Comments on: Is it really “irresponsible” for Hawking to be an atheist?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:30:27 +0000

This is the difference between “reason” and “explanation.” The latter is easier, the former may or may not be relevant.

I still like the “we’re in a big video game” explanation the best.

By: Alex Besogonov

Alex Besogonov — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:25:27 +0000

“[1]Yes, there was the Big Bang and all that, but how did the Big Bang happen? Despite many man-decades of effort, physics has not been able to produce a satisfactory answer to this question, only that it must have happened. There are arguments to the effect that quantum fluctuations were involved, but those arguments are pure handwaving.”

The problem is, it might have had ‘just happened’. Without any reason at all. Unintuitive, but possible.

By: cgauthier

cgauthier — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:09:42 +0000

His complaint is that Hawking’s theories about the origin of the universe, while mathematically elegant, have exactly as much empirical support as does God: none whatsoever. –eric

Sorry, but even lacking empirical evidence, both ideas have their own logic to support them. I think any reasonable, modern person could easily be convinced that mathematics and indirect evidence will trump theology and, let’s see, um, nothing, every fucking time.

By: Tyler DiPietro

Tyler DiPietro — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:49:46 +0000

Gleiser is being slightly dishonest himself. Hawking's origins scenario, as far as I know, has nothing to do with M-theory. It is rather a direct implication of quantum field theory that spontaneous events can occur in a zero energy state. And empirical observations of the cosmic microwave b/g confirm that the total energy of the universe is zero. Hawking's scenario thus has quite a bit more evidence behind it than god(s) do.

By: SimonG

SimonG — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:32:18 +0000

Chad…
How do you feel about pseudopods?

By: DuWayne

DuWayne — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:37:54 +0000

I rather enjoyed Gregory Benford’s Cosm and consider it’s premise just as likely an explanation for the manifestation of our own universe, as goddidit. Indeed the notion that a physicist in another universe accidentally created our universe due to an accident with a particle accelerator is really kind of fun and may well be more plausible than goddidit. It is especially elegant when you consider that the same thing might happen in our own universe, given all those crazy physicists out there.

Personally, I expect that Hawking’s claims about the irrelevance of a god, when it comes to the origin of the origin, is rather more respectful of religion than my fantasy is.

I also have to agree with Greg and Richard on this. While Hawking’s explanation has just as little empirical support as goddidit, it is actually plausible. The reasoning behind it is founded not in magic or some other invisible, unknowable force, but in mathematics. While it is arguable that math is an abstraction, it is an abstraction with concrete rules.

As much as I prefer my own explanation for the origin of the origin and believe it is at least as, if not more plausible than goddidit, I have to admit that Hawking’s explanation is more likely than mine.

By: Deen

Deen — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:26:47 +0000

I also don’t think Gleiser understands what a “theory for everything” means. First of all, if we had such a theory, it doesn’t mean that this theory could never ever be revised anymore when new data shows up, as he appears to imply. Second, it also doesn’t mean that with a theory of everything we will actually know everything, as he more explicitly implies by calling the endeavor “pretentious”. Having a theory of everything doesn’t necessarily mean we know how it all plays out in practice. Just like knowing the rules of chess doesn’t automatically make you a chess master, knowing the rules of nature won’t automatically make us masters of nature.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:24:14 +0000

Even if religion could shoehorn a deity in there, which deity should it be? And where did that deity come from?

For the whole universe? I’m not going for any deity that has fewer than eight arms.

By: Richard Wolford

Richard Wolford — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:21:35 +0000

We have directly observed the universe; deities, not so much. Religion attempts to inject complexity where none is required, as demonstrated by Hawking. Even if religion could shoehorn a deity in there, which deity should it be? And where did that deity come from? Unless there is evidence, there is no need to posit a deity and I feel no need to accommodate “spirituality”, which I consider to be all of the nonsense with none of the rituals. His comparison of science to dogma is a blatant straw man and a clear false equivalence. Not even an intelligent theologian.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:59:37 +0000

Eric, I agree with your interpretation, but his comments are still problematic. In the absence of anything speaking to a god-like entity or force, it is entirely inappropriate to posit it, and since it has been posited, it is entirely appropriate to explicitly set it aside, as Hawking did. Gleiser seems to not want Hawking to do that, and rather, leave god alone. This has little to do with any argument about god, but rather, it is an argument about appeasement.