A Bad Answer to the Biggest Question

The posthumous release of Stephen Hawking's new book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, playing off the title of his bestselling A Brief History of Time, reminds us of what endeared the physicist to our minds and minds: his sweeping intellect, self-deprecating humor, self-deprecating humor, his life's challenge, his insatiable curiosity. As Kip Thorne stated in his eulogy for Hawking at the Westminster Abbey: "Newton gave us answers. Hawking gave us questions. "

But I confess much disappointment in his "brief" answer to the biggest question of all, "Is there a God?" It's not just that we disagree in our conclusions, but that his reasons for rejecting the existence of God are so … weak.

First, he only considers the existence of God in an impersonal sense, equating God with little more than the laws of nature. Hawking reasons that a "law of nature," this "god" could not exist outside of time. Taken together, this "time-bound law of nature" means that it is not even grappling with God at all. Which means he is not grappling with the "big" question at all-namely, is there a personal Being who exists outside of space and time?

This severely curtails is more likely to occur than it is. God exists intellectually irrelevant. For example, Hawking concludes that "there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to exist … Time did not exist before big bang so there is no time for God to make the universe in. "Yet the very definition of God outside of space and time.

(One more example of why scientists make bad philosophers and even worse theologians.)

Second, he states that the ingredients are in our cosmic cookbook "for a universe are matter, energy and space. But none of them existed before the Big Bang, which means you have to explain how "something" came from "nothing." Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? Hawking wants to make a case that "space," at least, was enabled through a simultaneous production of negative energy. But even if one buys into this explanation, it does not answer the questions surrounding the genesis of energy and matter. Not to put on it, but the questions still remain: Where did the stuff get "banged" come from and who "banged" it?

Third, When talking about the laws of nature, he argues that the most important question is about those laws: How did They come into existence? This is particularly important when trying to explain how "something" could come from "nothing" through the Big Bang, which can be explained by the laws of physics (unconvincingly, I might add, ). As Alan Guth, one of the leading physicists of our day at MIT has written, even if you could come up with a theory that would the origin of the laws of physics!

In the end, Hawking admits that we know the laws that govern what happens "in all but the most extreme conditions, like the origin of the universe, or black holes."

Yes.

But it is precisely the questions – and mystery – surrounding those "extreme conditions" that consistently point to God. Hawking gives a very brief, but also very bad, answer to the biggest question of all.

And, sadly, now he knows it all too well.

James Emery White

sources

Stephen Hawking, Brief Answers to the Big Questions.

Alan Guth, The Inflationary Universe.

About the Author

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the adjunct professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where he also served as their fourth president. His latest book, Meet Generation Z: Understanding and Reaching the New Post-Christian World, is available on Amazon. To enjoy a free subscription to the Church & Culture blog, visit ChurchAndCulture.org, where you can view and read the latest news about the world. Follow Dr. White on Twitter and Instagram @JamesEmeryWhite.