Hawking and Deistic reasoning.

[tumbleweed41]

In 'A Brief History of Time', Stephen Hawking states "... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. 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."

When asked during a group interview with Arthur C Clark and Carl Sagan if he believed that the God he mentioned was limited to the physical laws of the Universe, Mr. Hawking replied, "The question of whether God is bound by the laws of science is a bit like the question ‘can God make a stone that is so heavy he cannot 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 does in the Universe in which we actually 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 these laws, at least, not once He had set the Universe going."


I find this to be a prime example of Modern Deistic reasoning. It is useless to speculate on the nature of God. It is more reasonable to study the actual workings of our universe. And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

[youtube]RYamoRzQ5ag[/youtube]

Around 8:17

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I tend to think when scientists, particularly physicists, talk about god in this way, they're not acknowledging their belief in some type of deity, but rather they use it as a way to bridge the gap with their audience, and challenge people on their ideas of what god is, as a way to communicate the complexity and perceived order of the universe.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I tend to think when scientists, particularly physicists, talk about god in this way, they're not acknowledging their belief in some type of deity, but rather they use it as a way to bridge the gap with their audience, and challenge people on their ideas of what god is, as a way to communicate the complexity and perceived order of the universe.

I tend to agree, and this is originally how I saw the "Mind of God" reference in 'A Brief History of Time"
But in the interview, although I do not see Hawking espousing any concept of God, I do see at least an agnostic and deistic speculation of God.
I am not claiming Hawking is a Deist. Only that what he said fits in well with modern deistic thought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... in the interview, although I do not see Hawking espousing any concept of God, I do see at least an agnostic and deistic speculation of God.

I see politeness.

 

[Nepenthe]

In 'A Brief History of Time', Stephen Hawking states "... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. 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."

When asked during a group interview with Arthur C Clark and Carl Sagan if he believed that the God he mentioned was limited to the physical laws of the Universe, Mr. Hawking replied, "The question of whether God is bound by the laws of science is a bit like the question ‘can God make a stone that is so heavy he cannot 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 does in the Universe in which we actually 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 these laws, at least, not once He had set the Universe going."


I find this to be a prime example of Modern Deistic reasoning. It is useless to speculate on the nature of God. It is more reasonable to study the actual workings of our universe. And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

I'm curious as to what point, if any, you'd abandon your deism as the universe looks less and less "intentional" and any reference to a cognizant god who created the physical laws then stepped away seems unnecessary. Is a line even possible to draw since omniscience is impossible? I've always respected deists/pantheists/panentheists despite disagreeing with them but I've always wondered, what, if scientifically evidenced, would change your mind?

 

[Beyondo]

I tend to think when scientists, particularly physicists, talk about god in this way, they're not acknowledging their belief in some type of deity, but rather they use it as a way to bridge the gap with their audience, and challenge people on their ideas of what god is, as a way to communicate the complexity and perceived order of the universe.

I don't think it helps much and only adds to the confusion of the faithful. The Jehovah's witnesses are always quoting Einstein, who in fact believed in Spinoza's god, nature. But Einstein and many modern day physicist make the judgment call that nature conforms to mathematics as a coincidence. I can't accept that and the link to mathematics is more than subtle, its the big clue!

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm curious as to what point, if any, you'd abandon your deism as the universe looks less and less "intentional" and any reference to a cognizant god who created the physical laws then stepped away seems unnecessary. Is a line even possible to draw since omniscience is impossible? I've always respected deists/pantheists/panentheists despite disagreeing with them but I've always wondered, what, if scientifically evidenced, would change your mind?

Unlike most Deists, with a tilt of the hat to Jays rationality, I see no necessity for a Prime Mover in science.
Both the lack of known physical laws beyond our universe and the apparent spontaneity of nature at the quantum level show that no first cause is necessary.
So, in answer to your question. My deistic beliefs have changed already in less than a year. At one time I felt that God was necessary, and therefore a rational belief. Further study has shown this to be untrue. My somewhat agnostic belief that a Prime Mover exists is now based purely on faith. The more I learn of physics and cosmology, the more I see the magnificent beauty of the universe.
So I would say that now, my faith in a God beyond our universe is based purely on the personal need to believe in something greater than myself, rather than any scientific or reasonable explanation.
Perhaps when physics can finally connect all the dots with a stable Unified Theory, we will actually see whether of not their is, in fact, God.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Deistic reasoning is AKIN, to the end of a 3 part series, with the famous words "to be continued"

Nothing wrong with that, it just always reminds me of that when I think about it enough

 

[tumbleweed41]

Deistic reasoning is AKIN, to the end of a 3 part series, with the famous words "to be continued"

One could say the same about scientific research....

 

[Nepenthe]

Unlike most Deists, with a tilt of the hat to Jays rationality, I see no necessity for a Prime Mover in science.
Both the lack of known physical laws beyond our universe and the apparent spontaneity of nature at the quantum level show that no first cause is necessary.
So, in answer to your question. My deistic beliefs have changed already in less than a year. At one time I felt that God was necessary, and therefore a rational belief. Further study has shown this to be untrue. My somewhat agnostic belief that a Prime Mover exists is now based purely on faith. The more I learn of physics and cosmology, the more I see the magnificent beauty of the universe.
So I would say that now, my faith in a God beyond our universe is based purely on the personal need to believe in something greater than myself, rather than any scientific or reasonable explanation.
Perhaps when physics can finally connect all the dots with a stable Unified Theory, we will actually see whether of not their is, in fact, God.

Cool. Not to place too much an emphasis on labelling things, but your view reminds me of one of my heroes Martin Gardner. He defines himself as a fideist, that is despite his skepticism towards most things supernatural and despite him acknowledging that philosophical arguments for theism are not convincing, he believes in some form of immortality (which if I'm correct you do not) and a cosmic instigator based solely on faith and the fact it makes him slightly happier to believe than to not believe. Gardener wrote an essay in his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener called "Why I believe in God and immortality" then turned around and wrote a scathing review just demolishing his essay. I admire Gardner's ability to self critique and pull no punches to further learn and modify his beliefs- he reminds me of you and how you've been intellectually honest with your evolving beliefs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Cool. Not to place too much an emphasis on labelling things, but your view reminds me of one of my heroes Martin Gardner. He defines himself as a fideist, that is despite his skepticism towards most things supernatural and despite him acknowledging that philosophical arguments for theism are not convincing, he believes in some form of immortality (which if I'm correct you do not) and a cosmic instigator based solely on faith and the fact it makes him slightly happier to believe than to not believe. Gardener wrote an essay in his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener called "Why I believe in God and immortality" then turned around and wrote a scathing review just demolishing his essay. I admire Gardner's ability to self critique and pull no punches to further learn and modify his beliefs- he reminds me of you and how you've been intellectually honest with your evolving beliefs.

Thanks.
I will be checking out Gardner's work.