lcb

a classmate told me that recently a famous physicist just announced that he now beleived in a creator God based on mathematical evidence, anybody know anything about this? a guy name Hawking, or somethijng i think..

Viti

Did your classmate cite any reliable news source for this incredible tidbit? If you mean Stehpen Hawking, I am sure there would be numerous news stories but I can't find a one.

Orestes

Didnt Hawking not too long ago essentially declare a creator god unnessecary?

Doubting Didymus

I suspect a misquoting. Remember when this happened to darwin? Also, I have found that physical science writings are extremely easy to take out of context, because the concepts involved are difficult to understand at a first glance, so its painfully easy to say 'look! this makes no sense. God is real!' or equally easy: 'look! this famous physicist admits the possibility of god!'. Show me the quote in context.

Nickolaus

Theists make that kind of crap up all the time, especially young ones. They think that since there is a god anyway, it doesn't hurt to make up evidence and convince other people. They're doing you a favor.

I am

Allow me to quote MC Hawking

<a href="http://www.mchawking.com/" target="_blank">MC Hawking</a>

Fiach

Likely all scientists will admit to the possibility, a remote possibility of some kind of an undefined God, beit an inanimate force (unified field) or interdimensional force yet undiscovered. Yet they will add that they doubt the existence of gods. Atheism is the lack of believe in God by definition. It is not the absolute knowledge that there is no God. None of us know that for sure. We just doubt it, and admit that anything is possible however improbable. Such comments are taken out of context by fundies to claim that a scientist has converted. In some cases they just bloody damn lie about it as they did with Darwin and Carl Sagan.

While scientists, including this physician and researcher in neuroscience, admits the possibility of some kind of creator, I think that it would more likely be non-conscious, non-cognitive that belches out big bangs as one of its properties or only property.

A conscious, cognitive being is unnecessary to fulfill the role of God. Consciousness and cognition are animal traits that evolved for survival in a competitive ecosystem. Consciousness/cognition functions to find food, mate and reproduce, and escape predators. Presumably God need not feed, have sex, or escape a predator. Generally if a trait is unnecessary it doesn't happen.

Fiach

Albion

"a guy named Hawking or something i think..." Am I being cynical or is this not quite as disingenuous as it's meant to sound? A guy named Hawking or something, indeed!

Bill

Stephen W. Hawking speaks of "God" frequently in his lectures and writing. But having just finished <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=848" target="_blank">The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe</a> by Hawking, I can assure you that his references to "God" could never be taken as referring to any deity that people here on Earth actually worship. Let me give you a lengthy quote from the very end of above book: I suppose that you could take that quote out of context and assert that it acknowledged some sort of "creator God." But it seems obvious to me that he is discussing Einstein's God, the God who "does not play dice with the universe." (This was part of Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics.) This is the God of Physics, not the God of Christianity.

But the above quote only demonstrates that Hawking is grappling with the same "problem of life" that Wittgenstein wrestled with. It is just that Hawking lacked Wittgenstein's insight into the limits of expression, so Hawking leaves us with the impression that it is possible, eventually, for humans to know the answer to the question of "Why?"

Hawking's use of the word "God" is no different, really, than Wittgenstein's. And if you read Jim Still's essay on <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">The Mental Discomfort of “Why?”</a> you will see that Hawking and Wittgenstein really are grappling with the exact same problem. This is quite remarkable given the disparaging comments that Hawking makes about Wittgenstein.

My personal comment is that Hawking gives philosophers (like Wittgenstein) way too little credit for their real understanding of science, and at the same time, he gives himself and other scientists way too much credit for understanding modern philosophy. I think this clearly demonstrates why both disciplines are still required.

So, does Hawking really believe in the existence of a "creator God?" I do not personally think so. I personally believe that he is troubled with <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">The Mental Discomfort of “Why?”</a> and God is just a convenient placeholder for the real answer: "I don't know; and you don't know either, because, as Wittgenstein clearly demonstrated, no human can ever know." That isn't a pleasing answer for a physicist who is dedicated to the eternal advancement of human knowledge. So, Hawking rejects that answer, in spite of its validity, and inserts the word "God" instead. Too bad that Hawking is as ignorant of philosophy as he claims that modern philosophers are ignorant of science. Too bad, because Hawking would make a damn good atheist.....

== Bill

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

Bill

Yeah, that too.

You can read my quote, above, from the end of Hawkings book, <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=848" target="_blank">The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe</a>. At the end of the second previous chapeter, Hawking closes with this paragraph: So, between the two quotes I've given from this book, the one above and the one in the prior post, you can see that Hawking comes down firmly on both sides of the God question. However, he does it in such a way as to not negate the atheistic viewpoint. He frankly affirms his belief in the "no boundary, no edge" hypothesis. Two essays later, at the end of the book, while he seems to be considering the idea that God might have started the universe off at some hidden point in the distant past, he does so in a context which makes clear that he is merely troubled by the ancient "problem of life." So, see what I wrote about that, above.

== Bill