Steven Hawking's Premature Proclamation

In his latest book, renowned astronomer Stephen Hawking has boldly proclaimed that God did not create the universe. An introductory article can be found at the Wall Street Journal on-line at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond.

To be fair, I have not read Hawking’s book yet. Indeed, it isn't scheduled to go on sale until Tuesday, September 7, 2010. While I am interested in astronomy and science, I would be remiss if I pretended that I could critique Hawking’s math or his astrophysics. What I can criticize however, is the fallacy and the faith that he has let befoul his science.

Hawking seems to have invested heavily in the idea that science and the God of the Bible are at odds. This has also worked its way into the now-defunct “God of the Gaps” theory, which held that whatever could not be explained by science was accomplished by God. The problem this idea would seem to pose for Christianity is that the more science tells us, the less God is left to do (or be necessary for). This is exactly what Hawking’s new book capitalizes upon. His latest theory (and it may be accurate on this point) offers that the number of universes in alternate dimensions may well be infinite. He follows this up by saying that since the possibilities for finely tuned life-giving solar systems is unlimited in an infinite multiverse, that we happen to exist isn’t particularly unique. I disagree with the statement concerning uniqueness, but this is also where Hawking stealthily (or perhaps unwittingly) inserts his own faith commitment and tries to pass it off as science.

What Hawking has in his crosshairs is the anthropic principle, which basically argues for design (or intelligent design if you are a Christian). The argument goes something like this: Since there are so many (literally hundreds or thousands) of finely-tuned facets necessary for life to exist (much less evolve), it is likely that a designer of some sort had their hand in it. Stated another way, the sheer improbability of all those categories coalescing perfectly to give rise to intelligent life is so extremely unlikely that it would essentially take more faith to believe that there is no designer than to believe otherwise. Hawking attempts to pull the rug out from this line of thinking by suggesting that life is not particularly unique in the universe(s) and that we just happen to be “lucky” enough to be in one corner of it where life has come together on its own.

Back to the God of the Gaps fallacy. The problem with the fallacy that Hawking has incorporated is that he presupposes science and Christian faith to be at odds. The argument rests on the notion that if science can show how something happened, then it means that God had nothing to do with it. I must be quick to point out that while Hawking has not proven his theory here, he may be right about an infinite universe or universes. Nevertheless, what he fails to consider is that God may have ordered all of creation (or multiverses) to operate according to what we call “scientific principles and laws.” In that sense, we might well consider science a window into the mind of God rather than his competitor. Put another way, theology can offer why God created and what our relationship with that entity might be, but science can offer how God created. This is fascinating, and it leads me to think that good science is one of the most amazing and important enterprises for humanity to explore.

For his part however, Hawking seems to believe that God’s creation can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is akin to a person suggesting that the scientific method can be used to prove that the scientific method doesn't work. While I have little doubt that Hawking is a brilliant scientist, I hope that his readers (and mine) can perceive the problem with that kind of thinking. Like any other atheist, Hawking is welcome to believe that God did not create the universe, but that is little more than a faith commitment, and it stretches beyond the reach of his scientific research. I suspect that his new book makes no such admission, but I hope that I am pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise. Time will tell.

Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth