A Grand Design
It’s settled down a bit now, but when Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow first released their book A Grand Design in September, it caused a flurry of news reports that basically amounted to, ‘Global Exclusive! Atheist Scientist says he doesn’t believe in God!’ And so, all of a sudden, the science versus God debate was back in the public sphere. Just like last time, a big cheese Oxbridge scientist, who never seems to have believed in God in the first place, effectively announced that his branch of science confirmed his anti-religious suspicions.
And just like last time, it left me feeling I must be missing something. Reading the exchange of articles that followed the release of A Grand Design, I felt a bit like someone who walks into a fierce debate over whether Hamlet is a character created by Shakespeare, or whether on the other hand he is merely the son of Gertrude. As I watched the heavyweight academics line up and announce their verdict on the matter, I found myself wondering, with more than a little perplexity, ‘Can’t he be both?’
If Stephen Hawking is to be believed, apparently not. What’s odd about this – and it goes back further than Hawking and Dawkins, Darwin and Paley, to Lucretius and even beyond – is the assumption that science and God are rival ways of accounting for things, so that the more science explains, the less there is for God to do. The idea that physical and personal explanations might be compatible, so that Hamlet can be both Shakespeare’s character and Gertrude’s son, either hasn’t occurred to Hawking, or has been rejected on grounds that he hasn’t explained.
I find that a little bit strange. If I come into work with a black eye and people ask how I got it, it is perfectly reasonable to give a purely physical explanation, and say, ‘because the blood vessels in my ocular area are working overtime to repair damaged tissue.’ But they might feel a bit short-changed with that reply, because physical explanations don’t remove the need for personal explanations. They will probably find a different type of answer (‘because I stared too long at this guy’s girlfriend in the pub last night’) rather more satisfying. And they certainly won’t think that the former removes the possibility of the latter.
That doesn’t mean that all physical events must have obvious personal explanations. Many do not. What it does mean, though, is that the existence of a physical explanation does not make a personal explanation impossible. So Stephen Hawking’s deduction – that because of M-theory, God does not exist – is something of a non sequitur, the equivalent of announcing the non-existence of Shakespeare from a study of Hamlet’s DNA.
Interestingly, the Economist appeared to concur. In a review article on 11 September, they commented acerbically:
There are actually rather a lot of questions that are more subtle than the authors think. It soon becomes evident that Professor Hawking and Mr Mlodinow regard a philosophical problem as something you knock off over a quick cup of tea after you have run out of Sudoku puzzles … The authors’ interpretations and extrapolations of [quantum mechanics] have not been subjected to any decisive tests, and it is not clear that they ever could be. Once upon a time it was the province of philosophy to propose ambitious and outlandish theories in advance of any concrete evidence for them. Perhaps science, as Professor Hawking and Mr Mlodinow practise it in their airier moments, has indeed changed places with philosophy, though probably not quite in the way that they think.
Two weeks later, the Oxford mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, in debate with Alister McGrath on the radio show Unbelievable, went one further. He challenged not just the book’s atheistic conclusion, but also the science behind M-theory itself, describing the book as “misleading”, and M-theory as “hardly science” and “a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations”. Time will tell whether Penrose’s or Hawking’s view of M-theory will win the day, but it appears that whatever the outcome, the conclusions that Hawking and Mlodinow have drawn amount to a simple confusion of categories.
God and science are complementary explanations, not rivals. Maybe, just maybe, something as grandly titled as a ‘theory of everything’ might have room for both.
The original version of this article originally appeared for The Times Online at ‘Articles of Faith’ in October 2010.
Comments
By Paul on 02/02/2011 at 10:37
The whole God v Science debate was summed up nicely by the Kitzmiller v Dover case in the USA, which dealt with the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, where it was stated:
“ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”
When debating with atheists, we must always be aware of this fundamental rule of science. Scientific analysis comes with the supposition that the supernatural cannot be used to explain anything.
Rather than trying to debate the mechanics, it is worth starting on that point, as atheists often claim that Christians come to the table with suppositions and they don’t - which (as nicely demonstrated by this quotation) is simply not true.
When discussing these matters, I have often pointed out that things like creation and the flood sound completely nonsensical when that rule is applied. However, once that “leap of faith” has been taken, it is relatively easy to believe that an omnipotent deity could cause them.
By Tom Geraghty on 02/02/2011 at 13:26
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re stretching what Hawking had to say - he in fact said that there “is no need for god”. He’d never state categorically that a god can’t exist, because that would be an impossible statement to prove.
So in that sense, both I and Hawking would agree with you. Just because we can show how the world works, doesn’t mean we can disprove god, any more than your parents putting gifts in your stocking at christmas disproves santa claus.
By Adam Clark on 04/02/2011 at 16:19
Although my argument does not reference The Grand design directly as I am still reading it, I think it is valid. I completely disagree with the statement that science and theism can coexist, especially from my understanding of Christianity and Darwinism (which could be wrong). The story of Adam and Eve,(fundamental to the doctrine of Christian belief) has very little ambiguity attached, even though it does lay down more than one sub set of the Christian foundation. The story says that God created man in his own image, so unless God was a single celled amoeba who also happened to have ribs that he could use to create Eve, then Darwin’s theory of evolution falls apart. Could the point at which God created man explain the Cambrian explosion perhaps? Creationists also say that the world is only 10000 years old; 10000 years is no way near enough for evolution to get us to this state, again debunking Darwin.
By Paul on 04/02/2011 at 16:33
Adam - I think science and theism (Christianity) can coexist, although the relationship can be rather strained at times!
The only problem is one of authority in the mind of the believer. This comes to a head whenever science comes up with a theory that “disproves” God and the Biblical account, such as macro-evolutionary biology or the Big Bang. It is at those times that every believer is faced with the dilemma, whom do I believe? Who is authoritative?
For a Christian, I think it boils down to one simple statement. Any theory that explains life in a manner contrary to Scripture has to be rejected.
I also think we tread a dangerous ground when we use science to “prove” the Bible, as we are inadvertently placing scientific investigation in a position of higher authority than Scripture.
By Adam Clark on 04/02/2011 at 17:06
Hi Paul, thanks for the reply. It doesn’t come down who is or isn’t the authority but down to what is or isn’t a fact. I fully appreciate and respect that Christians have faith or believe in their God, but these are such scary words by definition. You are in essence being asked to gamble on your life choices by believing in God, where as science deals with what you can see, taste, touch, hear, feel or prove. These things are “real”, the definition of which is a whole new topic but to say that you can truly believe in God and the workings of science when it comes to understanding reality such as Quantum theory, is like saying you are a Nobel peace prize winner who dabbles in the odd bit of genocide here and there, they are completely antonymous. If you then say that not all the stories in the bible are not to be taken literally, then who decides which parts of the bible should be cherry picked as fact or as parables. It seems that these choices are influenced by the current zeitgeist.
I want to believe in God, but there seems to be too many contradictory statements and emotional manipulations for what looks like financial gain.
By Paul on 04/02/2011 at 17:30
Hi Adam
May I refer to to my first post on this page?
Whenever faith and science meet, the difficulty always arises with the issue of supernatural causation. The purely scientific mind will always reject supernatural causation as a valid explanation, the “faith” mind allows for it.
The problem is, how does one empirically analyse God? The old “God in a test tube” analogy is a bit weak but there is a valid point. A being that is omnipotent, omnipresent etc. is difficult to analyse - it would be like asking an amoeba to understand quantum physics!
Many Christians (myself included) claim to have had experiential experiences of God. The trouble is these are impossible to quantify by scientific analysis - to which the (understandable) response among many sceptics is often “how convenient” - however that doesn’t make those experiences any less “real” to us.
Finally, I appreciate your final concerns about contradictory statements, emotional manipulations for financial gain. These are sadly very real phenomena among faith groups of all guises - and Christians are no exception I’m sad to say.
My only plea to you would be not to judge God (and Jesus) on the actions of his followers, but the validity of his claims. God’s (non) existence is not based on whether “religious” people are well behaved or not.
Apologies if this isn’t the most coherent argument you’ve heard. I’m sure there are better minds around than mine!
All the best mate
By Paul on 04/02/2011 at 17:33
PS Adam - I think authority is relevant, although my semantics may be a bit skewed. What I meant was that if the Bible truly is inspired by God, it should carry the highest authority - as it is a revelation of the omnipotent creator of the universe. It is effectively the “rule base” for the universe - the ultimate definition of “fact” and everything else must fall in line with it.
By Steven Simister on 07/02/2011 at 16:44
Hi Paul,
Interesting discussion. I have not read the book (yet), but have heard on numerous occassions people refering to the Bible being “inspired” by God. Is this word a literal translation? If so, may I say that I have seen many still life paintings (a picture says 1000 words), inspired by Bananas. That does not make the Banana the painter of such a picture, mearly that the banana inspired the painter to put put paint to canvas.
Similarly to the Bible being inspired by God, was it written by man who was inspired by his feeling and bout how wonderful the world is. people think about there surrounding all of the time, many poems are inspired by their authors surroundings.
By Glenn Piper on 04/03/2011 at 21:49
Lets be very clear that there is no, repeat no, empirical evidence to support the ‘theory’ that apes turned into mankind or that reptiles developed into a completely different type of creature like birds….none and there never has been.
Small changes within a kind are supported by empirical evidence; like the beaks on Darwin’s finches, small changes due to environment, but they were still finches.
The common ‘bait & switch’ that is carried out uses the latter (with supporting evidence) to supposedly confirm the former (with no supporting evidence whatsoever)
Empirical evidence supports a Biblical flood for instance.
The supposed ‘battle’ between the Bible and science is a false dichotomy.
By SHMAAANY on 10/12/2011 at 12:29
I think the argument that science and christianity cannot go exist is used ignorantly by both fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist creationists. Both are wrong might i add, how is it that many many many scientists have strong faith in god, surely they would be the first to jump the christianity boat, but instead they are evangelizing ... doesn’t that say something to those who don’t believe science can co-exist with christianity. They are witnessed god in their lives and many came to christianity later in their lives so it’s not to say it was something they were holding onto in some kind of denial. Check www.testoffaith.com I am personally somewhat unsure on evolution but i am open, this is because of this website.
But for me this website is something i would say more non believers need to look at because many of them have been led to believe by the media and certain prominent atheists god and science dont agree which in fact is a complete LIE. Check it for yourself.