Origin of the
Universe
By Dr. Tom
Sheahen
Q. In the movie “God is Not Dead,” in one
scene it was said that physicist Stephen Hawking proved that the universe just
created itself, by the law of gravity. Is that depiction accurate?
In one sense I can answer “yes” to
your question about accurate depiction: Hawking really did write in his 2010
book “The Grand Design” that the universe created itself. On the other hand, on the matter of whether
Hawking is right, I would emphatically say “no.”
Stephen Hawking is an eminent
physicist who has contributed some very innovated ideas about the behavior of
black holes, and our understanding of cosmology is better because of that.
Also, Hawking has Lou Gehrig’s Disease (A.L.S.) which makes him a very
sympathetic figure.
However, Hawking’s understanding of
philosophy is poor, and his grasp of theology is zilch. There is no reason to grant
him credibility in those fields. Among other things, in “The Grand Design,” he
contemptuously says “Philosophy is dead,” a point mentioned in the movie.
Dismissing philosophy is hardly a good way to make your own speculations come
true.
There is a very basic facts about
philosophy that need to be kept in mind: it is impossible to prove a negative. You
can’t prove that something does not exist. Supposed I make the claim “there are
no aliens.” To prove that, I’d have to visit and inspect every planet in every
solar system in every galaxy in the universe. If you wanted to prove me wrong,
all you’d have to do is find one
alien. Similarly, the claim “science proves that God does not exist” is utter
nonsense.
Assorted philosophers have debated
the existence of God for thousands of years, and
“proof”
is always elusive. Related questions like “Did God create the universe?”
likewise escape proof; an escape-hatch of some sort is always available. Among
philosophers, attention has by now shifted away from absolute proof to a more
manageable goal: the best approach is to ask “what is the most reasonable and
responsible explanation?”
Evidently Stephen Hawking didn’t get the memo.
His dismissal of philosophy in favor of some favorite theory from physics is
foolish arrogance. All of us who are trained as physicists know that any theory is always subject to future
revision, and we’ve watched that take place many times over the centuries.
That’s a very fundamental precept in science. Nothing in science is ever
“final.”
To me, it seems likely that God has
chosen not to force anybody to believe via some absolute proof. I’m fully
comfortable going for the “most reasonable and responsible” answer.
Another long-standing principle of doing
science (known as “Ockham’s Razor”) is that we choose the simplest theory that
is consistent with the available data. Over the years, as data gets better,
theory changes to account for it. That is exactly how Einstein’s theory of
Relativity eventually replaced Newton’s classical mechanics. Newton’s theory
wasn’t wrong, just limited in scope, and Einstein’s was more comprehensive. The
principle of Ockham’s Razor tells us not to festoon a theory with extraneous
notions that cannot possibly be observed, even in principle.
The universe we see is “the available
data.” Over the last several decades, scientists have realized that this
universe is incredibly fine-tuned so that we might actually be here. There are
certain constants-of-nature (i.e, numbers; about 20 of them) that are precisely
tuned, and without that precision there would be no possibility of intelligent
life. The probability of it all being an accident is less than one part in
10^(10^123) -- 10 to the power of [10 to the power of 123]. That’s not a misprint. The number is so big
that it could never possibly be written out. And incidentally, there are only
about 1088 particles in the universe, and 10^88 is not even
10^(10^2).
With such odds against us being here by
chance, the most reasonable and responsible explanation is that it wasn’t by chance, but that God created
the universe, using wisdom that enabled the incredibly accurate fine-tuning
required.
However, if you’re in Stephen Hawking’s
camp, then you draw a borderline around your range of thinking, and disallow
any explanation that comes from beyond science. God is ruled “out of bounds.”
So you need an escape hatch, and that is the notion of a “multiverse” -- you
postulate that new little universes keep breaking off and expanding, somewhat
like a froth of bubbles. There are an infinite number of such universes, and we
just got lucky and landed in the one where it all worked out just right.
The trouble with that explanation is
that all those other universes are unobservable – even in-principle. No data
will ever reach us from outside our own universe. Thinking about a multiverse,
the phrase “far-fetched” comes to mind. To believe in a multiverse, you must
discard the very basic principle of seeking the simplest explanation of the
available data (Ockham’s Razor). That puts you outside the realm of the scientific
method. You’ve stopped being a scientist when you go there!
To make matters worse, the fine tuning
needed to accommodate the ensemble of other universes is even more unlikely, so
the complexity gets worse, which doesn’t help explain anything. Perhaps it
bears mentioning that Hawking doesn’t bring up these little details in “The
Grand Design.”
Getting back to the movie “God Is Not
Dead,” the student doesn’t prove the existence of God, but he successfully
presents the most reasonable and responsible explanation, and the rest of the
students in the class agree.
Reason is the ability
of the mind to think and arrive at the knowledge of truth. That should never be
overridden by the assertions of some famous scientist.
