[Originally published in Hurriyet Daily News]
Stephen Hawking, probably the most famous scientist in our world, made the global headlines last week with his upcoming book, “The Grand Design.” Here, as the media reported, he has proposed a new theory about the origin of the universe – a theory that makes God “unnecessary.”
This argument, in fact, is not that new. We have continued to hear it from the time of Laplace, who famously noted to Napoleon that he had no need for “the God hypothesis” to explain the origin of the solar system. Since then, many scientists have embarked on a mission to find natural explanations for the natural world and push the divine out of the picture. The more we understand the natural laws that govern the universe, according to this view, the less room remains for supernatural agents such as God.
The God hypothesis
Needless to say, this whole Laplacean paradigm delighted the atheists and made them believe that science was on their side against theism – which they saw as an irrational, if not delusional, belief in the unknown. But there was a crucial point that they often missed: The scientific effort to make God “unnecessary” would work only if the theists were trying to “prove” God by finding “gaps” in the natural world that look inexplicable through natural phenomena.
That argument is indeed a risky one, for what looks inexplicable today might be explained tomorrow. As the “gaps” in our knowledge are filled, in other words, “the God of the gaps” argument, as it is known, can lose face.
Consider, for example, thunderstorms. If a theist argues, “God brings down the lightning from the sky,” and means this as a supernatural intervention into nature, then he is in trouble. The scientist will soon show him how electricity works in the atmosphere and how the sudden bolt of light comes down just naturally.
However, “the God of the gaps” argument is not the only way to see the world through a theistic lens. The theist can rather see the whole natural world as a manifestation of God’s creativity and majesty. In this view, God is the creator of the whole natural world but not a supernatural interferer. He is not in competition with natural laws; he acts through them.
When theism takes such a naturalism-friendly view, it has nothing to fear from natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science does what it does, and atheism and theism becomes just two different ways of interpreting it.
But this is all about how the universe works. When we start to discuss how the universe came to be, we enter into a different zone. Here, theism is much stronger than atheism, thanks to two major arguments.
The first one is “the cosmological argument.” It comes from the Big Bang theory, which indicates that the universe came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. This ultimate “beginning” has led some scientists to conclude that the Abrahamic doctrine of “creation ex nihilo” is quite plausible.
The second argument for theism is “the design argument.” It comes from the Anthropic Principle, which reveals that the universe that we live in is amazingly “fine-tuned” for intelligent life. The chance of having such an incredibly hospitable universe by accident is so low, that it compelled ex-atheists such as Anthony Flew, British philosopher, to accept an “Aristotelian God.”
The laws of the gaps
Now, let’s go back to Dr. Hawking. Apparently, what he tries to do in his new book is to refute the cosmological argument – that the beginning of the universe points to a Beginner.
And he does it in a most interesting way: by presuming that natural laws preceded the universe and brought it into being. “Because there are laws such as gravity,” he confidently says, “the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing.”
But there is a crucial problem here. We know gravity’s existence thanks to the scientific method: We can test and observe it. Yet there is no way to test and observe (and even to calculate) the “time” before the universe. (We can’t even calculate the very first moment of the universe, called “Planck time.”)
In other words, when Hawking posits “laws such as gravity” that existed before the universe, he is speaking of faith, not science. He, in a sense, is filling the gaps in our knowledge with the metaphysical laws that he believes in.
Those laws, he seems to believe, have existed since eternity, created both matter and time out of nothing and designed the fine-tuned universe that we know – just like what “God the Creator,” according to traditional monotheism, has done.
What Hawking does, then, is really just rename what most other people call “God.” You can do this in a million ways. “I don’t believe in God,” you can say. “I rather believe in a giant universe-creating machine, which itself is uncreated.” You can even fantasize about a “flying spaghetti monster,” as some smart alecks have mockingly done.
For my part, I stick to tradition, and revelation, and keep on calling the creator of the universe “God.”
As for Dr. Hawking’s “theory,” I have respect. Every faith, after all, deserves some.
Oh Mister Akyol. The same fallacies over and over again.
Hawking says: “There is no need for a God to explain the universe.” He tries to ban God from science, because there is no scientific method which can be used to explain the God-concept, not now nor in the future. If you think there is, then you claim God to be falsifiable as any other scientific concept. However, a falsifiable god, is not God. That is a contradictio in terminis.
Yes, Hawking is trying to fill gaps here. But he fills them with theories which are in the coverage area of scientific methods. He doesn’t claim to have the absolute truth in his possession – that’s the hobbyhorse of religions, remember? Hawking is open to other scientific theories which might refute his. How about your God? Is He open to refutation? He isn’t, right? Then go and take your God with you
Very scientific indeed to “stick to tradition & revelations”. You sound like a cocky child.
If you remember from Hawking’s first bestseller “The brief History of Time”, the laws of science such as gravitation break prior to Big Bang. The laws of physics do not apply and can not be used to explain the existence before Bing Bang. These laws came to be starting from the point of Big Bang explosion. So it is unscientific to use gravity or any other law of science to explain what was going on before the explosion, and to consider it (gravity) as an agent of creation.
This was obvious to me when I was reading Hawking’s new comments on creation. This should have been also obvious to Hawking himself.
I take it that you haven’t read The Grand Design, have you, Karayol? All you are doing is taking sound bites from others and hurling insults. It’s pretty close to trolling, since your post can’t be considered an intellectual argument.
You yourself are arguing that Mustafa Akyol is not open to refutations, which, reading from his blog posts, I have yet to see.
Mr. Karayol made a good fun of \faith\ which means accepting something unquestionedly. Good for you Mr.Karayol. In this way you gave a great answer to the main argument here! Of course, tradition and divinity are out of the scintific area.Therefore, these are worthless notions?
Whatever, I’d be really glad if I could see one single word about the main argument: How can an argument that points something before the universe be scientific? Please correct me if I’m wrong, we felt,observed and tested the gravity in \universe\ after \the big bang\. To be falsible
huh? as you mentioned. Hawkings claims that the gravity itself could create a universe.Can you test it? Can you observe it? Is that falsible? We both know the answers, I suppose.
If \being scientific\ is that important to you, you shouldn’t take Hawkings’ argument very serious. Or you’d look like a footballer which scores against his own team.
1)I think that the universe and the law of science are smarter than those who mull over themselves in pursuit of a way out of the mistery.So,they will never encompass the universe and decide decisively whether the God exists or not. Because in the infinity of the universe both in macro and micro sense, mankind will always encounter a new mistery awaiting himself for him to find a way to out and so on. When he find a way of one of those misteries he cheekily would think that he no longer needs the God unaware of the whole picture. He could not see that the true mistery lies in those succesive and infinite misteries.
2)In the path towards the god, the role of the science is not reach a conclusion. Science gives an opinion not about God but about human’s weakness then gives the way to conscience that ther SHOULD be ALLMİGHTY. The stronger u feel this weakness, the more this SHOULD turns into HAS TO. It is a long story as long as humanity.
This is a wonderful piece. I appreciate Mr. Akyol for what he’s written above.
Hawking, actually, has been pointing to all of us that there is a \God\.
He has not been doing this intentionally. Because he is launching himself as an atheist. Well, let’s have a look at what Mr. Akyol wrote above. Hawking has even been telling us there is a \God\.