I’ve read a number of books by Stephen Hawking (pictured) and Leonard Mlodinow, writing both together and separately. I’ve enjoyed them. They’re informative and funny, and they make clear some pretty deep concepts of physics and mathematics—without burdening you with a bunch of equations (that’s some trick).
But their new book The Grand Design
It’s a short read, which is fine, though I was surprised when I discovered that the last 25% of the already-short book to be composed of back matter (an exotic form of matter discovered by publishers; it consists of glossaries, indexes, author bios, acknowledgements, and the like).
Despite its brevity, it does a good job making clear some pretty far-out physics concepts, many of which are also treated in similar works, including Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s previous books. It is also nicely laced with humor.
What is disappointing is the way the book treats philosophy and theology.
Right at the beginning of chapter one they declare philosophy “dead,” saying that it hasn’t kept up with science. This is just sad, because The Grand Design is heavily involved with philosophy and philosophical ideas that are far from settled. For example, the authors spend a good bit of time arguing for their interpretation of what natural laws do and do not tell us about the universe (a view that they term “model-dependent realism”). That’s a philosophical position because it involves concepts that cannot be demonstrated empirically—in the laboratory, by scientific means. It’s also clearly something that isn’t settled because they feel the need to contrast and favorably compare their view to the rival views realism and anti-realism.
Then there’s the place in the text where they explicitly raise the question of whether there are exceptions to the laws of nature (miracles). After reviewing the history of thought on this question they then just simply declare that there are no exceptions—a view called scientific determinism—saying that this is the basis of all modern science. I’m sorry, but this is another philosophical idea. You can’t prove that there are no exceptions to the laws of nature because the laws of nature cannot be deduced in advance but have to be learned by observation (a point the authors make when they contrast Thales with Aristotle). But even if you have identified the way natural law works 99-point-however-many-9s-you-want percent of the time, in order to say that there are no exceptions to them you’d need to know the entire history of the universe, and you don’t.
There’s a whole butcher’s shop of philosophical meat to be carved into here.
Then there’s the fact that science itself is dependent on various philosophical disciplines like epistemology (the study of knowledge), philosophy of science, ethics (can you fake your lab results?), logic, metaphysics, and more—all of which contain hotly debated rival theories.
So it’s just sad to see two such smart guys making such an absurd (and deliberately provocative) statement.
The thing the book is getting press for, though, is not its treatment of philosophy but of theology: specifically, that God is not necessary to explain the origin of the cosmos.
In previous books the two have displayed some openness to religious ideas. For example, Hawking has said previously that a God might be needed to set up the laws of the universe, but he has now changed his mind on this. He and Mlodinow aren’t hostile to religion in the book. They’re not espousing “the New Atheism” and its militant hostility toward God. In fact, they don’t argue against God’s existence (i.e., provide arguments purporting to show that God does not exist). They simply claim that the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain natural law and the existence of the universe and life.
Why not?
That’ll be the subject of our NEXT POST.
Comments
Post a Comment
Looking forward to your follow-up post, Jimmy.
Kinda reminds me of Acts 26:24 He had reached this point in his defence when Festus shouted out, ‘Paul, you are out of your mind; all that learning of yours is driving you mad.’
Well-said, Jimmy. Very lucid analysis.
Just to clarify, the “driving you mad” comment was aimed at Hawking and Mlodinow, not Jimmy.
God might not have created the World according to Hawking, but he is ‘likely’ to destroy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WTDnvYqpA
scientists playing to be god are far worse than Gods playing to be human
You know, I never new that the index, glossaries, appendix, etc. was called that.
I’m not sure if Hawking is an atheist or an agnostic. I think he’s just viewing God and the universe from a scientific view. That’s the danger of losing one’s religion and being more of a scientist (and a genius to boot!).
Poor fools (Hawking & Mlodinow)! They think they know a lot. In comparison to their Creator’s knowlege, they know nothing.
They’re informative and funny, and they make clear some pretty deep concepts of physics and mathematics—without burdening you with a bunch of equations (that’s some trick).
Having read a little bit of Hawking on mathematics, and being a professional mathematician myself, I’d warn you not to put too much confidence in Hawking, whose understanding of group theory is muddled at best. His summary of Galois’ accomplishment in God Created the Integers cannot be described as merely wrong; it is so spectacularly wrong that I am reluctant to read even his work on physics.
What makes me laugh the most is the irony in all this… the reason “science” exists at all is because of the influene of the Catholic church. The belief that everything has order in the universe and therefore laws that govern it…. My source is Dr. Thomas E. Woods.
Thanks, Jimmy! Looking forward to the next segment. What I notice about these books that argue that through our ever-advancing scientific knowledge we eventually rule out the existence of God. Until science identifies a specific task that can never be explained by natural law, there is no evidence He exists. IOW, since there isn’t anything for Him to do, then why suppose a supernatural being exists at all? That belief is based purely in the assumption that we have reliable criteria for making such a determination. Well, we don’t have definitive criteria.
Skeptics and atheists criticize believers for falling into the “God of the Gaps” logical fallacy. But it appears the shoe is on the other foot. Each time a valid scientific theory eliminates a gap, it they have effectively uncovered evidence that He doesn’t exist. But all they’ve done is found evidence against the same limited concept of God we already know is illogical. Sorry but your proving that this doesn’t exist is no more logically convincing to the believer than it was to the non-believer back in the first place.
It sets up a false dichotomy: you must choose between embracing science or belief in God. But this is such a simplistic view lacking of cognitive skill. Our ability to evaluate and understand the Universe is a beautiful blessing. Most humans have the capacity to comprehend that science is a method of studying creation. The fact that natural processes are predictable and coherent indicates a Divine Intelligence. I am personally comfortable with advancing our scientific understanding to its full potential. Discoveries don’t eliminate God, they only reveal more about Him.
For Jack Perry:
I found your comment about Hawking’s book God Created the Integers to be very interesting. Those of us without expertise in advanced mathematics or physics are at the mercy of professional scientists, especially popularizers of scientific theories. If Hawkings was “spectacularly wrong” as you suggest(and I don’t doubt your claim), how are we laymen able to discover that fact? Are there books out there that challenge bad science (or mathematics) and that are as accessible as those of the popularizers? Your recommendations would be appreciated.
simply put,“God’s though,they didn’t throw it away,has nothing to do with the origin of life/universe..Yes ,they seems to be smarter than God..or arrogant in their knowledge..Always learning but never finding the truth..
Their sin is their “unbelief”.
Hayden, I don’t really know of any. I would say that, for the average layman who read Hawking’s book, that error simply wouldn’t have mattered very much for the general understanding. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of thing that stands out to someone with some training in the field (and group theory is a standard course in an undergraduate curriculum in mathematics).
I would encourage people to read popular science, but to do so critically and with skepticism. This is hard, because the media like to present scientists as absolute authorities who are disinterested investigators, and we humans do have a tendency to idolize “authorities” and “experts”. Yet I think the best writers of pop-sci would actually agree with me, for two reasons.
One, is human fallibility: people are bound to make mistakes. Although scientists are usually very good at their field of specialty, the moment they step outside that field of specialty, the only thing that might apply is their ability to think critically. But they almost always lack the knowledge necessary to engage in another field.
For example, some mathematicians write in their prefaces that they offer financial rewards to readers who find errors. Don Knuth is well-known as one, and I won a dollar from finding an error in a book on algebraic geometry (a great, great book, in spite of its errors).
If this is how professional mathematicians treat their own texts in their own field of specialty, imagine how much confidence you should have in popularized science!
Two, most fields of science are in a constant state of revision—I would say that pure mathematics is the only one that rarely revises previous work, but there are exceptions even there, as with (say) non-Euclidean geometries—and popular science tends to exaggerate the certainty of scientific conclusions. Too often, that popular science is tied to a non-scientific polemical, argument that pushes some sort of legislative agenda, as with the eugenics movement one century ago.
As a general rule of thumb, I would say that the more an author acknowledges his own fallibility, the more reliable that author. The more removed he is from his field of specialty, the less reliable he is. And, the more he is trying to speak in layman’s terms, the more you should realize that he is making a huge effort to avoid jargon, so be both grateful for the effort, and aware of the likelihood of error.
Stephen Hawking changed his mind again, since he said in 2002:
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. The whole history of the universe can be said to be the work of God.”
Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything.
Who knows, Stephen Hawking may keep changing his mind.
To see a more complete picture of what leading evolutionists including Stephen Hawking said about appearance of precise design of the inorganic universe and life, and why many choose to not believe what they observe, see ‘Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design’ at http://www.miraclesormagic.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution.html.
The idea of the scientific method is to produce as much objectivity as possible, but the issue of origins cannot be rigorously tested by observation or repeated so is outside the realm of pure science. Science can tell us how things work according to defined laws, but cannot tell us the origin of “designed laws”, as even Darwin acknowledged and attributed to a “Creator”. At its best, science can tell us how our universe works, but can never tell us why it exists.
The very beginning of the universe requires a miracle, since it is obvious and a fundamental law of true science that nothing in this universe comes from nothing. See ‘The Creation Evolution Controversy — Miracles of God and False Prophets’ at http://www.miraclesormagic.com/creation-evolution.html to see why genuine science demands a miraculous origin to our universe, and why Jesus Christ must be its Creator.
Whether at the cosmic or cell level, many leading evolutionists see clear, precise evidence of God’s existence, but choose not to believe it, and people who see such clear evidence must foolishly abandon reason to believe precise evidence for design and purpose is a grand illusion, instead of the conclusive evidence for God it is. As the Bible says:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things ... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen ... And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
GOD, Romans 1:22-23, 25, 28a.
Jack, Thanks for your thoughtful reply; I agree that popularizing science books should be published with a caveat and not an imprimatur. In fact, a healthy dose of humility would benefit any “expert” in any field. Just a thought: Postmodernism relies on the human failure to know as the basis for its own relativism, which seems to lead inevitably to despair. Humility also reflects our failure to know but opens up the possibility of worship. Anyhow, thanks again, Hayden
Hayden, I really like that last sentence of yours. I’ll have to remember it. :-)
I watched Hawking’s interview with King! They’re two really entertaining Human Beans…heheh.
Though I found Hawking’s scifi concept of occupying Mars so we all don’t destroy everyone at once.
King asked ‘if you had a time machine would you go backwards or forward’
Hawking’s “Forward, we should not look down to our foot”
So actually he contradicted himself since he wants to find the ‘beginning’ he would have to go back in time to find the source of ‘something from nothing’.
If you ask me the answers is at ‘conception’
Funny Human Bean!
I believe that the usual purpose of a “blog” (Weblog?) is for several people to enjoy a conversation, an exchange of opinions. Mr. Depperman is treating this column as an opportunity to lecture with his opinion about the work of fascists, imperialists, capitalists and other terms of oppobrium for an hour or so. This is NOT a conversation, and I believe that he has abused the process.
I sympathize with Dr. Hawking. He has been attempting for nearly thirty years to reconcile the physical observations of expanding universe and the logical deduction back to the “Big Bang” with his belief (inherited from his parents) in atheism. His earlier books are excellent popularizations of science, making features of cosmology understandable to the interested layman. He should be appreciated for the earlier work, not the current inferior thought processes.
TeaPot562
Mr. Depperman’s comments have been removed. Putting thousands of words into the combox is a violation of netiquette.
Just an aside: It always seemed to me that Mr. Hawking was the ultimate argument against the “quality of life” pro-aborts.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.