Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Professor Hawking
in the very last paragraph of your book you say that if we discover a complete theory of the universe then
it should be in time understandable in broad principle
to everyone and not to just a few scientists
and when that happens
all of us will be able to start discussing the 'why'
rather than the 'how'
and I quote
"if we find the answer to that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason
for then we would know
the mind of God." Do you think
God can intervene in the universe as he wants or is God too
bound by the laws of science?
the question of whether God is bound by the laws of science it's a bit like
the question,
"Can God make a stone that is so heavy that he can not lift it?"
I don't think it is very useful
to speculate on what God might or might not be able to do
rather we should examine what he actually does with the universe we live in.
All our observations suggest that it operates according to well-defined laws.
These laws may have been ordained by God but it seems that he does not intervene in
the universe to break the laws at least not once he has set the universe going;
However, until recently it was thought that the laws would necessarily breakdown at the
beginning of the universe.
That would meant that God would have had complete
freedom to choose how the universe began.
In the last few years however we have realized that the laws of science
may hold even at the beginning of time
in that case God would have had no freedom
the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of science.
Carl Sagan, in your introduction to the book you commented on this. You said,
"This is also a book about God or perhaps about the absence of God since Hawking left nothing
for a Creator to do."
Now, God of course means many things to many people
what sort of God
basically are we talking about when we talk about "reading the mind of God"?
I think that's
that's an excellent question
and I'd be most interested to hear
Stephen Hawking's answer
but just to try to illuminate the range of possibilities
consider two alternatives.
One is the,
the, uh, notion that is popular in the west
of God as a sort of outsized, elderly
white male
with a long white beard sitting on a throne in the sky
tallying the fall of every sparrow.
Uh, contrast that
the idea of God
in the mind of, let's say, Spinoza... or Einstein
which was, at least very closely,
the sum total of the laws of the universe.
Now it would be madness to deny
that there are
well defined laws in the universe.
And if that's what you mean by God
then there's no question
that God exists but it's a very
remote God...
what the French call "Roi fainŽant", a "do-nothing king".
On the other hand the former model of the one who intervenes daily
for that there seems to be,
as Doctor Hawking said, no evidence.
I think it is wise, my own personal feeling,
to be a little humble
on such matters.
We must recognize that we are
dealing with, by definition,
the most difficult things... to know the furthest from human experience.
Perhaps we will be able to penetrate a little way
into these mysteries.
I used "God" in the same sense that Einstein did.
It is really the reason why the universe is
as it is, and why the universe exists at all.
I understand
that in the earliest days of civilization
then the priests were in fact what we call the scientists, the ones who could study
Astronomy, and who could predict eclipses and things. Do you see these scientists coming back into an
almost sacerdotal position like this or am I over-stating it?
I hope you're over-stating it.
I think the essence of the
scientific method is the willingness
to admit you're wrong,
the willingness to abandon
ideas that don't work.
And the essence of religion
is not to change anything.
the supposed truths are handed down
by some revered figure and then no one is supposed to make any
progress beyond that because the truth is thought to be in hand.
My sense is that the scientific way of thinking: questioning, some delicate mix
of creative encouragement
of new ideas,
and the most rigorous and skeptical scrutiny
of new and old ideas.
Uh, I think that is the path
to the future, not just for science but
for all human institutions.
We have to be willing to challenge
because we are in desperate need of change.
because we are in desperate need of change.
[Arthur C. Clarke] Politics and religion
are obsolete.
The time has come for science
and spirituality.
I don't think that
physics can tell us how to behave to our neighbors.
Well, physics may determine who our neighbors are
and on what planets they live.