In her article ‘Is There a God? Stephen Hawking Gives the Definitive Answer to the Eternal Question,’ Marginalian author Maria Popova outlines the content of the great professor’s last book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, in which he dismisses the need for God in the creation of the universe. 

Now, I’m not clever enough to fasten Stephen Hawking’s bootlaces. I have only a rudimentary knowledge of cosmology, but with the right research and by applying a fair and unbiased methodology, I think that flaws in his arguments can be exposed. I’ve summarised the points of his argument below and responded to them in my own way:

“One could define God as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of as God. They mean a human-like being, with whom one can have a personal relationship.”

Hawking refers to God in classic Western terms; as a personified being. This shows a lack of understanding about God. There are other versions of God— the Eastern God, for example, in which God is a universal force present in all things. The Eastern God is literally the embodiment of the laws of nature, therefore Hawking’s arguments appear to support this concept. In addition, we could ask ourselves, why are the laws of nature as they are? There’s no particular reason why they should be this way because they could exist in an infinite number of possible ways, which in my mind suggests they are far from accidental. 

“Since we know the universe itself was once very small—perhaps smaller than a proton—this means something quite remarkable. It means the universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.”

Other models of the early universe are available! Far from being a proven fact, this is highly speculative physics because at that time and scale, nothing can be properly known. Besides, the universe from a singularity model is quite old now and not generally accepted. Theoretical physicist Matt Strasler explains that beyond a certain point, nothing is known for certain about the origins of the universe. “I’m honestly very confused. Who is still telling the media and the public that the universe really started with a singularity, or that the modern Big Bang Theory says that it does? I’ve never heard an expert physicist say that.” In short, he says, no one knows for sure how the universe started. Some cosmologists think the universe may have originated out of a super-dense plasma, or from a black hole or a gravitational collapse. Others argue that the Universe we live in is like a hole in a sea of superdense cosmic material, within which all kinds of bubble universes exist. While others still believe we are limited to one universe, suggesting that a singularity or a black hole would not allow for the creation of another universe. So, lots of speculation then, but no proof.

“The laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in.”

The idea that time began with the inception of the universe does not belong to modern cosmologists. Ancient religious thinkers such as St. Augustine believed that time and the universe were created simultaneously, and if God exists as a universal force within all things, then perhaps our all-pervasive God was created at the same time as the universe. But if we are one of many universes, as many cosmologists claim, then each must have its own laws of time, and so there must be competing notions of time in each universe. Again, there are lots of ideas out there, and it really isn’t settled at all. It may never be answered because we are talking about something that may be beyond the comprehension of what is possible to know. 

To summarise then, it hasn’t been too difficult for this non-expert to punch some holes in Stephen’s arguments, and I think this exposes a huge flaw in his reasoning. Why did a renowned theoretical physicist feel the need to write a book attacking the faith of millions of people as the last swan song of his brilliant career? The man was a genius in the truest sense, and so a book on this topic, which must have seemed seductive, was not a good idea in my opinion. Far from giving us the definitive answer to the existence of God, Stephen demonstrates only that he misunderstands faith. Religious people are not looking for verifiable proofs, evidence, and scientific validity. Their faith isn’t built on logic. It is a highly emotional, deeply personal, and hugely rewarding belief system that brings meaning and comfort to their lives. Science meddling in faith is no better than religious zealots trying to manipulate science to suit their own dogma. Far from being conclusive, Stephen’s responses to the question ‘is there a God,’ appear to show he fell into the trap of thinking science had answers to philosophical and theological questions that are not within the remit of science to answer. Now, it may be that religious people are deluded in thinking they have that answer too, but they are perfectly entitled to that. It is their faith after all.

Sources

Stephen Hawking the Marginalian by Maria Popova

Inflation for beginners John Gribbin

A universe from nothing by Sean Carroll

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?  MATT STRASSLER