-
Extremists Dominate Public Science Debates
February 17, 2011 | 28 comments
-
Opposition to GM Organisms Hard to Justify
January 31, 2011 | 12 comments
-
Environmentalists Block Scientific Progress
December 18, 2010 | 2 comments
-
Are Organic and Green Products a Scam?
December 10, 2010 | 34 comments
-
Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’ is a Breath of Fresh Air
November 19, 2010 | 33 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man. He is admired by scientists all over the globe, myself included. In a nutshell, his research has revolutionized astrophysics, and his popularization of science has earned him a celebrity status not achieved by any scientist since Albert Einstein.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hawking is at it again. And by “it,” I mean bestowing upon us his rather bizarre thoughts on everything under (or above) the sun. His latest installment comes in an interview with TIME magazine, in which he provides yet more thoughts on God, death, and consciousness—three subjects of which he has absolutely no expertise.
My problem with Dr. Hawking is not that he speaks about subjects outside his area of research. As a scientist-turned-editor, whose job it is to read and comment upon multiple scientific fields, that would be a hypocritical stance. However, I do have a rule: When commenting on fields outside one’s area of expertise, scientists should be as “conservative” as possible; that is, their comments should shy away from “extremist” positions.
So that is why I find Dr. Hawking’s public comments so puzzling. Let us take a look at three statements he has made over the past several months:
(1) In regard to the future of humanity, which Dr. Hawking must believe is quite bleak, he said, “It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years.” He cited the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 as an example of how our “survival has been a question of touch and go.” His solution is to colonize other planets.
(2) In regard to alien contact, he believes “the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.” Then, striking a tone eerily similar to the plot of the movie Independence Day, he commented, “I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”
(3) Most recently, Dr. Hawking contends that God is not necessary to create the universe. “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.”
Addressing his first comment, it should be pointed out that the
Cuban Missile Crisis would most likely not have destroyed the human
race. Additionally, while nuclear terrorism is a very real threat,
the idea of nuclear annihilation is considered a low probability
event by the foreign policy community.
As for his second comment, I cannot help but laugh at how ridiculously similar it is to the script of Independence Day. After the evil aliens briefly took control of his mind, the President revealed their insidious plan: “They’re like locusts. They travel from planet to planet, their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource, they move on. And we’re next.” Dr. Hawking should perhaps watch fewer sci-fi movies and heed the professionals in the field of astrobiology, who spend the vast majority of their time looking for evidence of microbial life in the universe—not plundering bands of intergalactic space pirates.
white house independence day.jpg
Finally, Dr. Hawking essentially believes that the laws of physics can replace God. Apparently, in his mind, it is somehow more scientific to believe in “spontaneous creation” rather than divine creation. However, his statement is nothing more than philosophy masquerading as science. Because his hypothesis is just as untestable as any religious belief, it is well beyond the scope of science.
It seems that some scientists cannot escape the apparently irresistible temptation to apply their expertise to every subject known to man—in particular, philosophy and religion. However, it is downright fallacious to do so. The tools of science are equipped to answer, “How?,” while the tools of philosophy and religion are used to answer, “Why?” It is inappropriate to apply the tools of science to answer philosophical questions and vice versa.
So, I offer this advice to Dr. Hawking, for his own good: Stick to theoretical physics. It is what you excel at. However, you are neither a foreign policy analyst nor astrobiologist, and you are most certainly not a philosopher or theologian. Why smudge your reputation as a groundbreaking astrophysicist by publicly embracing beliefs that are generally restricted to fans of B-grade sci-fi movies?
Alex B. Berezow is the Editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
View all comments (89) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Alex B. Berezow
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/06/stephen-hawking-should-stick-t
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sean| 11.6.10 @ 6:14PM
He has buys into all sorts of hysteria. He is either not so bright, or seeking some sort of mainstream acceptance. Read this article for a good take on Hawking.
http://takimag.com/article/ste.....uld_be_god
Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 1:38AM
Problem with God is: whose God?
Allah the Islamic God?
Dean from Ohio| 11.7.10 @ 7:58AM
The God who healed the sick, who raised the dead, and--despite evil done by followers contrary to his commands--fulfilled to the letter prophecies made hundreds of years earlier, all attested to by eye witnesses. The God who rose from the dead and turned 11 followers petrified in fear to bold witness that could not be silenced, and all but one of whom stuck to their story to death.
Christopher Holland| 11.7.10 @ 6:43PM
I never saw anybody so obsessed about putting labels on everything. Leave it be, keep your grubby little fingers off it, don't touch things that don't belong to you and that you don't understand. You are like an old lady pushing a shopping trolley full of old tins, rags and pieces of string. This collection is immensely important to you, but it means bugger all to everyone else.
WILLIAM HOFMEISTER| 11.7.10 @ 12:02PM
Why is no one questioning these comments attributed to a man who does not speak, whose communications are based on interpretations of eye blinks by a graduate student? I tend to believe we are hearing the graduate students opinions not Mr. Hawkings.
John Navratil| 11.7.10 @ 2:25PM
Reminds me of the conversation between the deaf bookkeeper and the mob boss using a sign-language interpreter.
Boss: Where's the 100G you stole from me?
Interpreter to bookkeeper: Where's the 100G you stole from the boss?
Bookkeeper: I don't know what you're talking about.
Boss: Tell him I'll kill him and his whole damned family!
Bookkeeper: It's buried in a satchel under the rose bush behind my garage.
Interpreter to boss: He says you haven't got the guts.
Christopher Holland| 11.7.10 @ 6:49PM
Liberals love being told that there is no God. If there is no God there is no Jesus and therefore none of his moral teachings, which are reflected in the Constitution and the law of the land. These things are a great impediment to liberals, it stops them from pushing ideas like abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. So if they can find an imminent science/philosopher who says there is no God, it is big news for them, it clears a lot of log jams out of their way.
sam| 11.10.10 @ 10:54AM
Why would the teachings of Jesus, and biblical moral code not exist without God? If that were what liberals believed, the existence of the bible and it's moral teachings would be proof of God to them.
I don't believe in God, yet I believe the bible and it's moral teachings exist. Even the one's about stoning wives. Are you also under the impression that priests don't molest little boys? Because your profound powers of speculation should negate that as even a possibility from the conservative religious right.
Rich Rostrom| 11.6.10 @ 6:36PM
My friend Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ (Curator of Meteorites at the Vatican Observatory) said "Steven Hawking is a brilliant physicist and when it comes to theology I can say he's a brilliant physicist."
Christopher Holland| 11.7.10 @ 6:57PM
There is a very simple response to Hawking's claim that there is no God. Belief in God and in Jesus is a matter of faith, and faith has nothing to do with reason, it goes way beyond that. Trying to use science to proove or disprove the existence of God is ridiculous - it is like trying to proove the existence of elephants in Africa because oranges grow in Florida. The two have no connection at all. Hawking should know a lot better than to go down this path- he is a scientist who doesn't understand the limitations of science and of reason, or the meaning of faith. It is a basic mistake to make, he sounds like he takes his ideas off Joe Biden.
Ryan| 11.8.10 @ 8:28AM
A MASSIVE oversimplification. Faith has plenty to do with reason. I have faith in some things because reason has given me understanding that allows me to believe that other things could be true.
Some of the best men who "reasoned" were men of deep faith - Newton, Pascal, pretty much every scientist before the late 1800s. The Catholic Church actively encouraged reason and similar thought (the issue with Galileo was because he was a jackass, not because the church thought he was wrong).
That being said, I DO agree with some parts of what you wrote - Hawking is blinded to Truth, in a sense - I think that he seems to completely throw the possibility of God out the window...on faith.
Vinod| 11.6.10 @ 6:37PM
He gives his thoughts on these subjects because people ask for it, if you don't like it, don't subscribe to it. If 'M theory' offers some truth about the universe, it has a lot to do with these subjects as well since it would be close to the foundation of everything. By the way, your attempt to take a shot at him by clinging on to each and every word he said was quite childish. Grow up and always look at the big picture.
Bob K.| 11.6.10 @ 7:08PM
What are you talking about?
Mr. Berezow cited 3 full sentences of Dr. Hawking's public comments and part of another one!
Johnny V| 11.6.10 @ 10:04PM
Ditto
Johnny V| 11.6.10 @ 10:09PM
Oh, I believe it is Dr. Berezow.
John Navratil| 11.7.10 @ 2:31PM
Vinod,
Asked for, or not, Prof. Hawkings has made the statements and, of course, no one is obliged to believe him.
Similarly, Berezow, is free to offer his opinion that Hawkings is not qualified to make the statement he has. You are free to reject his argument, but without the ad hominem, please.
Now, if you have a Unified Ontological-Physical Theory to share with us, please do!
Le Cracquere| 11.8.10 @ 9:43AM
I've seen other men asked questions about subjects in which they lacked standing or expertise. Many of them are wise enough to point out their relative layman status, and to express their opinions with becoming modesty if pressed. And whether or not a given theory is "close to the foundation of everything" is only decidable if the theorist considers himself something of an expert on "everything."
John Smith| 11.6.10 @ 7:07PM
Isaac Asimov was another who wrote way beyond his specialty. Hawking should stick to Physics, and even then, should remember how wrong he originally was about black holes.
Jstanley01 | 11.6.10 @ 8:07PM
"It seems that some scientists cannot escape the apparently irresistible temptation to apply their expertise to every subject known to man..."
But if they escaped the temptation, no one would buy their books or comment on them on blogs. And what fun would that be?
Scott| 11.6.10 @ 9:08PM
I think Hawking should tend to his own knitting, but on the first one he's not wrong to point out that there are a number of potentially devastating catastrophes that could occur (e.g., meteor strike, the Yellowstone supervolcano erupting, etc.) and that it would behoove the human race to be spread out so that such a catastrophe would not effect everyone.
As for the second, he's not wrong to point out that historically, when an advanced culture meets a less advanced culture, the less advanced culture tends to get the short end of the stick -- unless, of course, the more advanced culture's computer operating systems are mysteriously compatible enough with the less advanced culture's to be susceptible to viruses. Just because something appeared in the movies, however, doesn't automatically make it worthy of ridicule -- or are you saying that fighting terrorists is silly because Chuck Norris did it in Invasion U.S.A.?
It's only on the last one that I would say that Hawking is completely full of it, and, not surprisingly, it's the area farthest removed from his areas of expertise. Scientists don't think the clergy should talk about science, so why the heck do they think they can talk theology?
Alex Berezow | 11.6.10 @ 9:38PM
Fair enough. However, I would point out a few things: (1) The possibility of intelligent life in the universe is small; (2) If it does exist, the possibility that they will stumble across our little planet is even smaller. The universe is awfully big.
A large portion of the "extraterrestrial" research revolves around finding microbes. Most likely, bacteria (or bacteria-like) creatures will be the first "aliens" we contact.
Scott| 11.7.10 @ 8:06AM
The more I learn about the conditions on Earth that eventually led to us, the less inclined I am to think that there is intelligent life in the universe--the chain of events that had to occur seems to make the chances of it occurring again vanishingly small, even in a universe of billions of galaxies each with billions of stars.
I read an interview with Hawking where he himself said that most life in the universe is probably microbial. With regard to the Independence Day scenario, he wasn't addressing the probability of encountering intelligent alien life, he was talking about what would happen IF it occurred.
Hank Archer| 11.7.10 @ 10:24AM
I think Hawking saw "Wall-e," a recent children's animated movie with a similar plot.
sam| 11.10.10 @ 11:10AM
Minor detail, but all big mistakes come from minor details.
The possibility that there is intelligent life in the universe is not small, it absolutely exists. Whether we evolved here, or were placed here by god makes no difference in this point. It could have evolved elsewhere, just as god could have created it elsewhere, if that's what you believe.
We have many millions of years before the sun engulf the earth, and our technology only discovered extra-solar planets in 96 (guess), we will always be seeing further into space. Considering the concept of time, I see a great correlation between what might be (however unlikely) and what will be.
The only things that will probably never occur, are those that can never occur.
astonerii | 11.6.10 @ 9:59PM
The problem with the whole plot of advanced civilization traveling the universe in search of planets to conquer and inhabit is that if they are in fact space travelers, then where they would go to get resources is not going to be a planet, but asteroid fields where all resources are easy to extract.
astonerii | 11.6.10 @ 9:55PM
Hawking lost my respect a long long time ago.
Bob| 11.6.10 @ 11:43PM
1) You're a biologist. You know what a logistic curve is. Knowing how it models populations of animals, do you honestly believe that we as humans can remain on planet Earth for several hundred years without letting our quality of life decline?
Take a second and imagine yourself in the 16th century. People travel by horse, and the knowledge that the earth is flat is only a little over 100 years old. Five hundred years ago gunpowder was invented. Considering the state of technology at the time, would you believe me if I told you that in 500 more years we would be globally connected to every other person on the planet through a technology that utilizes electrons? And that humans will step foot on the moon? Back then, they had no concept of electrons, and Copernicus had just theorized that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Now considering that, is it so outlandish to entertain the possibility of us colonizing other planets another 500 years into the future?
2) How are his thoughts on alien contact so "extremist"? The notion that probabilistically there is certainly *some* form of simple life out there in the billions of galaxies is accepted in teh scientific community. And Hawking says that in his interview. According to timesonline.uk, "The answer, he suggests, is that most of it will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals — the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history."
But the quote you took was regarding *intelligent* alien lifeforms. What he is saying is that although it is very unlikely for us to come into contact with another intelligent lifeform, if we did happen to come across them (or if they came across us), they would most likely have one goal: extract our natural resources. Do you honestly believe that an alien lifeform with powerful enough technology to find us would be interested in having a cup of tea or listening to Radiohead with us?
3) I feel like I've rambled enough so I'm not going to comment on this much, but do you have any more of a right to talk about theology than he does? Did "God" give you special permission that he doesn't have?
Alex Berezow | 11.7.10 @ 12:57AM
I don't have any more of a right to talk about God than does Dr. Hawking. However, I will point out that he apparently believes everything we need to know about God can be found in a physics book. Philosophers and theologians the world over would disagree. So do I.
Lesser Weevil| 11.7.10 @ 11:23AM
Um, Bob, the earth is not flat. And knowledge of *that* goes back to antiquity.
Margie| 11.7.10 @ 3:38PM
Indeed it does:
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.." Is. 40:22.
Funny but I've always wondered why it is that man thinks he's so darn smart!
All the answers are in the Bible.
Including the "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." theory. Well, it's not theory, it's fact. God made it that way.
That's why the global warming fiasco is so ridiculous and those of us who believe in God know it: If matter cannot be created or destroyed then that means we couldn't destroy the planet no matter how hard we tried!
Ah well.. that's my child like faith speaking again.
Praise God.
Tassie| 11.7.10 @ 12:05AM
Look at him,he is a sick man.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 1:55AM
On the nature of aliens that are more advanced than us: Why does Hawking make a comparison with less advanced human behavior when referring to the intentions of more advanced aliens? If such a comparison can be made, Hawking's version is still inaccurate and flawed on many levels. Europeans are far more advanced and civilised than when they colonised the Americas. As it is, we now have less resources than we had when the human population was smaller a few hundred years ago. But because we are more advanced and more civilised we would not invade Africa (where resources are still plenty) and murder the less advanced African tribes as we would have done hundreds of years ago. So why would alien species that are more advanced and more civilised than us want to wipe us off the face of the earth for our resources if we can prove here on earth that our development as a species resulted in an more advanced sense of liberalism? Wouldn't they perhaps hold even more advanced liberal ideas? In fact, if they are more advanced and civilised than the human species, how did they manage to screw up their planet in the first place! If they can maintain an entire eco system on their spacecraft for the few hundred years it would take to get here, how can they not maintain their own planet? Sorry to say that Hawking doesn't convince me as a great thinker.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 2:44AM
On Hawking's view of God: Why should a religious person take seriously the mumblings of an obvious atheist? We already know what he's going to say about God before he says it. Would anyone expect an atheist to say that he had found proof of God's existence in physics? By default, an atheist would go out of his way to disprove the existence of God, so that is what you should expect from them. However, what makes Hawking's world view more logical than Mortimer J Adler's world view? Mortimer J Adler used exactly the same physics that Hawking used, with the exception that Adler made a sound argument for the existence of God. John Cramer (professor of physics, Washington) shares Adler's view. And why does Hawking go to such lengths to attack idealism and dualism? Idealism has given us more than enough valid and reliable theories in human sciences. The Person Centred Theory of Carl Rogers is perhaps the best example. I am thus at a loss as to why Hawking rejects idealism so vehemently. To me this shows his ignorance towards worldviews and scientific appoaches differing from his own. But that's a typical problem of materialists or positivists. They have a hard time grasping the idea that reality is relative, that it is experienced subjectively and that it is different for each person. If God does not exist for Hawking or any other atheist, it does not mean that God does not exist for the theist. There is an ancient Sufi saying: "God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man." Physics cannot disprove this since this saying points to the subjective experience one has of God's existence. Hawking or any other materialist fail to recogise the fact that they cannot delve into the subjectivity of the objects they study. When you look at a rock, a planet or a star, how they move in empty space, you only look at the visible side of reality. As a human made of matter, there is more to me than the words that come from my mouth and the way I act when stimulated. The movement of my body is not me. The parts that make me human is the parts that cannot be seen with the naked eye. The mind. How can Hawking know for a fact that there is not a greater mind at work out there?
Margie| 11.7.10 @ 3:46PM
Perhaps Hawkings is on the verge of a major conversion.. to belief in God. It is a fact that the most hardcore of Atheists sometimes become the most blessed of believers. The ones who actually set out to try and disprove God, when they go about it "honestly"~ end up having to admit His presence. I know one such person. He was studying to become an nuclear physicist. He is now as steadfast in the Faith as the prophet Elijah was.
We should all pray for him. Sometimes the words coming out of a man's heart are one thing, but what is in the heart can be the working of God's Spirit.
Long Ben| 11.7.10 @ 2:49AM
With all of our scientific advances in any number of fields and all the conveniences and life improvement that have come as a result. This is a wonderful time to live in . However all our advances in science will never serve to make us civilised . Consider the war many in science have waged and are waging on the only agency which can ameliorate the human stain , namely the Truth which is found only in Jesus Christ . As long as the stain remains we are all barbarians .
Terry| 11.7.10 @ 6:11AM
Outstanding post. Thank you for writing it. And to Chris re: "And why does Hawking go to such lengths to attack idealism and dualism?"
I'm no theologian--just a baker, however, I'd say it's because thinking people who might be intellectually engaged by idealism or dualism might end up stumbling upon God.
If you can find evidence of both good and evil at play, how long until you find the real answer? In this regard, Hawking knows the danger of examining the very ideas. He prefers keeping men outside the sphere of God. He doesn't even want them looking for the evidence that is all around us.
Franklin| 11.8.10 @ 3:57AM
Athiest don't believe in God ... and they hate him.
Dean from Ohio| 11.7.10 @ 8:00AM
L. Ron Hubbard isn't far behind.
sam holmes| 11.7.10 @ 9:31AM
I think you perhaps you should think about the concept of the word theoretical.
In a general sense, theoretical physicists are open to all possible likelihoods. They research, and test, and analyze, and eventually rule out the impossible, and set aside the improbable. They don't rule out the improbable, but they do "believe" in the probable. That is, the simplest of theories.
The difference between them and you, is that they understand belief to be just exactly what it is - a placeholder for the truth.
You underlined "god is not necessary", so i'll assume you take offense to that, but why? Grass is not necessary, yet it exists. You mention eye witnesses of god's work... eye witnesses from what century? We are all aware of how news accounts can get caught up and twisted by media and individuals in a matter of days, let alone millennia. There exist similar accounts for norse and eastern and indigenous gods. Just a few years ago, Hawking argued there was a god.
And how would you define one's realm of expertise? It seems the originators of all extremist theories should have never offered their theories about germs, magnetism, heliocentricity, atoms, evolution, and everything, actually (if you believe in evolution).
YOU pointed out Independence Day. But does the existence of a bad sci-fi movie negate a possible similarity? If so, then 2012 should dispel any notion of biblical flooding as well.
My point is this; scientists like Mr. hawking seem to say this is likely, and this is improbable. And constantly do all they can to prove or disprove what they can on their way. People like you seem to say "NO, what you say is improbable absolutely did happen simply because you can't disprove it. And what you say is likely, absolutely did not happen, because if it did, the the improbable (what I believe) would be impossible. How and why are often the exact same question.
To Chris- Hawking argued for god quite recently. It is scientific advancement that has made him push god further into the improbable. I've read his books, and biblical works as well. Hawking is discussing the creation of our universe, and multiverses beyond. There will always be a higher order in which god can exist, but the rhetoric and religion that refuses to yield any ground is what puts god in such a contradicted place, because god is simply within us all.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 10:25AM
I also read the Grand Design. I think where Hawking and most other atheist miss the point is that there is a difference between religious beliefs about God and theist philosophy. In religious apologetics, a proponent will make an argument where he would try to fit scientific discoveries to suit his religion or dogma. His concept of God is not flexible. He would rather try to distort scientific fact to suit his religion. In example, in extreme cases he would defend the seven day creation myth in any way possible because he fears that to reject the myth is to deny the existence of God. On the other hand, the strict theistic philosopher pays little attention to religious scripture and rather looks at what he can learn about the nature of God and creation by looking at the available evidence. His view on the nature of God is thus more flexible. Plato, for instance, did not argue fo the existence of the Greek gods of his time when he described his Prime Mover. He rather argued for a general something he could not see but knew to be there since it seemed only logical that it had to be. A philosopher like Mortimer J Adler does the same. He reasons that if an argument for the existence of God complies to the Principle of Sufficient Reason and gets by Ockham's Razor, then God exists beyond a doubt. He makes such an argument in his book "Thinking about God." His argument is as sound as any theory conjured up by a theoretical physicist, thus his theory falls within what Hawking describes as a model dependant reality in his book. Strangely enough, Adler's argument for the existence of God is also based on quantum theories. Thus it becomes clear that Hawking merely put forward his personal view regarding God. It is not science. To some physicists, it is not because of gravity that there is something rather than nothing. Some physicists rather believe that there is gravity because there is something. If that was not so, I find it hard to understand why they would go to such lengths to describe black matter, since the whole theory about black matter revolves around the detection of gravity where there appears to be absolutely nothing. Thus Hawking's whole argument is a contradiction. If gravity is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, then there is no reason to believe that black matter should exist to explain the gravity we detect in empty space, since gravity should be able to exist independent of matter according to Hawking's argument.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 10:39AM
Correction: black matter should read dark matter
Apostate| 11.7.10 @ 10:42AM
God who?
God is between your ears. A not so mental flash. Pure poppycock
Margie| 11.7.10 @ 3:49PM
You will, as will the rest of us, have to meet Him one day sooner than we think.
Why wait? Get right, now.
Repent and believe before it's too late!
@Sam Holmes| 11.7.10 @ 10:52AM
"Just a few years ago, Hawking argued there was a god."
I believe your interpretation of his previous work is wrong. Hawking became an atheist in his early twenties and never turned back to faith. He often uses the word God metaphorically, as Einstein did.
Thom| 11.7.10 @ 10:55AM
For all of Hawking’s brilliant in his field of study, he knows very little about “space”. The idea that we could find let alone colonize a “planet” is beyond theory at this point. We have neither a propulsion system or means to survive in zero G space for what would be decades of travel one way at well below the speed of light under the most optimistic assumptions. As another physicists once pointed out it would take all the energy the world has ever produced to get the Star Ship Enterprise up to Warp 5 once (125 times the speed of light). We have no way to create a normal gravity field on said long voyages. Humans will be vegetables after several months in zero G environments. Long before these minor problems are solved we will have solved far simpler problems on this planet than trying to figure out how to have 430 people survive a life time journey to a world that will almost have to duplicate our exact environment for them to survive. The odds of this in the next 100 or 500 years are astronomically small. That’s something Hawkings should know very well.
As for aliens visiting this planet well same problem in reverse. Electromagnetic transmissions have been leaving this planet for about 70+ years. At best they have traveled about 70 light years. Within that 70 light year radius there isn’t much that compares to our solar system that telescopes alone can determine. Contrary to popular opinion Mars is not inhabitable by humans without artificial means full time. Living off Mars is simply not possible by humans. The per person cost to survive there would be enormous compared to life on this planet. Any intelligent life form that could cross the light year distances required to visit us would surely see us as inferior life forms. Hawkings is right about that. The possibilities there are all in negative territory.
As for GOD not being required to create the Universe, well something created it and we are the only species out of billions on this planet that can even ask that question or build space ships that can barely reach orbit. It strikes me that the simplest questions of life are the ones our most brilliant scientists are least well equipped to answer. Every time they try they demonstrate how very little they really know about the Universe and all that makes it work. 500 years ago man crossed oceans at 3 knots and today can do that at ten times that speed at enormous cost in energy. 500 years from now we still won’t be able to survive a one way trip to our closest star system. I don’t think our salvation is going to be found in space or on another planet. If we can’t solve our problems here I’m sure we can’t solve the insurmountable problems of space travel over trillions of miles and years of flight time.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 11:36AM
Agree
John Bailo | 11.7.10 @ 12:34PM
Hawking is a mathematician who turned to astrophysics...since then, he has insisted on the placement of various mathematical constructs in the real world. Almost none of these constructs (including black holes) has ever been verified by any type of measurement in reality. Thus, Mr. Hawking is another part of the same cannon that props up Global Warming and "The Science".
Thom| 11.7.10 @ 12:59PM
The problem with theoretical physicists today rest with the first part of their title. Like self made intellectuals they tend to be consumed by the world they theorize about. I think many lose sight of what is real and what is theory after a while.
I worked in NASA when it had a purpose and obtainable mission back in the 1970s. Even before the ISS was downsized to a high school science project gone wrong the limits of what man could do in space were front and center. By the standards of the 25 billion we spent on the Apollo program over four years between 1968 and 1972 we don’t spend anything today on useful space programs when you consider all the commercial side benefits that came from the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Nothing like that is coming from our 100 billion dollar investment into the ISS and its support infrastructure. The reason is simple. We’ve solved all the problems related to space we can at this point. Operating in space is far worse than operating at great depths and we see how well we did that in the Gulf recently.
Long before atomic energy came on the scene people like Jules Verne and H. G. Wells were writing about what would have been science fiction at the time. Verne’s Nautilus as described was clearly “atomic” powered and 80+ years before its time. Never the less 60 years after putting atomic power to friendly commercial use our most advanced wide scale use of it is still to boil water in order to turn a turbine to either spin a prop in water or a generator to produce electricity. Given the resistance to atomic power over the last 4 decades I don’t think the next great leap in atomic knowledge or use is right around the corner in say 100 years. Therein lays the problem most theoretical physicists seem to be having today. They have nothing but theories and no practical way to have their theories bear fruit on this planet thus the answer has to be external to this planet. The vastness of the Cosmos is beyond most people’s comprehension not unlike their comprehension that something greater than they might be responsible for all this.
People like Hawkings often forget that their value to humanity is in making that which is difficult to comprehend by the masses palatable so that future generations can carry on the work of turning theories into reality not venturing into matters that is beyond their own comprehension. Who is to say Verne’s invention in Nautilus didn’t inspire others to investigate and ultimately unlock the secrets of atomic power? Anyone knowledgeable of Verne will know much of this work was satire on humanity as he saw it in the future. Perhaps Hawkings should take up writing fiction novels rather than take on subjects he cannot provide proof of in this world. Either that or start to deliver scientific proof to match his theories. Up to this point he is asking everyone to take what he says as a “matter of faith” which is probably beyond the irony of it to him.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 3:06PM
I agree. M-theory actually points to the problem you get when a theory is untestable and lacks predictive power. What few people know is that m-theory is actually an accumulation of several competing string theories. All these theories are mathematically sound. The reasoning behind m-theory is that if all the string theories seem mathematically sound, then there cannot be one theory that is more right than the other; rather, all of them must be right.
However, this is not necessarily true. Recently, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist by the name of João Magueijo proposed that the speed of light is not constant but that it used to be way faster at the birth of the universe. This theory effectively turned the mainstream theory of cosmic inflation on its head.
Here we again have a theory that is mathematically sound. However, if João Magueijo is right, then the theory of relativity is wrong and almost every theoretical physicist as far back as time can tell will be proved wrong. Most laws of physics will have to be rewritten.
I'm not saying that he is right, but would rather use his theory to point out that the logic of mathematics should not ever be confused with the truth. In the end, a mathematical expression is only a logical argument. The language used only differs slightly from the language we would use in philosophy. One can make several logical arguments to explain the exact same phenomenon, even in mathematics.
It is easier to explain it like this. A crude example is a case in court. If a murderer appears before a judge, two logical arguments are made. One by the defence and one by the state. If the argument of the defence is more logical than that of the state, the murderer may walk free. However, the logic of the argument does not prove that the accused was not the murderer. That is why you will never hear a judge or jury say that an accused is innocent. The verdict will always be guilty or not guilty since the onus is to prove or disprove guilt and not to prove innocence. The verdict is decided on two opossing reconstructions of the event based on evidence and testimony. A very good lie and inconsistency in witness testimony can set a murderer free.
One fact however remains. Both the state and the defence cannot be right. A murderer cannot be guilty and at the same time be not guilty of a murder.
In m-theory, we have several opposing theories thrown together in a hat and then we are made to believe that everything held in the hat is the truth.
There are several theoretical physicists that will show you mathematical equations which they see as proof that unipolar magnets exist. Yet there are no magnets found in nature that have only one pole. All magnets have two poles.
Of course theoretical physics is an important field of study. However, not all of these theories have any practical use and some have to be completely untrue.
Thom| 11.7.10 @ 4:35PM
This is why a few hours research combined with my 9th grade (1962) Earth Science text book I could determine that CO2 was a meaningless green house gas compared to all the other known variables, water vapor 40X times more absorbent, (Percent of our heat we get from the Sun (97%) , near term (1000+ years), Long term (10,000 plus years) global average temps, the percent of time there have been polar ice caps (20%), min/max global temps over billions of years and where we stand today on that scale and that Mars’ Ice Cap (made up of CO2 no less) are shrinking due to increased solar activity…. Once you plug in all the known into the climate equation what is unknown is just not meaningful as an agent for change all else properly weighted thus I wasn’t surprised the climate did not track with the theory of CO2 caused global warming…. Now climate change and who knows what tomorrow.
Given the climate damage being done to Mars due to “global warming” and massive quantities of CO2 are being released into the atmosphere I think the EPA should be sent there post haste to find and fix the polluter causing such damage. Of course someone might point out that CO2 levels rise as a result of warming (as Mars is doing) not the other way around but that would not fit the theory based science of today.
As you said, "one fact remains" and that is normally what is missing from the whole school of theory based science today to the determent of true science as a whole.
PNMNM| 11.7.10 @ 1:57PM
It is curious that Hawking posits that, since there is a law of gravity to elicit spontaneous creation, God is unnecessary. That's all well and good. But where the heck did that law come from? And why is it what it is?
"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?" (Job 38:33)
Thom| 11.7.10 @ 2:20PM
This is where all "creation" question ultimately lead..... and why science should stick to true science and not try to explain that which it can't explain....
Dai Alanye | 11.7.10 @ 2:20PM
The big question is always, Why? Why does such a thing as the universe exist at all? No one knows or is likely to know within a reasonable amount of time through any "scientific" inquiry.
As for the quality of human life on Earth, I only know this---since I got a cat the quality of life for chipmunks on my property has nose-dived. I suppose if The Aliens come visiting our quality of life might also be negatively affected
The key word in the foregoing sentence, however, is---Stephen Hawking and L Ron Hubbard notwithstanding---IF.
Thom| 11.7.10 @ 2:26PM
I think there is more evidence we are the "aliens" than there is that something unknown is visiting or will visit us in the future which dives to the heart of "if".
danny| 11.7.10 @ 6:00PM
how come it is with all the high sounding utterances of obviously educated folks on here it takes a lady named margie with her childlike faith to get it right? you guys better listen to her. i think she is on to something. no, i'm positive she is.
Chris| 11.7.10 @ 7:51PM
Very true. However, faith is often viewed as foolishness, which is why many would blow off her comments.
Johnny V| 11.7.10 @ 9:03PM
Is it faith to consider the genetic instruction booklet (DNA) in every living cell a product of randon chance? I think so. Every known source of information comes from an intelligence. Yet, the information in DNA which Bill Gates says is more complex than any computer program is somehow explained away as a naturalistic process. I believe most computer programers would laugh at the thought that a line of information in a program would create itself, let alone an entire program. No rational person would say that an instruction manual found on Mars was the product of self assembly. Yet many are still using 19th century science to prove that the universe is self-creating despite the mounting evidence that the complexity of life is far beyond self-assembly. At some point we have to use common sense. There is more to what you see than matter, time, and chance.
Margie| 11.7.10 @ 10:59PM
Johhny V,
I love what you just said. Beautiful!
"Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rms. 1:20.
dadfly| 11.8.10 @ 11:51AM
careful there johnny. speaking as an engineer, computer programs can be written to adapt to learn and reprogram themselves. don't use man's creations as evidence for god. for me, that is simply more evidence of god as reflected in the greatest creation, yet, man.
Johnny V| 11.8.10 @ 2:18PM
Let me get this straight, engeneer. You just said computer programs can be "written" . . . I believe you are making my point. Or do you advocate that computer programs can write/create themselves from scratch with no assistance? Name one instance, where without the aide of anyone other than chance, a computer program wrote itself. Read carefully, I did not use man's creation as evidence of God. I used facts from the science of DNA information encoded into every living cell as evidence of intelligence. The Genetic Code instructs the molecular machines in each cell to assemble proteins, body systems, and the complete body structure. All I'm asking is where do you believe that information came from. For me I do not reason that it came about through chance.
Alexicov| 11.8.10 @ 4:15PM
"Is it faith to consider the genetic instruction booklet (DNA) in every living cell a product of randon chance?"
Yes it is. However no scientist is claiming that. The fact that it's emerged by random chance is simply in the Creationist's mind. Pour exemple:
Crystals are among the most ordered things we have studied. All of the molecules in a diamond are perfectly placed in a lattice! That SURELY means that every diamond has a designer! Because if all of the carbon atoms appeared there by chance it would be nearly impossible! Therefore all diamonds are created by an intelligent being.
You see where the logic breaks down? Nobody said that nucleotides were created by chance. The fact that we have detected aminoacids both in meteorites, comets and outer space (20 light years away!) means that the building blocks of life are everywhere.
Now you may think "sure but they still 'randomly' came together to make RNA". Sadly that is not what the leading hypotheses are. If you have taken chemistry and Thermodynamics, you will know that all systems have chemical and thermo pressures that can force certain reactions (chemical and kinetic). Science is currently discovering such reaction mechanisms that lead to simple RNA type molecules emerging.
No faith dear Johnny, just science.
Johnny V| 11.8.10 @ 6:57PM
Alexicov. You claim science not faith? Let's examine. You give as an example crystals which have molecular order. Do crystals convey information? If I were to explain my response to you by typing the
word, "repeat" "repeat" "repeat" "repeat" "repeat"I would be providing a repetitive pattern but no information. At least none that is coherant.
Self-organization never yields a genetic message, only a repetative mantra. To convey information, you need irregularity in sequencing. Open any book, you won't see the word "the" repeated over and over and over. Instead you have an irregular sequencing of letters. They convey information because they conform to a certain known independent pattern--that is, the rules of vocabulary and grammer. That is what enables us to communicate and that is what needs to be explained in DNA. The four letters of its alphabet are also highly irregular while at the same time conforming to a functional requirement--that is, the correct arrangement of amino acids to create a working protein.
Whenever we encounter irregularity that's specified by a set of functional requirements, which is called 'specified complexity', we recognize this as information. And this kind of information is invariably the result of mind--not chance, not natural selection, and certainly not self-organizing process.
If you are basing your belief of crystals and diamonds then you are totally dependent on faith.
And where are you getting your information that science have detected amino acids 20 light years away? That is one mother of an instrument.
Johnny V| 11.8.10 @ 7:09PM
By the way. We both believe the universe was created. The difference is that you believe that 'nothingness' created everything. From the aggregated knowledge of scientific methods and philosophy, that is impossible.
Alexicov| 11.8.10 @ 8:00PM
Actually I was wrong, it was 400 ly away. The telescope used was the 30m radio telescope in Spain, so yes it's one mother of an instrument.
sciencedaily.com / releases/2008/03/080326161658.htm
Secondly, you're missing the point. You take the crystal analogy way too personally, it's just an analogy to show that something that can 'appear' designed because of its unprecedented order and improbability, it DOESN'T mean that it's designed. We understand the way that crystals form and there is no reason to believe that we won't understand the way that the first primitive life appeared. The fact that we can detect aminoacids 400 light years away only supports this.
Finally, I never claimed that I believe the universe was created out of nothing. In fact to believe that the universe was 'created' that would mean there has to be a 'creator' outside the universe. However being outside of space and before time is impossible by definition as space and time didn't exist "before" the universe came to be. That's akin of saying that the 'creator' is on the fifth side of a square. FURTHERMORE, the universe is a closed system as per the laws of conservation of mass/energy/momentum/spin/etc. Thus is anything DOES exist outside the universe (which is impossible as seen above) then it would be forbidden to interact with the universe, or else it would break the most basic laws of physics.
Personally I don't have any predispositions on the 'origin' of the universe, which is why I eagerly await researchers to be able to explain it concretely.
Alex Berezow | 11.8.10 @ 9:34PM
Alexicov,
If I'm understanding your comments properly, it appears to me that your line of reasoning is quite circular. You're using the terminology of physics (Conservation of Mass, closed system, etc.) to essentially argue that science is incapable of studying the supernatural (because, by definition, it is beyond nature), and since science cannot find God, He therefore doesn't exist. You're placing an artificial limitation on human knowledge, and then using that limitation to prove your point. Surely you see the flaw in that reasoning? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your comments.
Your reasoning also implies that positivism is the only route to truth. Believing so strongly that the scientific method is the ONLY source of truth is, ironically, a matter of faith.
Alexicov| 11.8.10 @ 10:22PM
Alex B,
Firstly, I'm defending the point that a supernatural god shouldn't be invoked to describe natural phenomena.
Secondly, science's paradigm is similar to the paradigm in a court of law. It's based on proof, and repeatability. In contrast, the supernatural domain is short on both of those. Just as you'll lose in a court of law claiming the defendant was possessed by the flying spaghetti monster, rather than claim insanity; in science we search for understandable and repeatable processes.
Thirdly, you're mistaking self-consistency with circular reasoning. In physics, we can reach the same result in multiple ways, for example angular momentum of a solid can be deduced through matrix algebra or through geometrical translations. The fact that we get the same answer only makes our theory stronger, not weaker as you suggest.
Fourthly, I feel that you want to bring this discussion into epistemology, so I'll make it clear that science is self-consistent through evidence and replication. The fact that the laws of physics hold everywhere we've studied (including galaxies billions of light years away) solidifies the idea that they can be used to explain naturalistic phenomena. Similarly for the laws of chemistry and biology.
Finally, I am open to suggestions on a methodology for understanding the world different from scientific exploration. Aside from using mathematics and logic, (both self consistent), and observing the universe (the ONLY way to get concrete data, a'la tabula rasa), how else is it possible to obtain information of how nature works? You see, the way I understand it, you're purposing a method of understanding the natural world devoid of having to present testable concrete evidence. I simply cannot understand how this will be practical both in understanding the universe or in future technology like the kind science has blessed us with.
NB. I feel that you have studied a fair share of philosophy. Unfortunately as a physicist, it is not my forte, hence I'm attempting to persuade that the scientific metaphor is not only self consistent, but designed to eliminate faith from our understanding of the universe. We don't need to pray that the sun will rise up tomorrow, because we understand that phenomenon.
Alexicov| 11.8.10 @ 10:23PM
Sorry for posting walls of text, i feel that there should be a more suited place on the internet to discuss this.
Alex Berezow | 11.9.10 @ 3:50AM
I'm the author of this piece, and my Ph.D. is in microbiology. So, obviously I believe in the scientific method. We're in agreement that one doesn't need to invoke God to explain natural phenomena. But, that's not the issue.
The issue is positivism, namely that one can only discern truth via the scientific method. That works for truths about nature and the universe. But what about moral truths? Do you believe in moral standards? If so, then how does one attain those truths? The scientific method tells us very little in this regard. (Neuroscience might be able to explain why humans have a need for morality or how it works chemically, but science will not explain if one set of morals is inherently superior to another set of morals. For instance, could science ever tell us that child sacrifice or slavery is morally inferior to modern Western morality? Clearly, the answer is no.)
So, if moral truths exist (and I believe they do), we need to have some other method to attain those truths. The scientific method fails here, and it logically follows that positivism (as a universal truth-finder) fails as well.
Additionally, if there are moral truths, then what implication does this have about God? Positivism and the scientific method will not get you to God, but I believe the search for moral truth will.
As for "circular reasoning"--- all methods of inquiry (including the scientific method) rest on assumptions, and hence, ultimately, all reasoning is circular. You believe in your senses, right? There's no reason to believe your senses. Saying that other people have similar senses to you is simply begging the question. Saying that gravity is a universal law is a matter of induction, not deduction. Thus, declaring gravity to be true because it's true everywhere we've looked constitutes circular reasoning. The point is that all systems of logic and belief ultimately are founded upon assumptions which are not provable. That includes science. By implication, that also means that all reasoning is inherently circular, but some circles are larger and more inclusive than others. (See G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy".) What you call 'self-evident' or 'self-consistency' is simply a fancy way of saying 'circular logic' or 'unprovable assumptions.'
I realize your training is in physics, but if you want to discuss how physical theories impact reality and the nature of existence, then I highly suggest you become well-versed in philosophy. I'm just beginning to crack that field, myself...
Alexicov| 11.9.10 @ 10:52AM
Firstly, I do not have a stance on moral standards either way. While I agree that it is possible the scientific method will never answer the question of which morality superceeds which, it's equally possible that it will answer this. Seeing scientific inquiry triumph in so many other fields makes me believe that it will come up with an all encompassing answer, however that is merely an observation without a basis. It may turn out that theology churns out an equally persuasive explanation.
Unfortunately, sociology, neurobiology, etc are not my field of study, which is why I am unable to form a strong opinion on either side of the debate. I feel doing so will require substantial ignorance on the topic on my part. However claiming the scientific method will NEVER explain it is as faulty as claiming heavier than air flight is impossible.
Secondly, it seems that you consider morality not a natural phenomenon, as you agreed with me that a God doesn't need to be summoned to explain natural phenomena. To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this. While I felt that everything we experience is "natural" by definition, I'm not sure where morality will fall under. It's simply not a field I've looked into, thus I do not have a position either way.
Finally, the reason I don't feel this should go into epistemology is because philosophy requires much more speculation than science. While we can argue that we're all a 'brain in a vat', doing so is not constructive, AND there is no way to distinguish between that theory of reality and ours.
The fact that all systems of logic and belief are based on a small number of axioms is actually something many scientists and few mathematicians are not familiar with., However, a theory built on those axioms doesn't HAVE to support the axioms. In fact there were many times that these axioms changed because of the evolution of the theory (e.g. light is a particle/ light is a wave was considered an axiom). An assumption doesn't HAVE to hold true. All the scientific axioms however are supported by observation. Thus, there is a difference between self consistency and circular reasoning.
If you saw your friend 'john' going to the grocery store, and later you met 'mary' who saw john at the grocery store that day; you would be able to say that both observations are consistent with john going to the store. If I tell you that I'm smart and you should believe this, because I'm smart; that is circular reasoning. Proving I'm correct in saying I'm smart based solely on my statement is impossible, while claiming john was at the store is self consistent. Having multiple sources confirming an axiom is self consistent, while a single source claiming its own veracity is circular reasoning.
Proving the law of conservation of energy in different ways (I've seen at least four->thermo, 2 classical and one quantum mechanics ways) means that those fields of physics are self-consistent (AND consistent with eachother) similarly to the grocery example above. In fact the LoCE can be proven mathematically (Noether's theorem), making it even more rigorous as math relies on the least amount of axioms.
Chris@Alexicov| 11.10.10 @ 4:30PM
On a previous comment you made: "However being outside of space and before time is impossible by definition as space and time didn't exist 'before' the universe came to be. That's akin of saying that the 'creator' is on the fifth side of a square. "
Are we then to assume that God necessarily has material substance? The argument you make here is somewhat flawed in that you assume that the existence of God is dependant on the same conditions that our existence is dependant on. Per definition of God, you are way of the mark. You argue that if we and all material things require dimensional space and time in order to exists, then the same requirements are needed for God to exist. That is an anthropocentric take on the existence of God. However, this is understandable. We are left with no other choice but to look at ourselves when we think about the nature of God. However, it is a mistake to look at material qualities such as dimensional time and space when you think about God. Strictly speaking, even the human mind does not require physical dimensional time and space to function. You may argue that it requires at least a brain, but that is also not a given (see research done on NDE by Dr Pim van Lommel). The mind merely requires the illusion of time and space. Of course the fact that we exist in a reality with physical dimensions does help the mind to form a picture of this existence (call our physical reality a frame of reference if you like) but the fact remains that the mind's picture of this reality is an illusion. That is why a dream, that merely lasts for a few seconds, feels like hours. If the soul or a spirit is not dependant on a material body to exist, as religion tells us, then who is to say that it requires time and space? An illusion of time and space is adequate for the mind to function (I can close my eyes and picture an entire world that cannot possibly fit inside my head and I can be anywhere in that world in a second), thus such an illusion should be adequate for God to experience his own existence without the necessity of an athropocentric concept of existence. If a person can exist in his own mind, why not God in his own mind? Theoretically, in theistic philosophy, we are not required for God to exist; not the other way around. You should not blind yourself with the metaphysical arguments of a materialist when you think about God. This view is not suited for the concepts of theistic logic. You should rather addopt an idealist or dualist perspective to make a sensible argument when discussing God and creation, or else you'll just make no sense to a religious person at all. We are not materialists and your world view will always be illogical to us.
Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:14PM
You know, I think Hawking is right when he talks about minimizing the risk of species extinction by colonizing other planets. As for the other stuff, well, he is a genius, not infallible.
dadfly| 11.7.10 @ 10:45PM
still waiting for the evidence that there is no god...for me, the best evidence would be the discovery or more likely the uncloaking of extraterrestrial or (an equivalent terrestrial) intelligence as good or better than humanity.
still waiting...the silence in the universe is deafening.
Heywood| 11.8.10 @ 12:23AM
He has an opinion just as anyone does--he's famous so his opinions get published--simple as that. It's all opinion, conjecture and 'best guesses' on his part.
You can either have faith in nothing or faith in something--he has faith in nothingness.
If an alien race was advanced enough to even travel to Earth to strip us of natural resources we'd only see the end results of them doing so--they'd have to be so far advanced from us to even get here that we'd be ants compared to them--and ants don't even register out existence let alone know why their colony was wiped out by a can of Raid.
It's not so simple as it looks| 11.8.10 @ 7:49AM
Alex Berezow is way outside of his area of expertise.
Johnny V| 11.8.10 @ 11:45AM
Oh, I don't know . . . let's see:
Hawking: PhD in Physics
Berezow: PhD in Microbiology
Seems that all Dr. Berezow is saying is that Dr. Hawking needs to dial it back a few notches for the sake of scientific reputation. Our culture is enamoured with the opinions of actors and actresses for all kinds of subjects that they have no clue. Dr. Hawking only tarnishes his reputation and that of science when he ventures our with odd opinions and views.
melvin spinoza| 6.10.11 @ 4:06PM
Like all of earth's peoples accepted as great thinkers Hawking too makes grave not acceptable conclusions that are wrong,wrong,wrong.When you personally have God like experiences you have to believe there is a God.How can I not believe in God when I had so many of these experiences.Obviously,Hawking has had none.It appears,God like all great men appear to,also,make huge errors.How can letting 6 million Jews die at Hitler's hands be God like?How can 9/11 be allowed by suicide terrorists when God rules the earth?We had to defend this overt,so how can God allow our men to now die defending what we had to do,when he had the power to prevent 9/11?The examples are numerous.I want God to give us the answers NOW!He knows every hair in our head and every future answer,so how does He allow such devastating Earth happenings on a daily basis.I personally had many experiences where He protected me from harm;but I,also,have had bad experiences where He has not intervened.I can't take a speck of white sugar without enormous bad reactions,forinstance,yet I cannot ever believe there is no God because of my other personal God like experiences.One example which you might be able to understand:I had Scientology Power Auditing.The next morning I walk out of my rooming house and a bright beam of light hits my eyes from the sky.That was God's beam of light,proving there is a God in control.Hawking must have had no such enlightenment in his life.
Silver Streake| 11.8.10 @ 8:14AM
As with many PhDs, Hawking is just (P)iling it (H)igher and (D)eeper.
Isn't it true that PhDs usually believe they know it all? That their opinions somehow are more valid than everyone else's?
After being employed for more than a dozen years at a publishing firm that had several PhDs on staff, that's my observation.
Reply to this It's not so simp| 11.8.10 @ 8:27AM
Hey, Silver, did it ever occur to you that maybe those PhD's really do know more than you do?
Bob Miller| 11.8.10 @ 8:40AM
For people to have free moral choice and be responsible for their choices, there has to be room in this world for error, including room for physicists to go well beyond their expertise.
Epluribus | 11.8.10 @ 10:46AM
Check out this very relevant article by J. R. Dunn at American Spectator:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....ote_t.html
Skeptic| 11.8.10 @ 11:12AM
Who then has "experience on the subject of God"? Are only clergymen allowed to address the subject of the supernatural? What makes them experts? The fact that they have studied the Bible and other religious texts? If anything, they are biased.
@Skeptic| 11.8.10 @ 12:50PM
Of course there are those that believe that God is a supernatural being in that He can intervene in earthly affairs in ways that defy the laws of nature. However, there are also those that believe that God is a being that intervenes in earthly affairs in ways that obey the laws of nature, that all that exists acts exactly according to these laws that were given by God. In this sense, God is not supernatural at all but rather the creator of nature and the so-called Prime Mover. Thus your question doesn’t really cover the subject entirely. The question is rather if God exists at all, whether He is a supernatural entity or a natural entity. If it makes no logical sense that the universe could have come into existence spontaneously, without a conscious exnihilator of sorts, then any theory proposing that the universe came into existence by itself would be supernatural. So it might be better to reserve the adjective “supernatural” until such time as we have cleared up the problem of whether God exists or not. Frankly, it seems rather silly to call something supernatural when we still haven’t got a full understanding of what we perceive to be natural. With that said, I think a scientist should at least have a background in ontology before he attempts to debunk theistic believes. As it happens, it doesn’t appear as if Stephen Hawking even understands idealism or dualism. It is also clear that he has only read selectively on consciousness and neurology. Frankly, as a person who had studied metaphysics as well as psychology and some neurology, I can safely say that Hawking is deficient as a philosopher, psychologist and neurologist. Yet he arrogantly slings around half-baked arguments based on these subjects to promote his personal beliefs. That’s not science. He should stick to physics.
Alexicov| 11.8.10 @ 4:05PM
You see when Hawking says there is no need for god, he merely says that the origin of the universe can be explained through science. Naturalistically, therefore there is no need to invent a being to praise for the creation of the Universe. Whether Jesus existed is irrelevant to Hawking's discussion. That's religion, not science. HOWEVER just as Quantum Mechanics is in the field of science, so is the origin of the Universe.
Simply put, the origin of our Universe has no space for a god.
Chris| 11.8.10 @ 4:52PM
You should rephrase that to "the materialistic approach to science has no space for God," since it's merely one point of view in science that matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. In the mind of a scientist that would not share your metaphysical view, the origin of the universe without God may be illogical. Do not confuse your point of view with absolute reality. An extreme positivist attitude when considering the origin of our universe seems more like anthropocentristic arrogance.
sam holmes| 11.10.10 @ 10:40AM
To address my point, I would now have to address every little tangent that deviates from the main topic.
There are valid points here, but they're mostly bound with rhetoric and faulty logic.
When something is deemed "not necessarily so" it is neither proveable or disproveable, by definition of language. It lies in middle ground. It is neither necessarily so, or necessarily not so, yet could be so or not so.
I also believe not one person can accurately predict any element of the world 500 years from now. The decimal system and English as we understand it did not even exist 500 years ago. The world was not thought to be flat, but it was thought to be the center of the universe.
There is no point in an argument with those that are convinced too easily or too difficulty.
If we could all agree on one thing now, it would probably be that neither side will yield, so instead of considering the abstract, let's look at the realities.
Science gives us no moral code whatsoever, contrary to religion. Yet how many have been killed on the name of God? Science only provides the tools. and if a fear of Hell is what keeps the religious from killing and raping and stealing without restraint, than I believe religion is necessary. And for those of us that maintain a moral code of liberty, and respect others, wrong or right, science will eclipse religion in every way.
I would love to discuss this further, intelligently, and with an open mind, because that's how we learn, and evolve. And I would love to explain my belief of the evolution of life on earth, but not to anyone not willing to see from my view before critiquing.
If you can't imagine anything better, you can't imagine anything better.
Chris| 11.10.10 @ 12:06PM
I understand your point, but you must also understand that religion is a cultural practice of worship, traditions and symbolic ceremonies based on cultural specific beliefs. People practice their religions regardless of whether those beliefs are a reflection of reality or delusional. This makes the sort of belief within religions anthropocentric. One might even call a religion a superstition, and all wars waged in the name of God is thus madness. However, in theistic philosophy, we are not concerned with religion as much as the logic of existence with or without an exnihilator or Prime Mover (as supporters of Plato may refer to God). Of course morals are also dealt with in philosophy, but the main question we ask in ontology is rather about the logic of existence with or without God. To say that religion caused people to do this or that or to say that religion motivated us to act in any specific way, morally or immorally, does not really answer the question about the necessity of God for the universe to exist. People act whichever way they want regardless of their personal beliefs, and it does not affect the universe. The point we rather touch on here is whether God is necessary to explain existence or not. Hawking says it is not necessary to invoke God to explain the origin of the universe or existence. We say it is illogical not to consider God when thinking about the origin of our universe, and we can prove it through logic. We accept that there is no way to empirically prove that God exists. We cannot call on God to pull your ear or to give you a wedgy. But in the same way that quatum physicists can show us through mathematical logic that particals are probably made up of one-dimensional energy strings vibrating and curling up into complete invisible balls that form quarks then particles then atoms; we can prove through dialetic logic that God is necessary for the universe to exist. I urge you to look up Mortimer J Adler's argument for the existence of God and also Prof John Cramer's discussion thereof. John Cramer is a Prof in Physic in Washington and is perhaps best known for his research in time travel in quantum situations.
Udaybhanu Chitrakar| 6.21.11 @ 9:32PM
"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."
Here three questions can be asked:
1) Which one came first, universe, or law of gravity?
2) If the universe came first, then how can there be spontaneous creation without the law of gravity?
3) If the law of gravity came first, then the law of gravity is Hawking's "God". Therefore Hawking will have to answer the question: Who created Hawking's God?