I haven't read the book, but I watched Larry King's interview with Hawking and Mlodinow. It appears that the lack of any need to invoke god to explain the beginning of the universe is a minor point in the book. But, of course, it is the claim that is bothersome to many, since many consider their belief in the creator god to be foundational or fundamental. In addition, many people cannot really respond to the scientific claims in the book, since one needs to know a lot about the sciences, in order to do that. So, there is a tendency for many to focus their attention on the claim about god, since it does not require any scientific expertise in order to say something about claims about god.
Why did the authors bother to make claims about god in a science book? I think that the authors are concerned with a trend among some scientists, religious philosophers, and theologians, who are taking seriously the religious implications of fine-tuning, goldilocks enigma, etc., which appear to suggest that someone is responsible for the origin and design of this universe. Some prominent scientists, like Dyson and Smoot, even stated claims that subtly tempt human imagination to speculate about the creator god. As it appears, religious thinkers often seek scientific validations for their religious claims. So, when a scientist says something that appears to favor religion, many religious thinkers seem to run with it and take it as far as human imagination can go. So, Hawking and Mlodinow claim that there is no need to invoke god to explain the beginning of the universe, even if the universe appears to be finely tuned. They claim that science can even explain why a finely tuned universe exists, without even considering the involvement of a creator god.
I think that their claim about god is philosophically significant. Many theistic arguments presuppose God of the gaps. Cosmological arguments postulate god as the first efficient cause to fill up gaps in our scientific knowledge about the origin of the universe. Teleological arguments postulate god as the intelligent designer to fill up gaps in our knowledge about the seeming orderliness of the universe. Moral arguments postulate god as the moral lawgiver to fill up gaps in our knowledge about ultimate justification for morality. Many philosophers already offered good arguments for why the postulation of god's existence is not necessary for making sense of our moral experiences. The claim about the creator god from Hawking and Mlodinow can be used in formulating arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments.
In addition, I think that Hawking's claim that theology is unnecessary seems to be naive. From the tradition of German theologians in the 20th century, like Barth, Tillich, Moltmann, and others, major theologians avoid making scientifically relevant claims. So, they do not really think that, as theologians, they can make scientifically relevant claims. For them, theology is primarily a reflection on the Trinitarian-structured biblical narrative of divine revelation. It's possible that Hawking is thinking of theologians like John Polkinghorne (a former Cambridge physicist), who try to use theological insights and current scientific theories in forming their beliefs about the universe. So, for Hawking, in response to such theologians, science is sufficient, while theology is unnecessary.
Why did the authors bother to make claims about god in a science book? I think that the authors are concerned with a trend among some scientists, religious philosophers, and theologians, who are taking seriously the religious implications of fine-tuning, goldilocks enigma, etc., which appear to suggest that someone is responsible for the origin and design of this universe. Some prominent scientists, like Dyson and Smoot, even stated claims that subtly tempt human imagination to speculate about the creator god. As it appears, religious thinkers often seek scientific validations for their religious claims. So, when a scientist says something that appears to favor religion, many religious thinkers seem to run with it and take it as far as human imagination can go. So, Hawking and Mlodinow claim that there is no need to invoke god to explain the beginning of the universe, even if the universe appears to be finely tuned. They claim that science can even explain why a finely tuned universe exists, without even considering the involvement of a creator god.
I think that their claim about god is philosophically significant. Many theistic arguments presuppose God of the gaps. Cosmological arguments postulate god as the first efficient cause to fill up gaps in our scientific knowledge about the origin of the universe. Teleological arguments postulate god as the intelligent designer to fill up gaps in our knowledge about the seeming orderliness of the universe. Moral arguments postulate god as the moral lawgiver to fill up gaps in our knowledge about ultimate justification for morality. Many philosophers already offered good arguments for why the postulation of god's existence is not necessary for making sense of our moral experiences. The claim about the creator god from Hawking and Mlodinow can be used in formulating arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments.
In addition, I think that Hawking's claim that theology is unnecessary seems to be naive. From the tradition of German theologians in the 20th century, like Barth, Tillich, Moltmann, and others, major theologians avoid making scientifically relevant claims. So, they do not really think that, as theologians, they can make scientifically relevant claims. For them, theology is primarily a reflection on the Trinitarian-structured biblical narrative of divine revelation. It's possible that Hawking is thinking of theologians like John Polkinghorne (a former Cambridge physicist), who try to use theological insights and current scientific theories in forming their beliefs about the universe. So, for Hawking, in response to such theologians, science is sufficient, while theology is unnecessary.
Comments