Hawking Decrees God Doesn’t Exist
Hawking makes this wise remark in continuation of another dogma of his regarding the impossibility to doubt the existence of the aliens, which are amongst us. Unlike God, who doesn’t exist, according to the same genius. This deep cogitatio was treated by the media like the deepest revelation of them all, although per se it is one of the most common places in the history of human errancy.
Some interpreters consider Hawking intended to antagonize the believers on purpose, for reasons only he can grasp (selling more copies of his book maybe?). That is a very good explanation for this display of logical fallacies in his argumentation at the end of which he pronounces his dogmatic rule on the existence of God.
The first logical fallacy that should catch our eye is this presumption of physicists, biologists and other researchers in natural sciences to speculate on such spiritual matters as the existence of God.
Anyone who reads the Bible, even between two stops in the subway, knows God is spiritual in nature, which makes him absolutely transcendent to any possible scientific experience. One cannot derive the existence or the non-existence of God from studying the material world, since God has no materiality. It is as if someone was trying to see the smoke in the depth of the ocean (the comparison doesn’t do justice to the perfect spirituality of God, but will have to do for lack of better essences to compare to).
Why don’t we grasp this contradiction in adjecto? Because we were taught in school that science has an answer for everything, which is another logical fallacy, because it operates on a confusion between actual learning and knowledge and brutal ideological narrowing of vision to adjust to some dogmatic presuppositions.
There is another contradiction that we easily overlook when we go on banishing God from His own world: we presume to understand the beginning of creation from within creation, which leaves us with no perspective on things.
Imagine a bacterium inside your body suddenly becoming curious about its environment. It could try to relate to some other “galaxies” of bacteria, to pass some judgments on the internal organs, but it definitely couldn’t tell your gender or what you think on God, for instance. It could also not understand how your body came to be, and would ultimately postulate, if compelled by a false prerequisite to have an answer for everything, that you created yourself or appeared by mere accident (spontaneous spawning?). It couldn’t draw any other possible conclusion, given its givenness and its modus operandi “inside out”.
It is thought that in creating the universe God planted in every item He created a purpose, a telos, as the Greeks of old call it. Thus, the flower grows, the rivers flow and so on. We can go to dismiss this theological explanation as childish, pertaining to dark ages, whatever.
But if this is true, and we have absolutely no way of proving 100 percent sure whether it is true or not, scientists are merely reverse engineering the world God created, by unveiling the design and the purpose of the things in the universe and then assessing them with a non-spiritual mind, which will no doubt see the universe as completely absurd. If this is true, the whole theory of Hawking, which is based on the existence of gravity, is no more than a logical fallacy, because there is no possible logical connection between the existence or the lack of gravity or of the universe for that matter and the existence of God.
There is a philosophical argument in favor of God’s existence called the argument from contingency which postulates that everything in the universe has an explanation, but they all lead to the Being without contingency, the one which can live without any connection to the world.
In fact, what Hawking can achieve at most out of denying the existence of God is a challenge to the claim of inspiration of the Scriptures. And assuming he did that, not even that would be an argument in favor of denying God.
The Bible has no intention to become a scientific treatise. Its passages about creation are aimed at inspiring a sense of sonship to all the faithful: God is the Father of all creation, and the believers feel that deep inside their hearts from the personal relation to Him. They don’t need Hawking to tell them whether God exists or not. From their perspective, allegations like his speak only of the drama of the spiritually blind and deaf contemporary human being who looks but doesn’t see, and hears but doesn’t understand that “since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (Romans 1: 20).
Why is God so bothersome to some people? It is definitely not a scientific matter, since speaking of God scientifically is as credible and reliable as speaking of those aliens Hawking is so sure of.
Is it a moral stance? Is God confining some people’s freedom, thus making them feel the need to get rid of Him to get more of freedom? That would be another logical fallacy, since man is a limited creature, and as much as he would want more and more freedom, there is an ontological barrier to this freedom, God or not.
Tertullian is presumed to have postulated as a faith’s premise the surrealism of its object: credo quia absurdum, he says, I believe because it is absurd, which means that the existence of God cannot be derived from the “normality” of the universe, nor can it be explained in the logical discourse, given that God goes far beyond logic, and he goes way beyond the universe whose principles and laws physicist are exploring.
The French philosopher Blaise Pascal postulated a very strange logical argument in favor of God’s existence, showing that physicists back in those days were more aware of their job description. He called it l’argument a pari, the wager argument, and goes like this: If God doesn’t exist and we believe in him, we would have lost nothing, if he does exist and we didn’t believe in him, we would have lost everything.
Hawking tries to reassure us that there is no problem if we cast God out of the world; we can easily do without, he seems to tell us.
Can we? Or is this the ultimate logical fallacy, since the only place God can be chased from by such “decrees” is our heart; once God doesn’t “trouble” us anymore, we can do whatever we want. The world about to cave in we live in is a living prove of such Zeitgeist.11