Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Do not wish to be associated w/ II · 05-26-2002, 05:20 AM

I am cutting and pasting it here, as part of a quote to help avoid others having to register:

Quote:

Universe does not need God, says Hawking
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking has declared God unnecessary. The universe can be explained by the laws of physics, he says � there is no need for a supreme being.
His latest theories are not a denial of God�s existence, but they are bound to spark controversy with religious leaders.

In the past Hawking has said that time and space began with a big bang about 15 billion years ago. His bestselling book A Brief History of Time, published in 1988, gave a warning that developing theories of the origin of the universe have �profound implications for the role of God as creator�.

Now he has gone further, suggesting that the big bang, the universe and time itself are all embedded in a fifth dimension beyond the three that are visible and time, the fourth. Conditions in the fifth dimension caused the big bang and our universe.

�This means time would still have a beginning but one would not have to appeal to something outside the universe to determine how it began,� he said.

This weekend he added: �One can now have a scientific theory of the universe that does not involve God.� He will outline his views in a lecture in Cambridge in July to mark the 60th birthday of Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal.

Recently the sense that science is close to a �theory of everything� has prompted several eminent physicists to suggest that it can challenge religion�s basic tenets.

Among them is Steven Weinberg, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin. �Religion is just the primitive hangover from a time when everything that happened to man from a rainstorm to a forest fire was blamed on a god or deity. Science tells us the universe is not governed in any central way by external beings,� he said.

Neil Turok, professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge, works alongside Hawking and agrees that there is growing evidence that the universe needed no external creator.

He and Hawking have, however, very different views of just how the universe began and have made a wager on which of them will be proved right. Turok believes time has always existed and did not start with the big bang.

The test of their theories could come within a few years with the building of a new generation of satellites and particle accelerators. But Nicholas Lash, emeritus professor of divinity at Cambridge, says such research just pushes back humanity�s understanding of the origins of the universe. �None of them has yet explained what started it all off in the first place,� he said.

NB. I only read the Times under duress, honest

Do not wish to be associated w/ II · 05-26-2002, 05:22 AM

Furthermore- I wish I actually understood Hawking's work. Sadly I don't

. Mind you I haven't tried, that's this summer's project (as if).

lpetrich · 05-26-2002, 10:45 AM

I consider Stephen Hawking's early-Universe work very speculative, because it depends on having a good theory of quantum gravity; I think that SH is using various sorts of semiclassical shortcuts in his work, which may or may not be valid.

lpetrich · 05-26-2002, 10:46 AM

And even if one could determine that the Universe had had an external creator, what sort of entity would be demonstrated? Some very distant Deist sort of God? Seems like one that is very unsatisfactory for the theologians.

Bill · 06-01-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
<strong>And even if one could determine that the Universe had had an external creator, what sort of entity would be demonstrated? Some very distant Deist sort of God? Seems like one that is very unsatisfactory for the theologians. </strong>

The "universe" (as in all that exists as an object for study by the employment of "scientific method"), virtually by definition, cannot have any sort of "external creator." This is one of the points of Jim Still's essay, a la Wittgenstein, entitled <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">The Mental Discomfort of �Why?�</a>

Quote:

There can be no end to the limiting questions that probe beyond the limits of language and the world. After slipping on the ice of speculative confusion, we soon find that we must retreat to the rough ground of actual language in order to see clearly what went wrong (PI 107). In the end, any causal explanation that seeks to explain the world becomes, paradoxically, part of the facts within the world; thus, no explanation can adequately answer the questions of life.

In other words, the "universe" cannot contain the explanation for its own existence, and accordingly, any attempt to express any such explanation is bound to fail. It is ideas like these that force true theologians to divorce themselves from true philosophy (they are, and must of necessity be, complete enemies).

I'm not at all certain, however, to what degree the above principle operates to exclude the idea that the universe has no explanation for its own existence. It would seem to me that an eternal universe (one with an infinite past existence) should be flexible enough to contain the idea of its own non-beginning (the lack of any "first moment" in time).

== Bill

06-02-2002, 12:51 PM

Having the smartest man in the world on our side sounds pretty cool.

Corwin · 06-03-2002, 10:07 AM

Well come on now. Where else would he be? Speaking at a creationist rally? Please.

James AD · 06-03-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Do not wish to be associated w/ II :
<strong>...But Nicholas Lash, emeritus professor of divinity at Cambridge, says such research just pushes back humanity�s understanding of the origins of the universe. �None of them has yet explained what started it all off in the first place,� he said.</strong>

What kind of science writer finishes an article by quoting a divinity professor? Is he trying to suggest that theologians have? The "god" of the first cause and the "God" of sacred texts are not automatically one and the same. Comparing the theory of common descent and the big bang theory to the creation myths in Genesis tells me that they are not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-26-2002, 05:22 AM	#2
Do not wish to be associated w/ II Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: - Posts: 325	Furthermore- I wish I actually understood Hawking's work. Sadly I don't . Mind you I haven't tried, that's this summer's project (as if).

05-26-2002, 10:45 AM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I consider Stephen Hawking's early-Universe work very speculative, because it depends on having a good theory of quantum gravity; I think that SH is using various sorts of semiclassical shortcuts in his work, which may or may not be valid.

05-26-2002, 10:46 AM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	And even if one could determine that the Universe had had an external creator, what sort of entity would be demonstrated? Some very distant Deist sort of God? Seems like one that is very unsatisfactory for the theologians.

06-02-2002, 12:51 PM	#6
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Having the smartest man in the world on our side sounds pretty cool.

06-03-2002, 10:07 AM	#7
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Well come on now. Where else would he be? Speaking at a creationist rally? Please.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.