I listened to an episode of On Point on NPR this past weekend, where Tom Ashbrook interviewed Leonard Mlodinow, co-author with Stephen Hawking of a new book titled “The Grand Design.” I had never heard of Mlodinow before this episode, but I’d certainly heard of Hawking, the theoretical physicist that is confined to his wheelchair as a result of advanced ALS who wrote “A Brief History of Time” back in the 80s. His first book, “A Brief History…” was relatively short (heck, even I was able to read it) and did a reasonably good job at helping explain to the layman some very advanced cosmological concepts.
Their new book, “The Grand Design,” is set up to answer the question: “Is God necessary?” Or more generally, does all life in the Universe require the hand of an all-powerful Creator being? According to their book, the answer is “no.”
Now, as Mlodinow says in the interview, that answer doesn’t mean “there is no God.” He points this out a few times: Science itself cannot determine whether or not God (or any Creator) exists, but many or all of the questions of Creation can, in fact, be explained by Science. Hawking was quoted when the book came out as saying that “there is no God,” but that was a mischaracterization of what the book describes.
Interestingly, around the 12:30 mark of the podcast, Ashbrook plays some tape of an interview with Hawking from a few years ago.
Interviewer: “Do you believe in God?”
Hawking: “The basic assumption of science is scientific determinism. The laws of science determine the evolution of the universe, given its state at one time. These laws may, or may not, have been decreed by God, but he cannot intervene to break the laws, or they would not be laws. That leaves God with the freedom to choose the initial state of the universe, but even here, it seems, there may be laws. So God would have no freedom at all.”
While I realize this is something of a cryptic answer, my interpretation is that Hawking kinda believes as I do about this whole “Creation” thing. Hawking is describing the idea that our Universe is based on a series of Laws (e.g. gravity, the speed of light, etc.) and our Universe is well-suited to the existence of Life (as we know it…). If the Universe did not have the Laws it currently does, then Life would not exist (as we know it). Therefore, God set a series of Laws (or adhered to previously existing ones) that allowed for the existence of Life. Therefore, we humans eventually showed up on the cosmic block.
So yeah, as the authors point out, a Creator may not be “necessary” in a Scientific manner, in that our Universe is apparently set up in such a fashion that Life can and does exist. From that standpoint, God is “unnecessary.”
However, I would argue that God is, in fact, “necessary” for our lives, at the very least for the social and moral implications. Sure, God may not be “necessary” for our existence, but He is “necessary” for bringing meaning to that existence. For providing a moral compass to follow. For helping define who we are and who we all want to be. It all depends on how one views “God” (whether in the Christian, Muslim, or Judaic traditions, amongst others), but all faith traditions provide us with a relatively clear idea of the kind of people we should be. The kind of people we all want to be.
I guess I’ve always felt this way. I’ve never felt that the “Creation” part of the Bible was all that important to who I was. The Book of Genesis does not define my life. It really isn’t important how I was “created.” However, it’s important that I’m here now. I do exist, regardless of how it happened. My existence entails a sense of responsibility that I conduct that existence in a manner I can be proud of. So for me, God is necessary.
Side-note: Tom Ashbrook asks Mlodinow multiple times to explain how you get “something” out of “nothing,” as in, how exactly did all of the things we know just “spring up” out of the void of existence (e.g. the initial “Creation” itself). He tries explaining a few times but it was still pretty difficult to follow…may just need to read the book… I think he was trying to explain it in terms of quantum mechanics in that, according to what we know from quantum theory, you can actually have things just “appear.” He never said “Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle,” but I think that’s what he was getting at. Heisenberg stated that you can either know where an object is in space or how fast it’s moving, but you can’t know both at the same time. As I understand the theory, there’s all kinds of math involved that suggests you can actually get “something” out of “nothing.” Mlodinow also talked about multiple dimensions in his answer. In short, I don’t really understand it either, but it was addressed in the podcast as well…. 😛
I think it’s also important to think about why the old testament (including genesis) was written. We can’t understand that unless we know some things about who wrote it, and what ways they generally write. When one studies this, the old testament sort of comes alive.
Also- I remember learning about how the basic natural laws (gravity, etc.) have some strange connections that physicist are trying to put together to form a sort of overarching natural law. I wish I remembered more about that.
I think this idea that people have of God needing to work outside of His natural laws to prove himself is really interesting. I also think it is what spawns the whole God-V-Science thing. A shame. God is certainly powerful enough to do whatever it is He wants within the natural world he created. To think he would need to bend these rules is to make God weak.
so where does “primordial goo” fit in? (hope I spelled that right) 🙂
Regarding your second point, Nathan, they talk about that in the podcast, but you’re referring to the so-called Unifying Theory that ties together Newton’s Laws of Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. Basically, current Quantum Theory doesn’t quite work for large objects like planets, and the current Law of Gravity doesn’t work for small objects like electrons and quarks. Part of the purpose of the LHC is the hope of coming up with data necessary to “tying it all together,” but we’re still a ways off from such things.
To your third point, however, this brings up an interesting philosophical quandary: did God set all the Laws and all of Creation in the beginning knowing that certain events would play out (such that His intervention would be unnecessary now, ’cause it’s “all part of the plan”), or does God still intervene to this day, thus potentially defying the Laws that were set forth? I think that’s kinda what Hawking was getting at, to some extent. Regardless, that particular issue is a philosophical/theological debate, not a scientific one.
And good job, Mom. 😛
I think in regards to what Hawkings said I think you were right on target. The god he was saying is unnecessary was basically the god of “God of the Gaps” the common argument from ignorance (logical fallacy) used by creationists. The point being we do not need there to be a god to explain science. Though that does not mean there is not a god.
Though I would disagree with your conclusion that belief brings meaning to our lives and a moral compass to follow. I fully understand you can find meaning for existence in belief but saying god is “necessary” assumes that with a lack of belief there would be no sense of morality or meaning.
What I would say is that whether you are Christian, Muslim, Judaic, Pagan, Agnostic, or Athiest it does not matter. We as humans construct our morals and meaning from our society. Whether it is the teachings of the Bible, the Koran, or through our understanding of self and community through evolutionary psychology. Unless there is something physically wrong with the brain people feel empathy and sorrow, they can care and love regardless of what they choose believe. Belief can be useful but I would not say it is “necessary”.