Hawking's creation view is not so anti-God

By Matthew Firth

I don’t often find myself commenting on books that have not yet been published, but I feel the need to join the trend of recent days and give my perspective on Stephen Hawking’s forthcoming book The Grand Design, due to be released on 9^th September.

As a result of extracts from the book being published in The Times, various sensationalist headlines have popped up in the press, such as this offering from the BBC website: ‘Stephen Hawking: God did not create universe’.

It has to be said that the study of the interaction between science and theology is a vast and complex arena of thought and debate, and few things are as clear cut as they might first seem. It turns out, though, to my mind at least, that this particular episode of the media’s reporting of the science/theology interface can be dealt with fairly easily, and with significant advantage in the area of Christian apologetics.

Our first task is to identify what Hawking has actually written, which is admittedly difficult given that, at the time of writing this, his book has not yet been published! We can, however, get a good picture of Hawking’s view from various extracts that have appeared in The Times. It seems that Hawking’s current view is that the laws of physics themselves can bring the universe into existence, thus rendering obsolete the idea that God is needed to ‘light the blue touch paper’ and set the universe going.

A number of things can be said about this. Firstly, Hawking’s view can hardly be simplistically condensed into the statement that ‘God did not create [the] universe’, as BBC headline editors have tried to do. Hawking has not denied the existence of God as Creator, he has simply denied one particular presentation of that doctrine which says that God lit the blue touch paper at the beginning of time, kick-started things, and then left the universe to get on with it. Rather, says Hawking, the deep laws of physics are the means by which the universe comes into being and evolves into the future.

In a sense, then, Hawking’s view is actually quite similar to the standard Christian view. The Bible does not teach that God lit the blue touch paper at the beginning of time and then left the universe to get on with things. Rather, the Bible presents a picture of a God who, through his Word and through his deep wisdom and reason, brings the universe into existence and continues to do so in an intimate way at every moment. Surprisingly, then, what Hawking sees as the deep laws of physics creating and sustaining the universe, Christians see as the divine Word (Greek: logos) of God, which is the deep reason and wisdom of God that lies behind all existence moment by moment.

I’m not arguing that Hawking’s view is identical to the Christian view. I’m simply illustrating the point that, to me, it does not seem to be a huge intellectual step to travel from Hawking’s view, that the deep laws of nature lie behind all existence, to the Christian view that says the deep personal wisdom and reason of the divine logos of God lies behind the continuing existence of the universe.

Indeed, I would want to argue that some of Hawking’s earlier writings require such an intellectual step to be taken. In the final chapter of his famous A Brief History of Time (which is probably second only to the Bible in being the most owned but least read book), Hawking makes some important statements and asks some crucial questions:

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe?

- A Brief History of Time pp.192-93 (Bantam Books, 1988)

I believe that Hawking needs to take the intellectual (and spiritual, which is closely linked with the intellectual) step of recognising that the deep laws of nature (the unified theory, as he calls it) are a reflection of the deep wisdom, reason and Word of God which lies behind all existence.

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? God. Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Yes, because the universe is an inexorable overflow from the love of God, expressed in the depths of his divine Word (the logos, who was made flesh in Jesus). Does it need a creator? It does. The divine Word of God underlies all of existence, creating and sustaining the whole universe moment by moment. Does the creator have any other effect on the universe? Oh yes! But that’s where the Easter story begins...

In conclusion, Stephen Hawking has not denied the existence of a creator. Rather, and probably unbeknown to him, he has expressed a view of creation which chimes in tune with the Christian view, and which may well open the way for others to see what he does not yet see: that the deep laws of nature are a glorious reflection of the wise and loving heart at the heart of the universe.

Matthew Firth read astrophysics at Cambridge and theology at Oxford and is now curate of St Matthew, Triangle & All Saints, Ipswich.

The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norfolk, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below. Article courtesy of www.networkipswich.co.uk

Feedback:

(page 1 2 3)

	Matthew Firth (Guest)	13/09/2010 00:01
Of course God can use philosophy as a means of bringing us into contact with his revelation, but that revelation is still primary. And correct philosophical groundwork is, in any case, not necessary, since, as I've said, there are many seemingly sound philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God. So, as you laid your philosophical groundwork before coming to faith, you could just as easily have constructed a system which led to atheism. Which is why we need to acknowledge that the revelation of God is in the driving seat of people coming to a true view of things, not philosophy. Philosophy can cut either way, so we must not elevate its importance in leading to a true view of things. Romans 2.14-16 is Paul having a go at the Jews who think that their privileged position as those to whom the Law was given gives them security. He rubs their noses in the fact that the key thing is keeping the Law, and even Gentiles can do that without even knowing it. Thus, again, he seeks to set Jew and Gentile on equally bankrupt footings (he's writing into a situation in the Roman church where the power balance has shifted in favour of the Gentile believers over against the Jewish Christians: he seeks to knock everybody down a peg or two and proclaim that salvation is in Christ, by grace.). So it's not really about the idea that moral groundwork (as you say, 'the desire to be more moral') can increase the expectancy of realising Christ as Lord, as you suggest. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think that Paul would wince at such an idea, given that he is so committed to the idea of grace. Then on to Psalm 19. You say that 'the meat of inferring God is in the existence of nature, and this is pure philosophy.' But Psalm 19 is not talking about inferring God through philosophy. The second half of the psalm concentrates on the Law, i.e. the specific revelation of God. So Psalm 19 actually subordinates any concept of natural theology (the philosophical inferrence of God through nature) to revelation. Any inferrences of God from nature are set within the context of revelation. As I've said, revelation is primary. We need to avoid projecting an overly philosophical hermeneutic onto Scripture.
	James Knight	13/09/2010 00:29
Now you're not reading my points properly Matthew. >> So it's not really about the idea that moral groundwork (as you say, 'the desire to be more moral') can increase the expectancy of realising Christ as Lord, as you suggest. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think that Paul would wince at such an idea, given that he is so committed to the idea of grace.<< That misrepresents my point - I wasn't suggesting that St Paul said that desire to be more moral can increase the expectancy of realising Christ as Lord - if you read my post properly you'll see I said something very different; I said that unbelievers are still acting in accordance with their God-given conscience - I made no point about gravitating towards salvation. Although, in actual fact, I disagree with your claim that St Paul would wince at the idea that the desire to be more moral can increase the expectancy of realising Christ as Lord, because I think that is plainly wrong. One can easily set oneself the goal of being as moral as possible and see in Christ a standard so high and unattainable that this is good reason to believe this man speaks the words of God. I did this myself. >> Then on to Psalm 19. You say that 'the meat of inferring God is in the existence of nature, and this is pure philosophy.' But Psalm 19 is not talking about inferring God through philosophy.<< Again, gross misrepresentation of what I said - my comment wasn't in direct relation to Psalm 19 - it was a myriad of diverse philosophies to do with nature being unable to be compressed to a mathematical zero, not being complex enough to possess Aseity, and a hint at the something from nothing problem that plagues atheism. The underlying irony is this; I've already explained that philosophy entails all forms of basic thinking and is supported by cognitive preconditions, and yet your entire formulation of a defense of revelation uses the exact same philosophical groundwork that you wish to undermine.
	James Knight	13/09/2010 00:31
>> "And correct philosophical groundwork is, in any case, not necessary, since, as I've said, there are many seemingly sound philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God. << Are there? Perhaps you'd give an example then because I don't think there is one.
	Matthew Firth (Guest)	13/09/2010 09:29
Yes, there are: Wikipedia lists all sorts of examples. The fact is, philosophy cuts both ways! There is a debate! There are philosophers who could argue both of us into the ground. Philosophy can lead to theism or atheism: Arguments against the existence of God Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them. [edit] Empirical arguments Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions. The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures — such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, Hindu Vedas or the Baha'i Aqdas — by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to knowledge of God's existence. The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies. The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates. The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that life-forms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design. The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. The argument from parsimony (using Occam's Razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[28] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. [edit] Deductive arguments Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain. The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?". Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking "how can an all-knowing being change its mind?" See the article on omniscience for details. The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence. The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will — or has allotted the same freedom to his creations — by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing in eternity future. The transcendental argument against the existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.[29] A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests. [edit] Inductive arguments Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning. The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead." The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris. The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [edit] Subjective arguments Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general. The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God. The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect. The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God
	Matthew Firth (Guest)	13/09/2010 17:51
And to respond to James' comment of 13/09/2010 00:29, which I've only just seen: The original comments on Romans and Psalm 19 were as follows: >>St Paul...[confers] the view that the expectancy of one’s realisation of Christ as Lord increases commensurably with one’s desire to be more moral and emotionally intelligent.<< This suggests that the likelihood of coming to Christ increases in proportion with one's desire to be moral. That really does not bear much resemblance to Paul's theology, and is contradicted by the evidence of very many moral people who are also complete atheists. >>Psalm 19.1 is another good one, but I don't think of proclaiming the work of His hands in terms of the skies, planets or celestial wonder - to me the meat of inferring God is in the existence of nature, and this is pure philosophy...<< and >>my comment wasn't in direct relation to Psalm 19 - it was a myriad of diverse philosophies to do with nature being unable to be compressed to a mathematical zero, not being complex enough to possess Aseity, and a hint at the something from nothing problem that plagues atheism.<< So the comment was in direct relation to Psalm 19, and was a direct claim that philosophy can infer God from nature. The comment wasn't a 'myriad of diverse philosophies', it was an assertion of a position. As for aseity, it is not necessarily linked to complexity. And even an argument based around aseity can cut both ways. It is perfectly possible that God has built into the universe the cause of itself, or maybe it just has it! If we're willing to posit the idea of the aseity of God, it should be no surprise that people like Hawking posit the aseity of the universe. Again, the argument can cut both ways. Philosophy can lead equally well to atheism as it can to theism. But philosophy really comes into its own as a context for a faith which is ignited by revelation.
	James Knight	13/09/2010 21:53
Matthew, you said... >> "And correct philosophical groundwork is, in any case, not necessary, since, as I've said, there are many seemingly sound philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God. << Note you said 'seemingly sound' which suggested to me that you thought there is a sound philosophical structure supporting some of these arguments (perhaps verified with your "Philosophy can lead equally well to atheism as it can to theism" claim - a claim which, by the way, I fundamentally disagree with) - and I asked for an example because I don't think there is a 'seemingly sound' argument for the non-existence of God, and what you've posted confirms that. I didn't say there has been no 'attempt' at such an argument, I said none that are seemingly sound, and that remains true. Every single argument you've pasted is to me very obviously flawed and poorly thought out, and with each one I could easily show how and why. I should imagine you think them flawed as well, do you? If so, they're not exactly seemingly sound in your eyes are they? :-) >> This suggests that the likelihood of coming to Christ increases in proportion with one's desire to be moral. That really does not bear much resemblance to Paul's theology, and is contradicted by the evidence of very many moral people who are also complete atheists<< No, I think there is definitely concomitance between the two. In fact to deny so would rather contradict your claim that Godly things (of which goodness is one) are a form of revelation. Not only have I already told you that I came to Christ by recognising in Him a moral exemplar far beyond that which anyone else has posited or demonstrated, but as I say, it seems fairly obvious that that is a pattern of thinking available to most. St Paul's grace theology is not at odds with that - not at all. Besides morality is more than just actionable philosophy - it is as much about one's internal thoughts, feelings, drives, sensibilities, values and hopes - and given that any goodness an atheist has really is not so much theirs but God's gift to them - a truly moral person without artifice or evasion is likely to be concomitantly Christ-like anyway, in that their internal thoughts, feelings, drives, sensibilities, values and hopes support that outward impression of morality. >> So the comment was in direct relation to Psalm 19, and was a direct claim that philosophy can infer God from nature. The comment wasn't a 'myriad of diverse philosophies', it was an assertion of a position. << No, you're still not careful enough with your reading. I said "Psalm 19.1 is another good one, introduces new concept< I don't think of proclaiming the work of His hands in terms of the skies, planets or celestial wonder >>- to me the meat of inferring God is in the existence of nature, and this is pure philosophy...>>introduces myriad of diverse philosophies<<. >>As for aseity, it is not necessarily linked to complexity. And even an argument based around aseity can cut both ways. It is perfectly possible that God has built into the universe the cause of itself, or maybe it just has it! If we're willing to posit the idea of the aseity of God, it should be no surprise that people like Hawking posit the aseity of the universe. Again, the argument can cut both ways.<< Not really. The Bible suggests that God is of an entirely different genus to anything He creates, and I should imagine that He is the only thing which has its own causation built into it. Plus our knowledge of physics suggests that behind any physical nature will be a mathematical blueprint or algorithm that needs explaining. Moreover, the physical stuff of the cosmos seems too elemental to contain its own explanation - it appears to measure possibility - a possibility suggesting parsimony. >>But philosophy really comes into its own as a context for a faith which is ignited by revelation.<< Philosophy is enriched when coupled with revelation, sure, but as a general foundation for cognition you've still got it the wrong way round. I would have thought all I've said by now would have flicked the switch that shows you why you're wrong, particularly given that to me it is pretty clear that a multitude of philosophical preconditions must be up and running before we even consider terms like revelation; most notably, recognising what revelation is, which form it takes, interpreting that form, whether one’s sense data and emotions accurately represent a perception, whether one’s mental resources only retain their power when things are recognised as revelation, and 'most importantly' whether the faculty of one's own thoughts in relation to theism are reliable to begin with. That's pure philosophy my friend, just as every precursor to your thoughts about revelation is bootstrapped by mental artefacts that play on a rich diversity of influences, both good and bad. Another major difficulty is this - revelation, whether directly imparted from God, infused through nature, or another person, or read in the Bible or other great works, does not occur in a cultural or theological vacuum - it is dynamic, not a static artefact which can be assessable in terms of componential layering - it is played out amongst a backdrop of other dynamic infusions. Thus before you can even make a suggestion about the primacy of revelation over philosophy (which is to essentially negate one's own validity in apprehending such revelation) you need to have a clear picture of just what you think revelation is Matthew and how it makes its way into your thoughts. Is every thought you have a revelation? Does God use nature for all His revelation, some of it or none of it? What about other minds? What about in pre-Hebraic minds, perhaps before the concept of God infused into man? Not only do you need a firm philosophical basis to answer those questions (revelation about revelation suffers from self-referencing and undermines demarcations between conceptual clarity and opacity), but they need answering, before you can place any kind of premium on revelation over the mental substrate that hosts such revelation.
	Matthew Firth (Guest)	13/09/2010 23:02
>>Every single argument you've pasted is to me very obviously flawed and poorly thought out, and with each one I could easily show how and why.<< Do it then. Write your magnum opus which proves that God exists. The philosophical world is waiting for you to solve their biggest problem and settle the debate; the debate which none of the greatest minds in philosophy has ever been able to settle...until now. I want a signed copy when it's out. You have argued that you can think your way to God. That is a profoundly unbiblical stance. What you are suggesting is that it is possible to present a set of logical arguments which inexorably leads to the God conclusion. That suggestion really does go against the Bible's concept of revelation. You clearly love philosophy, but I think you trust it too much. It fuels your entire hermeneutic so much that you elevate it above revelation. I think it's an unbiblical position, which is why I've been in this lengthy debate. But I'm bowing out now.
	xxx (Guest)	14/09/2010 01:14
And I have attempted to bow in but seriously deleted. Ding Dong seconds out. Dear brothers with brain, sadly not tested. They will have to go through a few things before they are relieved of their certainness(is that a word?)Well, according to certain sources, no. But that not change the reality that only CHRIST HIMSELF IS LIFE.
	Ria Landon (Guest)	14/09/2010 12:22
I have follwed this discussion with interest. Well done Mathew for conducting yourself so gracefully as James has somewhat tried to hijack your article what with offering to answer questions for you etc. I do agree with you that James argument comes from an intellectual as opposed to biblical position which is probably why I find his words so difficult to understand. Yours however are much clearer and I do hope we will be hearing more from you.
	James Knight	15/09/2010 21:09
Matthew I'm no more elevating philosophy when thinking about hermeneutics than I am elevating arithmetic when finding the right change to pay for a pint of milk. If you look carefully you'll see I didn't say I could write a proof for God with an epigrammatic statement, I said that I could easily show that each of the arguments 'against God' that you pasted are not difficult to deconstruct and rebut or refute. Moreover, what I actually said is that being sure God exists is a complex mental position and cannot be validated with overly simplistic worldviews - so the certainty is bound up in one's whole outlook and ability to assimilate a coherent worldview that takes the narrative structures of God's output into every other subject. It will all be laid out in a book I'm writing called 'The Genius Of Christ'. As you didn't answer the all-important questions I posited (questions that would have helped you see philosophy not in terms of an academic subject, but as the seat of all thinking and learning), and as you've bowed out, I won't propound more points to a discussion which you seem to have no intention of continuing, so I'll bow out too. But do try not to be too defensive about philosophy as though it is only to be seen in terms of Plato, Bacon, Hegel, Kant, etc - philosophy is the simple metal constructs behind every bit of thinking we do. It is certainly not unbiblical - philosophy is to scripture as justice is to the judicial system or mathematics is to physics. There is no scripture without philosophy because there is no scripture without interpretation, and interpretation involves thinking.

(page 1 2 3)

Hawking's creation view is not so anti-God

We welcome article comments from users