This ought tomake a few heads spin around a few times:

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

 

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

 

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

 

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

<snip>

 

 Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.

 

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

 

From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.

 

Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

  Does this mean the saying "The is no damn God, god damnit!" is true? 

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

hypatia:

 

 This ought tomake a few heads spin around a few times:

 

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

 

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

 

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

 

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

<snip>

 

 Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.

 

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

 

From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.

 

Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

The plausibility of "something from nothing" depends on one's definition of "nothing".

Even in a seemingly empty vacuum, particles can (and often do) appear. They can actually make their presence known by exerting a mechanical force, which can be detected by not very sophisticated instruments. This is not magic, it is physics.

As for what was going on in the multiverse the instant before the Big Bang that seeded ours, the M-Theory model provides some very good explanations. M-Theory, supported by some relatively new mathematics, says that the singularity brought this universe into being was the result of a collision along the "surfaces" of two multi-dimensional, and normally parallel, membranes or branes. 

This Theory has been very useful for understanding a number of phenomenon that are readily observed but difficult to explain without M-Theory, including the relative weakness of the gravitational force as compared to the other three fundamental forces.

Of course, religionists who don't want to take the time to investegate something that might damage their delusions would say that Hawking's "something from nothing" is no more scientific than their idea of creation by magic, as wrought by God.

Incredulous.

Do you mean to tell me that Stephen Hawking is just now figuring this out?

As much as I wish this would make many religious heads spin, it's the type of information that many of those people are going to ignore, or declare blasphemous. I doubt many religious folk will give it a second of thought, unfortunately.

Thanks for the post though :) - I'll have to keep an eye out for this book.

JNEllis:

Incredulous.

 

Do you mean to tell me that Stephen Hawking is just now figuring this out?

 

As much as I wish this would make many religious heads spin, it's the type of information that many of those people are going to ignore, or declare blasphemous. I doubt many religious folk will give it a second of thought, unfortunately.

 

Thanks for the post though :) - I'll have to keep an eye out for this book.

 Actually, Hawking once argued that belief in a creator was not incompatible with science.

Maybe he still believes so, however it seems there has been a shift in his supposing.  I am  wondering if he is leaving "a last will and testament" to science, so to speak.

DrW:

Of course, religionists who don't want to take the time to investegate something that might damage their delusions, would say that Hawking's "something from nothing" is no more scientific than their idea of creation by magic, as wrought by God.

 

It's just a bit of a that Dr. Hawking might be basically saying that man did indeed create God in his own image, isn't it?.

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

hypatia:

JNEllis:

Incredulous.

 

Do you mean to tell me that Stephen Hawking is just now figuring this out?

 

As much as I wish this would make many religious heads spin, it's the type of information that many of those people are going to ignore, or declare blasphemous. I doubt many religious folk will give it a second of thought, unfortunately.

 

Thanks for the post though :) - I'll have to keep an eye out for this book.

 

 Actually, Hawking once argued that belief in a creator was not incompatible with science.

 

Maybe he still believes so, however it seems there has been a shift in his supposing.  I am  wondering if he is leaving "a last will and testament" to science, so to speak.

 

DrW:

Of course, religionists who don't want to take the time to investegate something that might damage their delusions, would say that Hawking's "something from nothing" is no more scientific than their idea of creation by magic, as wrought by God.

 

It's just a bit of a that Dr. Hawking might be basically saying that man did indeed create God in his own image.

 Hawking has been saying for a few years now that he finds it highly unlikely that there is a god. He's strictly agnostic though, but I suspect there's a strong atheist lean.

There's a thread about this on MADB tonight too. Here's what one of the great minds over there had to say:

"Stephen Hawking bases all of his opinions off of assumptions and conjecture none of which are based on science. His logic is so flawed it is amazing. " - Rob Osborn

Now JS on the other hand...there's a man who knew a thing or two about astronomy.

Ahhh, the MADBastards are dredging out the Argument from First Causes. Simply put, the argument from first causes is this:

"Everything needs to have a cause, and so god must be the ultimate cause. Also, god doesn't need to have a cause" - Joel Grus

Better stick with the warm fuzzies boys!

Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man.  I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements.  However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

sthilda:

Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man.  I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements.  However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.

 

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

I agree with that. Hawling is a great scientist, but he is not the final authority on God or religion.Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

 Signature 

athena:

sthilda:

Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man.  I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements.  However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.

 

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

 

I agree with that. Hawling is a great scientist, but he is not the final authority on God or religion.Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

 That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. A theory can either be verified by using it to make predictions. A hypothesis (such as whether God exists) is an assumption that (usually) fits at least some evidence but either is not yet tested, or cannot be tested.

So if a scientist calls something a theory, they are pretty much certain that it is true. (like gravity, evolution, relativity etc)

In this case, I would say that hawking is simply forming a hypothesis based on evidence. Even as an atheist myself I do recognize that the lack of existence of a god cannot be proven. My atheism is my personal hypothesis, what I believe to be true. If the LDS church has taught me anything it's that belief in something does not automatically make it true, and I recognize that.

Anyway, I agree that he's not an end-all authority, but I also argue that nobody is, and all we can do is create a personal hypothesis. Just as I have done, and just as Hawking has done here. 

[edit]I should clarify, theories can still be proven wrong, but when they are "proven" wrong it's usually just missing details or exceptions to the rule. It does happen though. My point is that God is unverifiable which is why it can't fall into the theory category. (The geocentric model matched observations, and was verifiable and testable, but was still "proven wrong" by new observations that demonstrated that the heliocentric model is correct. So theories can be wrong, the only difference between theory and hypothesis is testability)

AngelicFerret:

 That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. A theory can either be verified by using it to make predictions. A hypothesis (such as whether God exists) is an assumption that (usually) fits at least some evidence but either is not yet tested, or cannot be tested.

 

..... So theories can be wrong, the only difference between theory and hypothesis is testability)

AF - thanks for the pointers on the difference between these terms.  Not being a scientist, I often don't pay enough attention to the difference in definitions.  I know definitions are important.

However, in general usage outside science, the word theory has a broader usage, right or wrong.

I guess another related question is whether or not the question of a God's (or gods) existence is the domain of science, or is more in the realm of philosophy and religion.

I don't see the need for compartmentalizing all thoughts, but agree that sometimes it's essential to do so.

thanks! 

You are right about the usage outside of science, but I've heard people say that "evolution is just a theory" when they don't understand which definition of theory it falls under. If we're going to talk about god and start throwing around the word "theory" then I think using the correct word is kind of necessary.

And you are also right that God really has little if any place in science, since he can't be proven or disproven.  My only point was that in this context, I feel we should either be using the scientific definition of theory, or at least specify which we are using.

You will have to forgive me for even bringing this up. I'm trying to argue my position to a bunch of TBMs, and I am horribly outnumbered. Using the word "theory" incorrectly is one of the tactics repeatedly used against me, so it gets under my skin a bit.  

athena:

Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

Actually, I think Hawking is saying that the existence of gravity makes the spontaneous formation of the universe inevitable, not just possible. He still leaves room for the possibility that God exists (because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist), but he's saying that creating the universe isn't something that God did.  According to Hawking, we do have enough evidence to make the call -- no one had to be there to witness it's creation.

 Signature 

AngelicFerret:

You are right about the usage outside of science, but I've heard people say that "evolution is just a theory" when they don't understand which definition of theory it falls under. If we're going to talk about god and start throwing around the word "theory" then I think using the correct word is kind of necessary.

 

And you are also right that God really has little if any place in science, since he can't be proven or disproven.  My only point was that in this context, I feel we should either be using the scientific definition of theory, or at least specify which we are using.

 

You will have to forgive me for even bringing this up. I'm trying to argue my position to a bunch of TBMs, and I am horribly outnumbered. Using the word "theory" incorrectly is one of the tactics repeatedly used against me, so it gets under my skin a bit.  

True, but I was using the broader and less scientific definition of theory

 Signature 

Jeff Ricks:

athena:

Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

 

Actually, I think Hawking is saying that the existence of gravity makes the spontaneous formation of the universe inevitable, not just possible. He still leaves room for the possibility that God exists (because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist), but he's saying that creating the universe isn't something that God did.

 

 

I understod that that was what he was saying ,but again that is an hypothesis not a proven fact.

 Signature 

athena:

Jeff Ricks:

athena:

Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

 

Actually, I think Hawking is saying that the existence of gravity makes the spontaneous formation of the universe inevitable, not just possible. He still leaves room for the possibility that God exists (because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist), but he's saying that creating the universe isn't something that God did.

 

 

 

I understod that that was what he was saying ,but again that is an hypothesis not a proven fact.

Of course, the belief that God created the universe is also an hypothesis. Hawking's hypothesis is backed up by real physical evidence. The God hypothesis is backed up by none. It's based on faith.  So, between the two hypotheses, I'm thinking Hawking's is most likely the correct one.

 Signature 

See this is the problem when people invoke "God." As a generic sense, it means some sort of sentient being that has a personal interest in humanity.

But often, "God" get parsed into a different realm of vague ideas like nature or physics. So the re-branding of "God" into natural laws leaves room for "God" to exist as in, "without the natural laws of motion of energy or gravity, the universe would not have formed. Since they had to exist for the universe to form and "God" is natural laws or forces, "God" created the universe.  So "God" as an idea or creator survives, but what good is it if to save it, "God" becomes no different from saying gravity, atomic forces, entropy, thermodynamics and so on and take away the conscience, caring deity?

Jeff Ricks:

athena:

Jeff Ricks:

athena:

Hawking is basically saying that the universe could have formed on its own. That is a theory. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.All the evidence isn't in.

 

Actually, I think Hawking is saying that the existence of gravity makes the spontaneous formation of the universe inevitable, not just possible. He still leaves room for the possibility that God exists (because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist), but he's saying that creating the universe isn't something that God did.

 

 

 

I understod that that was what he was saying ,but again that is an hypothesis not a proven fact.

 

Of course, the belief that God created the universe is also an hypothesis. Hawking's hypothesis is backed up by real physical evidence. The God hypothesis is backed up by none. It's based on faith.  So, between the two hypotheses, I'm thinking Hawking's is most likely the correct one.

 

 

The point is that we don't know and, yes, both are hypotheses.

 Signature 

AngelicFerret:

 

You will have to forgive me for even bringing this up. I'm trying to argue my position to a bunch of TBMs, and I am horribly outnumbered.

Yikes!  Why are you punishing yourself like this! 

PS - i like your screen name - but just noticed that there is a new member - DemonicFerret.  Your alter ego, or demi-god?

Jeff Ricks:

Of course, the belief that God created the universe is also an hypothesis. Hawking's hypothesis is backed up by real physical evidence. The God hypothesis is backed up by none. It's based on faith.  So, between the two hypotheses, I'm thinking Hawking's is most likely the correct one.

 

 

I will have to take your word & Hawking's for it that real physical evidence exists for the spontaneous creation of the universe. 

As for evidence of the existence of God, I've gone around on this myself & haven't come up with a definitive answer.  I don't think a definitive answer is possible. 

So, for me, it's more of a philosophical position.  (on which I waver quite a bit).  There are a lot of philosophical positions that don't involve physical evidence, however.

I think you & Hawkings have made a principled decision.

sthilda:

AngelicFerret:

 

You will have to forgive me for even bringing this up. I'm trying to argue my position to a bunch of TBMs, and I am horribly outnumbered.

 

Yikes!  Why are you punishing yourself like this! 

 

PS - i like your screen name - but just noticed that there is a new member - DemonicFerret.  Your alter ego, or demi-god?

 Neither, that's my younger brother. 

We have a psychological experiment we're going to be working on that involves... talking ferrets. If the church can use psychology against its members, so can I. I'll leave it at that for now. 

Cuzco:

 

But often, "God" get parsed into a different realm of vague ideas like nature or physics. So the re-branding of "God" into natural laws leaves room for "God" to exist as in, "without the natural laws of motion of energy or gravity, the universe would not have formed.

"God" ( I am starting to lose track of what that word really means - I guess it depends who you are talking to) also can be co-opted for all sorts of purposes.  Any number of people or organizations or ideas can be deified into some sort of ultimate being.

For example - the Mormon Church.  This organizations places itself in the position of a god.  So when I think of God, it's important for me to be sure I'm not actually thinking of a religious organization. 

But I would say if a God exists, it would be outside the realm of physics, and not actually be equal/equivalent to the natural laws.

But this is just a position I'm taking because it makes more sense to me.

But Hilda, that's the rub.  The definition of God keeps changing.  Once She was the reproductive force in the universe, the cycle of life and death and renewal.  Then He was the power behind the sun, the storm, lightning and many other things.  Then He was an interventionist deity that directed the history of Israel.  When archaeologists dug up the truth, He retreated into the role of creator (perhaps using evolution) and source of personal revelation.  Ultimately He became the laws of nature.

I submit that a God beyond physics is all that is left.  Science, not just Hawking, tells us that spontaneous generation of matter occurs all the time; and uncertainty shows how a Big Bang can happen without any First Cause at all.  Potentially habitable planets turn out to be widespread, and biologists discover that under conditions that sometimes occur on some of those worlds certain molecules naturally reproduce themselves in ever-increasing complexity.  God thus loses his role as the indispensible father of life. 

These discoveries do not negate the possibility of God, but in saying that He is beyond physics we are once again moving the goalposts to comport with our present level of knowledge.  Unless we settle on a real definition, there is no way of understanding or evaluating God in the first place.

The Ever Retreating Deity is a slippery character.

Faustus

AngelicFerret:

sthilda:

AngelicFerret:

 

You will have to forgive me for even bringing this up. I'm trying to argue my position to a bunch of TBMs, and I am horribly outnumbered.

 

Yikes!  Why are you punishing yourself like this! 

 

PS - i like your screen name - but just noticed that there is a new member - DemonicFerret.  Your alter ego, or demi-god?

 

 Neither, that's my younger brother. 

 

We have a psychological experiment we're going to be working on that involves... talking ferrets. If the church can use psychology against its members, so can I. I'll leave it at that for now. 

Love the names too. This just made me picture little see-through ferrets sitting on each shoulder, or maybe I should say stoat/ermine: one all white (winter coat) and one all black. [/hijack]

sthilda:

Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man.  I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements.  However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.

 

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

[     ] The "choice" here is simple. One either believes that the cosmos came into being by magic, or that it came into being naturally.

One of these hypotheses is testable. The other is not.

One of these hypotheses is consistent with observable physical evidence and supported by mathematics.

The other is not.

One of these hypotheses has predictive power as to the outcomes of experiments and obesrvations designed to test it.

The other does not.

There is no real choice here for a rational individual. Through application of the scientific method over hundreds of years, we have useful explanations for how nature works that allow us as humans to do some pretty amazing things. The scientific enterprise has been enormously beneficial to humankind. Religion, on the other hand, has been of substantially less benefit (to say the least).

[      ]I strongly disagree. If one looks at the distribution of matter in the observable universe, the M-Theory-based brane collision hypothesis provides the best explanation available (and it is a very good one, indeed).

If one considers the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and weak and strong nuclear forces, again, science can provide a qualitative and quantitative explanation.

On the other hand, any physical evidence that one might claim as support for "creation by magic" is better explained by science. The "gaps" that once provided vast regions where God could reign have been made vanishingly small by science.

To sum things up (and just in case I have not made my position clear on this):

The outcome of hypothesis generation and testing, consideration of weight of evidence, application of formal logic and the property of being accurately described and quantified by mathematics all support the position that the universe came about naturally.

The "creation by magic" explanation is supported only by unfounded belief and delusion born of (often willful) ignorance.

If one is going to claim the belief in God as the creator of the universe is a "choice", they should be willing to admit that it is a bad choice and based on subjective evidence rather than objective evidence. They should also recognize that it actions taken as a direct consequences of this choice can often be counterproductive, and even harmful to others.

DrW,

I agree with almost all of that. I personally feel that the idea of a god is silly and doesn't fit with my understanding at all.

I do have to disagree with a few of your points though. Since you brought up M theory, this theory still has some holes in it. It answers a bunch of questions but raises a few others, in much the same way that the geocentric model did. They could make predictions with it, it matched observations so far at the time, but it simply wasn't complete. (I won't go into the problems since it's irrelevant to this discussion)

What is great about M theory is that, like the geocentric model, it still makes accurate predictions—and useful predictions because we know which things not to use it for. So using something like M theory, even if it's wrong (I personally think it's just incomplete, but wrong is not out of the question) it's still vastly more useful than to throw up our hands and say "god did it."

This is what's great about theories, even if they're wrong they're useful, because to even be considered a theory by the scientific definition they have to make accurate predictions. This is something that a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around, that something as obviously wrong as the geocentric model could still be valid and useful because it made accurate predictions and contradictory observations had not yet been made. Once you wrap your head around that idea, it becomes clear that attacking a theory for being "wrong" or "incomplete" is just silly. 

Back to God. The idea that God did everything that we don't understand in science is called "god of the gaps." Even if the hypothesis is utterly useless, "god exists" is still a valid hypothesis even though I and the vast majority of scientists are utterly confident it's wrong. So the reason "there is no god" is untestable is because gaps will always exist.

Now, saying that God put all the animals on the earth in their present form is testable. We have the fossils that say otherwise, as well as a mountain of other evidence. But god of the gaps will always be there and by definition it will always be a valid hypothesis even if it's a ridiculous one. No scientist will ever try to tell you that science will one day know everything there is to know.

You could even apply some logic to the problem. No religion stands up to even the slightest inquiry, so if god does exist no one knows him in any way shape or form. Once you take that into account believing in god makes no sense to me. But even that doesn't prove God is imaginary. Hell, they could map every neuron in the brain of a believer, point to everything in there about god in real time to demonstrate that it's all in their head and that still would have no impact on the issue, frustrating as that is.

So, no, as confident as I am that there is no god of any kind I still don't think we'll ever be able to prove it; and you must prove this to prove that everything is 100% natural. I hope instead that we can one day outgrow such silly things. This is the only way the issue will disappear, and the internet really gives me hope that this is possible. One google search and an open mind and your faith is toast. What's more, teenagers are well known for having an open mind.  Almost everyone I've been able to reach has been in their late teens. 

So the notion that neither stance is strictly verifiable is correct. 

The press coverage of this has been atrocious.  Hawking's thesis, as shown by the actual quotes in the article, is that the existence of god is not a necessary condition for the formation of the universe.  The press morphed that into something like Hawking says there is no god.

Even worse are the comments from the self proclaimed followers of Jesus.   

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

Phillip K. Dick

DrW:

sthilda:

Stephen Hawking is obviously a very bright man.  I'm sure he has good reason for making these statements.  However, it seems he is saying affirmatively that there is no God & the universe was not created by said God.

 

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

 

[     ] The "choice" here is simple. One either believes that the cosmos came into being by magic, or that it came into being naturally.

 

One of these hypotheses is testable. The other is not.

 

One of these hypotheses is consistent with observable physical evidence and supported by mathematics.

The other is not.

 

One of these hypotheses has predictive power as to the outcomes of experiments and obesrvations designed to test it.

The other does not.

 

There is no real choice here for a rational individual. Through application of the scientific method over hundreds of years, we have useful explanations for how nature works that allow us as humans to do some pretty amazing things. The scientific enterprise has been enormously beneficial to humankind. Religion, on the other hand, has been of substentially less benefit (to say the least).

 

[      ]I strongly disagree. If one looks at the distribution of matter in the observable universe, the M-Theory-based brane collision hypothesis provides the best explanation available (and it is a very good one, indeed).

 

If one considers the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and weak and strong nuclear forces, again, science can provide a qualitative and quantitative explanation.

 

On the other hand, any physical evidence that one might claim as support for "creation by magic" is better explained by science. The "gaps" that once provided vast regions where God could reign have been made vanishingly small by science.

 

 

To sum things up (and just in case I have not made my position clear on this):

 

The outcome of hypothesis generation and testing, consideration of weight of evidence, application of formal logic and the property of being accurately described and quantified by mathematics all support the position that the universe came about naturally.

 

The "creation by magic" explanation is supported only by unfounded belief and delusion born of (often willful) ignorance.

 

If one is going to claim the belief in God as the creator of the universe is a "choice", they should be willing to admit that it is a bad choice and based on subjective evidence rather than objective evidence. They should also recognize that it actions taken as a direct consequences of this choice can often be counterproductive, and even harmful to others.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, DrW!  Eloquently stated.

One point that I'll contest is your statement above that implies that religion has been of little benefit to mankind.  While I believe that religion is of little benefit today (or perhaps even a detriment rather than a benefit), I do think that it has been useful to us as a species in the past, and that is particularly why it is so ubiquitous and why there are so many believers today.  Religion has been a particularly useful tool throughout history and pre-history in winning the hearts and minds of a people, organizing them and uniting them against a common enemy.  At the same time, it can imbue blind confidence in it's adherents, all of which is particularly useful for tribal and state-level conflict and conquest.  Certainly religion has slowed our rate of scientific progress, especially over the last 2,000 years or so, but it may very well be that the civilizations that gave rise to our greatest scientific achievements would never have come into existence without the cultural affects of organized religion.

Today I think religion needs to quickly become a vestigal limb in our societal evolution.  It's former benefits are now outweighed by its drag on our progress in all areas cultural, ethical and scientific.  If we could get everyone to move beyond the magical hive mentality, we wouldn't need it as a protection device any longer.

Back to the OP, I'm glad Hawking has come out with this.  The statements that are being quoted are what I took away from A Brief History of Time, which was written over 20 years ago.  He sets out an explanation for how there is no need for a start to time or an end to time, and therefore no need for creation.  It sounds to me like he's just refining that same position based on more current and extensive models and theories.

ZeeZrom:

The press coverage of this has been atrocious.  Hawking's thesis, as shown by the actual quotes in the article, is that the existence of god is not a necessary condition for the formation of the universe.  The press morphed that into something like Hawking says there is no god.

 

Even worse are the comments from the self proclaimed followers of Jesus.   

Thank you. I was trying to point this out earlier, but it wasn't coming out right, so I deleted it. 

DrW:

sthilda:

 

Anyway you look at it, belief in a god-created or non-god created universe seems to me to be a choice.  Neither stance is strictly verifiable.

 

[     ] The "choice" here is simple. One either believes that the cosmos came into being by magic, or that it came into being naturally.

 

...

The "creation by magic" explanation is supported only by unfounded belief and delusion born of (often willful) ignorance.

 

If one is going to claim the belief in God as the creator of the universe is a "choice", they should be willing to admit that it is a bad choice and based on subjective evidence rather than objective evidence. 

Well, I am somewhat guilty of using black & white language & presenting this mental dilemma as a false choice.  Clearly, this doesn't have to be an either/or choice.  So I apologize for setting up the statement involving only 2 basic choices.

However, I am not entirely clear what you mean by "magic."  Or by Naturally, for that matter.  It seems that you have also set up a false choice.  Belief in a fairy tale, or belief that science will answer all the questions of ultimate reality and meaning. 

You could be right, but you sound so definite.

I also am not quite sure why belief in God (I also understand the problems with defining said God), is a bad choice.  By whose criteria?  Yours?  How is it a bad choice?  Because you say it's based on subjective evidence?  and what do you mean by "bad?" 

The accusation of Bad Thinking sounds to me like a subjective judgment. 

Doctor Faustus:

But Hilda, that's the rub.  The definition of God keeps changing.  

 Dr. F - Good point.  My experience is that some person of authority, a parent, church leader, village priest, gets to define God, and then somehow gets to enforce this definition of God.

I've been exploring the idea of coming to my own understanding of God.  However, I understand that I have no authority to try to impress this understanding on anyone else.

But your points are well taken.  Over human history, and even today, the endless definitions of, and understandings of God/s seem to point to the notion of a Higher Deity being not much more than a human mental construct.

This has been a great discussion. Easy to see who the scientists are on the board.

Here is my response to an number of good points made relative to my last post.

• First of all, I will admit to being a somewhat of a hard-liner when it comes to science vs religion. Make no mistake about it, the Abrahamic religions and science are diametrically opposed to one another.
• IMHO one really does have to choose how they will build their worldview. Mine is that of an "extremely low probability" agnostic. That is, I see the probability of there being a god as described by the Abrahamic religions (and especially by Mormonism) as so vanishingly small that it does not even merit more than one time cursory consideration.

• With regard to AF'sand other points about M-Theory, a agree. It has holes. So does Newtonian gravity, and there remains a gap in physics between quantum mechanics and relativity. Nonetheless, the scientific enterprise is a (perhaps the only) valid means of gaining useful knowledge of the physical world.

• With regard to Ahau's argument that religion was at one time valuable to mankind, but is now vestigial, I guess I would agree, up to a point. And I would fix that point much further back in history that would most, I imagine.

• sthilda: by "bad", I simply meant "not the best" among the two choices being discussed.

• sthilda:  I guess I do sound definite. Perhaps that is because I have worked in science pretty much my whole life and have had the opportunity to compare its fruits to those of religion. I have been able to do this over many decades, and in many countries (more than 60).  

  Time after time, country after country, culture after culture I have compared the outcomes of irrational, unfounded believe with those of scientific inquiry and rational thinking.  Based on these observations, I definitely choose science and rationality.

DrW:

• With regard to AF'sand other points about M-Theory, a agree. It has holes. So does Newtonian gravity, and there remains a gap in physics between quantum mechanics and relativity. Nonetheless, the scientific enterprise is a (perhaps the only) valid means of gaining useful knowledge of the physical world.

 I was saying that there is a distinction between a theory with holes (such as M theory and gravity) and a far-fetched hypothesis. Because even with so many holes, M theory and gravity are both extremely useful theories whereas "god did it" is completely useless. The point of my entire pontification was that it'll never go away as an argument, at least as long as people believe silly things, because it's still technically valid as a hypothesis even though it's absurd.

 But obviously, I couldn't agree more that the Scientific Method is the only real valid way to gain knowledge.  

AngelicFerret:

 

 But obviously, I couldn't agree more that the Scientific Method is the only real valid way to gain knowledge.  

Angelic Ferret (can't you just see a sweet little ferret running around with a halo?)

- I would agree that the Scientific Method is likely the best tool for gaining knowledge & making decisions, in most cases.  The SM is also used outside of the physical sciences, in economics, psychology, etc, as a method for testing theories/hypotheses.

However, I doubt that the SM is the only valid way to gain knowledge.  If I can come up with even one instance of knowledge gained in some other fashion, won't this disprove your contention?

I suppose we also need to consider the problem of what "knowledge" means.

DrW:

This has been a great discussion. Easy to see who the scientists are on the board.

 

Here is my response to an number of good points made relative to my last post.

 

• First of all, I will admit to being a somewhat of a hard-liner when it comes to science vs religion. Make no mistake about it, the Abrahamic religions and science are diametrically opposed to one another.
• IMHO one really does have to choose how they will build their worldview. Mine is that of an "extremely low probability" agnostic. That is, I see the probability of there being a god as described by the Abrahamic religions (and especially by Mormonism) as so vanishingly small that it does not even merit more than one time cursory consideration.

 

• With regard to AF'sand other points about M-Theory, a agree. It has holes. So does Newtonian gravity, and there remains a gap in physics between quantum mechanics and relativity. Nonetheless, the scientific enterprise is a (perhaps the only) valid means of gaining useful knowledge of the physical world.

 

• With regard to Ahau's argument that religion was at one time valuable to mankind, but is now vestigial, I guess I would agree, up to a point. And I would fix that point much further back in history that would most, I imagine.

 

• sthilda: by "bad", I simply meant "not the best" among the two choices being discussed.

 

• sthilda:  I guess I do sound definite. Perhaps that is because I have worked in science pretty much my whole life and have had the opportunity compared its fruits to those of religion. I have been able to do this over many decades, and in many countries (more than 60).  

  Time after time, country after country, culture after culture I have compared the outcomes of irrational, unfounded believe with those of scientific inquiry and rational thinking.  Based on these observations, I definitely choose science and rationality.

 

 

 

 

 

                The more I think about this, I find myself pushing this point further and further back in time as well.  In terms of Western Civ, probably previous to classical ancient Greece.  If I were back in school, examining the impacts of religion on societal development would make a fascinating thesis topic (though I think one would be hard pressed to fix a point where these curves cross that could objectively be agreed upon).

                When it comes to this question, I don't think you're out of line in being this definite.  This is a question of Epistemology and objective reality.  The Scientific Method and Logic (which are intertwined) are how we obtain objective (or close to objective) knowledge about the world in which we live, through a bottom-up approach.  Presupposing a God is a top-down approach that always begs the question of the existence of God prior to making any arguments.  There is no question in my mind about which is the better way to acquire knowledge, and our development as individuals and society will always be stunted if we limit ourselves to subjective, unverifiable experiences and irrational thought.

I just finished Walter Isaacson's biography of Albert Einstein, an absolutely wonderful book. I listened to it on CD and Edward Hermann's performance marvelous. I loved the book so much I went straight to the bookstore after I dropped the CDs off at the library so I could re-read parts of the book. (Oh, who am I kidding? It's so I could look at the pictures.)

I never took physics (something I regret now) and took only the necessary amounts of biology and chemistry (which I also regret).  However, now I have an intense curiosity about the cosmos and the natural world. I've been reading as much as I've had time to about science. Maybe I can award myself an honorary B.S. in "general sciences" in another year or two.

This is a long lead-up to say that even the brightest minds have wrestled heavily with these issues. Einstein had his own notion of god (though in a very Deistic sense) and wouldn't allow others to call him an atheist. I don't believe in a personal god and have no reason to believe in one at all, but I remain technically agnostic because I simply "don't know," but I'm also not worried about not knowing. My sense is that if there is a god, it/she/he is nothing like what we have conceptualized. But then again, I also doubt that this god would violate the laws of nature and I see nothing in my admittedly limited understanding of the laws of nature that allows for something god-like so though agnostic I guess it would be with my skepticism turned up to 11.

What I can no longer tolerate is the attack on science because you have a preconceived notion of god (or whatever else) and toss out anything that doesn't fit your limited notion of the world and universe like some of these MADBers seem to be doing.

 Signature 

“There’s an old saying about those who forget history. I don’t remember it, but it’s good.” — Stephen Colbert

Some random thoughts.

Hilda, I agree that God is largely a mental construct.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It is also possible that God exists entirely external to our world.  The problem for our purposes is that one can never test or disprove a concept if that concept is without definition.  And that is what keeps happening.  The Mormon habit of embuing a concept with divine and institutional authority, then deligitimizing and redefining it, only then to change it again when circumstances demand, is in fact common to all the Judeao-Christian traditions.  In such a world none of us can get past the point of agnosticism because it is impossible to test a protean idea.

Angelic Ferret, I was surprised by your strict distinction between theory and hypothesis because I have heard many scientists use them more or less interchangeably.  Serendipitously, I am rereading the older Hawking books as background for the new volume and came across the following in A Briefer History of Time, p. 14:  "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis:  you can never prove it."  I think this overlapping usage is common.

Swearing Elder, if you liked the Einstein biography you may want to try Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality.  It's a little more detailed but generally true to the physics and well written.

Regards to all,

Faustus

DrW:

This has been a great discussion. Easy to see who the scientists are on the board.

 

Here is my response to an number of good points made relative to my last post.

.........

• sthilda:  I guess I do sound definite. Perhaps that is because I have worked in science pretty much my whole life and have had the opportunity to compare its fruits to those of religion. I have been able to do this over many decades, and in many countries (more than 60).  

• Time after time, country after country, culture after culture I have compared the outcomes of irrational, unfounded believe with those of scientific inquiry and rational thinking.  Based on these observations, I definitely choose science and rationality.

Dr W - I went back & read your first post & realized I glossed over something important you said.  If your statement of naturally meant that an understanding of how the universe was created, or came into existence, can be explained by scientific models, processes & so forth, I would agree with you.

Isn't that what science is supposed to do?  Explain the physical phenomena of our world & the universe?  Fair enough. 

My point was that I thought you oversimplified the position of a believer in a divine Creator by reducing such belief to the pejorative "magic."  One could argue that a Creator thought the universe into existence & that science is discovering how that happened.  (but this really winds up staying at the level of argument)

But of course, this Creator doesn't seem to be a physical phenomena, but truly an object of belief.  So resorting to said Creator as an explanation seems like a cop-out, and not in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge.

My deeper concern is that science, technology, and the scientific process & methods have themselves become deified in modern life.  I do not feel under any compulsion to look for ultimate meaning & reality in science.  I am searching for that ultimate meaning, and have learned not to confuse institutions, social mores, personal achievements, and other systems with that deeper meaning. 

I guess I am as suspicious of science as I am of religion, or politics, etc. 

But I am also enjoying the conversation.  Thanks for the feedback.

sthilda:

AngelicFerret:

 

 But obviously, I couldn't agree more that the Scientific Method is the only real valid way to gain knowledge.  

 

Angelic Ferret (can't you just see a sweet little ferret running around with a halo?)

 

- I would agree that the Scientific Method is likely the best tool for gaining knowledge & making decisions, in most cases.  The SM is also used outside of the physical sciences, in economics, psychology, etc, as a method for testing theories/hypotheses.

 

However, I doubt that the SM is the only valid way to gain knowledge.  If I can come up with even one instance of knowledge gained in some other fashion, won't this disprove your contention?

 

I suppose we also need to consider the problem of what "knowledge" means.

 Hey!

I'm glad you got a kick out of the name. It's going to be great when we get that project launched.

 Regarding the hilited bit, I'd say that you can gain knowledge through experience as well, but be careful as it was "experience" that was once a testimony for me that TSCC was true.

I should probably reword that because I can see what you're saying. Let's say that the Scientific Method is the only valid authority on knowledge. 

Knowledge itself may be a bit harder to define since awareness of fiction could also be considered knowledge. The trick is separating fact from fiction.

Doctor Faustus:

Some random thoughts.

  

Angelic Ferret, I was surprised by your strict distinction between theory and hypothesis because I have heard many scientists use them more or less interchangeably.  Serendipitously, I am rereading the older Hawking books as background for the new volume and came across the following in A Briefer History of Time, p. 14:  "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis:  you can never prove it."  I think this overlapping usage is common.

 

Regards to all,

 

Faustus

 There is a distinction in the scientific community at least in regards to published papers, and the whole mess with Evolution in the southern US means there's a big push right now make the distinction really strict even in conversation. (They're trying to kill the "it's only a theory" argument against evolution by making it more clear what theory actually means to a scientist)

 Still, what Hawking was saying there is technically correct in that no theory, no matter how widely accepted, is infallible. That's one of the great things with how science works, out with the old and in with the new. 

Ah, I see.  Thanks, AF.  I worry about that, though, because it would be erroneous to describe a theory as fact or truth.  Most of these things have drawbacks and will be superseded.  The religiously extreme (differentiating fundamentalists from the sort of seeker that Hilda describes and I, frankly, respect) will take every revision and improvement of theory as proof that no theory is correct.  The bottom line is that nothing a scientist can say will prevent true believers from denouncing the fruits of scientific inquiry, so I wonder how much value there is in arguing with them.

Faustus