hawking in his latest work has slipped into this arena, stating speculation as if it were hard fact. I believe this is what Penrose alluded to in his considerate but frank comments.
If we allow the Hawking mystique to descend from its deific loft amidst the heavenly hosts to take its rightful place alongside the rest of we mortals here on earth, we can then have an objective look at the foundation for Hawking’s atheistic stance and weigh it on its merit.
At the heart of Hawking’s statement is the assertion that the universe is self-explanatory, or in other words, all the elements of the universe are sufficient to explain the existence of the universe without any need for any outside agency, in this case God. He asserts that the law of gravity is all that is needed to have produced the Big Bang and the resulting cosmos. This is unfortunately yet another example of supposition being presented as fact. It is certainly not scientific. There are perhaps hundreds of highly qualified physicists toiling to solve the puzzle of the origin of the universe, and I think many would be indignant that Hawking could sweep away all their labors as irrelevant by solving the problem with a simple proclamation!
Just a quick review of what we (don’t) know about gravity reveals how outrageous Hawking’s claim is. Most are not aware, for example, that we cannot measure gravity. Seems incredible, but it’s true. The reason why is that there is no substance of gravity to measure. Electromagnetism, for example, is conveyed through particles that can also express themselves as waves. Particles and waves are both physical substances that can be measured. When a magnet pulls on a paperclip, we can measure the particles causing that attraction. But our best efforts over many decades have failed to discover a graviton (a particle of gravity), nor any wave of gravity. Although physicists believe that they will find these with more powerful and sensitive instruments not yet developed, none can say with certainty that gravitons must exist. The truth is that we’re not 100% sure what gravity actually is. Even when it’s spoken of as a force, we can only do so by what it does. Unlike the other basic forces, we cannot call it a force based on what it is. It remains one of the greatest mysteries of science. As strange as it sounds, we may one day concede that gravity doesn’t meet the requirements of a force (the supergeometric model described in Behind The Cosmic Veil shows a way that gravity can be reasonably explained other than the traditional view of a magnetic-like attraction). The best we can do is to measure the effects of gravity, and this we can do quite well.
Processes in the universe are a result of cause and effect. More specifically, every physical effect must have a physical cause in contact with the effect. In the case of the magnet and the paperclip, the stream of particles from the magnet is a form of physical substance, and it’s this physical substance contacting the paperclip that causes the effect of it’s movement toward the magnet. Now think of the moon being held in its orbit around the earth by the force of gravity. But wait—didn’t we just say that we have yet to discover a graviton? Without a graviton, what is the physical substance that touches the moon to cause the effect of keeping it in orbit with the earth and preventing it from flying off into space? So far as we’ve been able to determine, there isn’t one. And remember—just because most physicists believe that we will eventually discover gravitons does not necessarily make it so. There’s a very real possibility they don’t exist. So as far as we can tell, the moon is held in orbit by an effect from the earth that is not touching the satellite in any physical way. This falls under the category of what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” When you really get the gist of it, you’d have to agree—it is kind of spooky.
So where does gravity come from? We know that local gravity is always associated with mass. The accepted view is that mass generates or emits the force known as gravity. How then does a physical object acquire mass? We don’t know. The best working hypothesis we have is that matter acquires mass through the activity of a theoretical particle called the Higgs boson. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas was supposed to find it. It didn’t. The CERN LHC collider that went online in 2009 was finally going to be big and powerful enough to find it. It hasn’t. It’s starting to sound a lot like a graviton. Just last month, it was reported that scientists are running out of places where it could be. If they don’t find it—and by their own current assessment, there’s a very real chance they won’t—then what physicists call the Standard Model of the universe, which has served as the framework for science’s understanding of the universe, will collapse.
So without knowing what gravity actually is (not just what it does), and without being able to explain the mass that is supposed to be the source of gravity, we can’t completely define yet how everything in the universe actually works. Now if you’re going to credit the creation of the entire cosmos to a single elementary force, you had better be darned sure you know most everything about it. Yet Hawking has (forgive me) the arrogance to declare with finality that the “law” of gravity is sufficient to explain the creation and existence of the universe? To me, this simple but solid refutation speaks louder than any philosophical argument.
One final thought. For the universe to have created itself, it would have had to precede itself. That’s a temporal paradox that would need to first be solved. Hawking hasn’t, nor has anyone else. It’s not for lack of trying. But until it is solved, the statement that the universe created itself is scientifically irrational. What’s sad is that Hawking must obviously know this. So the only other possibility is that he is promoting a personal agenda, the motivation for which we can only speculate (although I have my own private thoughts on the matter). And he’s using his celebrity to feed it to an unsuspecting public that admires and trusts him. It’s very dishonest. The objectivity he once had has for some unknown reason apparently been lost along the way.
None of this is being offered as an argument for the existence of God. No one’s been able to scientifically prove or disprove God—for now, both faith and atheism still remain outside the domain of science and in the realm of belief. The only point here is that Hawking’s particular argument by which he seeks to disprove the possibility of a Creator is completely without scientific merit.