blogtcs.com

Last week, physicist Stephen Hawking’s latest book — “The Grand Design” — made big news because in it Hawking claims that God didn’t create the universe. Many believers or “theists” thought Hawking was on our side. Turns out he’s not.

The above clip from Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer isn’t a walk in the park, but it does explain how, in some ways, Hawking’s logic is faulty. In a Wall Street Journal article adapted from his book, Hawking writes:

As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

The argument falls apart fairly quickly here… “the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” OK, so, as long as you have the laws of gravity and quantum theory, you can have this something from nothing? Hawking is cheating, you see, because the laws of gravity aren’t “nothing.” Where did the laws of gravity come from? And where else do we see — or postulate — this “spontaneous creation” happening? 

I suppose this is telling: As I read the WSJ article, I thought — despite reading other reports — that Hawking might just come out on the side of God, or at least agnostic to His existence. He goes through a litany of probabilities and improbabilities, how the universe seems to have been “tailor-made for humans.” How rare life is in the universe, etc. Religion, he says, has explained these “coincidences” through God’s agency. But modern science disagrees…

The problem, when it comes right down to it, is that modern science doesn’t concern itself with final causes. Science doesn’t tell us why so much as how. God doesn’t “exist” in science by definition — the discipline of science is to explain how things happen without playing the all-explaining “God-card.” You know, why do we need water to live? Science doesn’t say, “Because God made it that way.” Why is the sky blue? “Because God made it that way.” God did make it that way, but even believers don’t consider that part of science.

There’s a trend over the last several years for scientists to get involved in philosophy and theology. It isn’t their bag — they’re no good at it. No big deal, you know. If you asked me about making lasagna, you’re not going to get many right answers. I know there’s cheese and pasta and tomatoes. But that’s about it. I’m not ashamed of it. Difference is, I don’t go out and write a book about how to cook a lasagna.

No one would pay any attention to me. And even if they did, terrible lasagna recipes wouldn’t have a dreadful impact on the world.

Modern science is considered our highest intellectual discipline these days. It took that place away from theology around 500 years ago. But many modern scientists aren’t content with staying in their field. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s the money. (Richard Dawkings’ “God Delusion” was a best-seller, even though anyone who studied Catholic theology could have a laugh deconstructing it).

If Pope Benedict came out with a book on quantum mechanics, I suspect it wouldn’t be the best ever. No disrespect, but the Holy Father is a theologian, not a physicist. It wouldn’t get much attention by modern science, either. But when a genius scientist — who, as far as I know has no theological background — starts making claims about God’s involvement in creation, everyone listens. Why is that? Why do we have blind faith in science, even when it makes claims outside of its discipline?

Even though Hawking’s logic is faulty, it won’t stop his claim from having far-reaching impact. I just wish he’d been writing about lasagna.