A Reply to
Stephen Hawking’s, The Grand Design
Introduction
Stephen Hawking has become an icon of a living genius.
Undoubtedly heroic in his productive life in spite of a
debilitating illness, Hawking has, among other things,
popularized aspects of modern physics and astronomy. Most
recently, he expressed his opinions on the possibility of a
grand, unified theory of everything. His book, The Grand
Design, written with Leonard Mlodinow, proposes a theory of
cosmic origins that has no need of a transcendent God.
My purpose in writing is not to criticize the scientific data
Hawking uses to support his broader theory. My concerns are
several-fold. First, after reading his book, I’m convinced that
Hawking does not realize the extent to which his book is an
exercise in philosophical speculation rather than pure science.
Second, I do not think Hawking appreciates the philosophical
reasons supporting the existence of God. These reasons, I will
argue, give belief in God a greater standing than the atheistic
position espoused by Hawking. Similarly, it should be made
evident that Hawking’s tendency to embrace materialistic
assumptions influences his interpretation of the scientific data.
Third, Hawking rejects human freedom. I will argue that his
rejection of freedom also implies a rejection of truth. All of
these criticisms point to features of his book that seriously
undermine its value.
Is Philosophy Dead?
In the second paragraph of his book,i Hawking declares,
“philosophy is dead.” Since philosophy has failed to keep up
with the discoveries of science, scientists “have become the
bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”ii
The great questions concerning human knowledge, reality,
origins, and creation, admittedly of concern to most people at
least sometimes, now fall to the scientist.
Hawking then proceeds to tell, in abbreviated form, the
philosophical history that preceded the rise of modern science.
One might wish to point out the errors of fact and simplistic
summations that are found in the first few chapters of the
book. For instance, he incorrectly identifies Epicurus as an
opponent of atomism when in fact Epicurus used atomism to
support his rejection of life after death.iii He fails to do justice
to Aristotle’s reasons for rejecting atomism asserting “he could
not accept that human beings were composed of soulless,
inanimate objects.”iv In fact, his reasons were many but his
most pressing reasons were his various problems with the
notion of a “void” that were so essential to atomism.
Quibbling about the misrepresentation of historical
backgrounds is unnecessary here, however, since it only
detracts from the more blaring problem in Hawking’s analysis.
In particular, The Grand Design is, almost in its entirety, a
work of philosophy. Rather than supporting his claim that
philosophy is dead, his book is an effort to provide a
theoretical framework for answering ultimate questions based
on inferences derived from certain physical theories about the
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
world. In a move reminiscent of Rene Descartes’ “evil genius”
proposal, Hawking rejects scientific realism based on the fact
that more than one scientific explanation can explain the
observable phenomena. He then proposes “model-dependent
realism,” an approach that admits the possibility of a plurality
of successful explanatory frameworks but considers questions
about the “reality” of the frameworks or models “pointless.”v
In other words, he declares the philosophical problem of
theoretical knowledge unsolvable and asserts it is not an
important question anyway since he is happy to work with a
model that embraces inescapable relativism. If the model is
“convenient,” that is good enough.
What is most interesting at this point is that Hawking is
engaged in a series of epistemological choices. Based on the
fact that our scientific models are often adapted, modified, or,
in more extreme cases, discarded in favor of a different model
that explains the data more effectively, he concludes that we
are, in principle, incapable of knowing the objective nature of
reality. This kind of choice about what sort of knowledge
human beings may have is quite similar to what one would
find in any introductory philosophy textbook. The fact is that
science itself is incapable of answering the question about
what humans may know about the world. To the contrary,
science rises only from the intuitive certainty that we are truly
experiencing “reality.” Hawking is aware, to what degree I am
unsure, of the many serious questions that may be raised
regarding his position. Since he has chosen a position that
makes the argument between realists and anti-realists
“pointless,” we might infer from this that Hawking is not at all
enthusiastic about a protracted philosophical discussion on the
point. He finds a relativistic stance on these questions most
appealing. My point here, though, is that this foundational
decision is not one that may be proven through a purely
scientific argument. In fact, this decision is really one that will
shape and determine how he interprets the scientific data; a
fact established by reading the rest of his book.
Rather than proving the death of philosophy, Hawking’s
book is an attempt to answer philosophical questions and
support a particular philosophical position by showing its
consistency with the latest scientific discoveries. Calling this
something other than science only betrays a failure to
understand the difference between philosophy and science. If
“science,” at least as it is understood now, has to do with what
is empirically verifiable through a method of repeated
observation and supported generalization about the behavior
of the physical world, how could one possibly prove those
things that cannot be subjected to that method? It begs the
question to suggest that the method proves the truth of its
undemonstrated assumptions by its successes. If one has no
philosophical confidence that reality is more than merely a
fantastic “dream,” the successes of science need be merely a
projection of my wishes. Science proceeds based on the
philosophical assumption (or, if thought-out, conviction) that
there is a world beyond our minds that we can know. It
assumes that our minds are somehow adapted to grasp the
world and understand its workings.
Further, it assumes the basic legitimacy of our powers of
reason. This is a point of utmost significance. Physical “laws,”
2
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
it seems to me, are primarily our inducted generalizations
based on repeated experience. The accumulation of experience
supports certain convictions we have about how the world will
behave in the future. Of course, I cannot prove that the world
will behave tomorrow as it does today. How is it possible to
rule out, let’s say, that when the matter of this universe reaches
twenty billion years of age it will produce radically different
properties than are presently observed? To argue from the
“laws of physics,” is to argue from past and present experience
and is rooted in a deep trust in the accuracy of the laws of
thought that are applied to the sensory world. The so-called
“laws of physics” are not observable entities at all. They are
inferences from observed behavior of things; inferences that
are the result of logical thought. The confidence in the very
structures of reason in the human mind is an assumption of
science. Science can do nothing at all without this assumption.
Science emerges from the confidence of the human mind in its
own powers of understanding.
Hawking’s declaration that philosophy is dead might
have merit as a rebuke to philosophers that have abandoned
the great questions to which philosophy classically devoted
itself.
Simply declaring philosophy “dead” and then
proceeding to engage in philosophical reasoning and using
science to support one’s philosophical tendencies is blaringly
inconsistent, however. Of this inconsistency Hawking is guilty.
Near the end of his book, Hawking raises several great
questions, similar to those raised early in the work, and
proceeds to offer his answers. “Why is there something rather
than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of
laws and not some other?”vi He then quickly discards the
solution that “there is a God who chose to create the universe
that way.” His reply is of utmost importance: “It is reasonable
to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is
God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of
who created God.”
What does Hawking propose? His conclusion is that
gravity is the cause of the creation of the universe. “Because
there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself
from nothing.”vii From the flow of his argument, it is clear that
Hawking thinks that the supreme “given” in this universe is
gravity. Since there is gravity, everything else follows.
There is no reason to seek further understanding of what
this claim might mean. A host of problems present themselves
immediately. One might reasonably ask about the origins of
the gravitational force itself. Questions might also be offered
about whether or not gravity is sufficient, of itself, to explain
the origin of all energy and matter. What is “gravity” in radical
isolation from space and time? What does it mean to speak of
matter coming into existence “from nothing”? Here we are
confronted with philosophical questions again.
The principal of causality affirms that nothing happens
without a reason or cause. In other words, things don’t
happen without reason. I do not suspect that Hawking thinks
that matter came to be for no reason. He would speak of
Who Created God?
3
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
conditions in which matter can emerge. Indeed, he admits as
much when he speaks of the law of gravity as a precondition
for the emergence of matter. “Because there is a law like
gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
(emphasis added). The existence of the universe is then a
result of certain laws that have a causal relationship to the
emergence of energy.
What proof is there of the principle of causality? Why
must we acknowledge that there is a reason for any given
effect? The most obvious reason is that otherwise nothing
would be the cause of something. This is equal to affirming
that reality is nonsensical. If an effect is produced without a
reason or cause, then we cannot rule out any effect.
Acceptance of nothing as the final “explanation” of a given
effect would, if consistently accepted, signal the end to all
rational thought, including all science. Science is, by its very
nature, the search for causes. Hawking’s book is an attempt to
provide an explanation of the world that we observe. To
conclude by saying that the universe came from “nothing,” if
taken at face value, would mean that the universe is ultimately
reducible to an absurd, nonsensical foundation.
Of course, it is not quite so simple. Hawking does not
reduce the universe to nothing at all. There is the principle of
gravity that is able to spontaneously generate a universe
through its positive and negative interactions. Although the
matter of the universe did not exist before the initial
gravitational fluctuations, the forces themselves existed and
are their causal basis.
It appears that Hawking has reduced our choices
regarding the origins of the universe to two. We either accept
the law of gravity as the ultimate explanation for the origins of
everything, or we accept the notion of an independent,
transcendent cause:
God.
The second of these is
unacceptable, he reasons, because we are merely “deflecting”
the issue of creation. At some point, he reasons, we have to
admit something is the final explanation of this world. He
chooses the law of gravity, others choose God. God is an
unnecessary and unhelpful hypothesis, however, since we still
have to ask the unsolvable question: Who created God?
This line of reasoning is particularly common among
atheists who use their scientific background as a platform
upon which to air their philosophical commitments. It arises
from a fundamental failure to grasp the traditional arguments
for God’s existence and their necessary implications. This is
especially true regarding the cosmological argument. Let me
explain.
Every happening must have a cause. The alternative, of
course, is that a happening can occur with no cause at all. This
is equal to claiming that absolutely nothing can produce
something.
Offering “nothing” as an explanation is
intellectually unsatisfying precisely because nothing lacks
explanatory power: it is nothing. Offering nothing as a reason
for a particular effect is a non-answer. If the universe is
rational and knowable, it follows that we may reasonably
search for causes if we observe a happening. If the atheist
wishes to reject this he will either (a) undermine science
altogether since it is arises from the conviction that reality is
4
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
rational or (b) define “nothing” in such a way that it is actually
something.
If the cause of a given effect is itself an effect of yet
another cause, we must search for yet another cause. In other
words, if we find that the reason(s) for a given effect are
themselves in need of an explanation, we must search for
another cause. This search cannot go to infinity, however. If
the number of causal preconditions for a given effect or
happening are truly infinite in number the effect would never
have occurred. Imagine you have to walk past an infinite
series of trees before you arrive at your house. What time will
you arrive? Never, of course, since one cannot reach the end of
an infinity.
Since the number of causal preconditions for any given
effect cannot be infinite in number, one must acknowledge an
end to the causal series. Current Big Bang theory recognizes
an “end” insofar as it postulates an origin of the universe.
Hawking does not deny such an origin. What he does deny is
that anything is needed beyond the physical laws (especially
gravity) that are found in this universe. If one argues to God’s
existence, he will reason that something beyond the space-time
world is needed to account for this universe as a “happening.”
Since the series of dependent causes and effects that brought
us to this moment of time are finite, we must recognize that
something must ground the entire series. That ground must
be self-explanatory since otherwise it would merely be another
piece of the series of dependent causes. It must escape the
categories of change, dependence and matter (as a changing
aspect of the space-time world) altogether. We will call this
reality “God.”
If one follows this reasoning, it makes no sense to ask,
“What caused God?” God is discovered precisely as that which
needs no cause. A God that needs a cause is no God at all. The
real question should be: Is there any reason to think there is a
reality that needs no cause? As long as we are confronted with
things about which we can reasonably ask, “Why is it?” we are
not in the presence of the final explanation of this universe.
Hawking admits that “it is reasonable to ask who or what
created the universe” (emphasis added). He then proceeds,
however, to propose that one of the inferred “laws” of this
universe is a transcendent cause of the universe. This
conclusion seems to be dictated by a conscious decision to
search for an explanation of this universe without admitting
the existence of anything beyond it. It is a theory arising from
a methodological, philosophical commitment to materialism.
To this writer, at least, it seems far more reasonable and
compelling to embrace a supreme, transcendent mind as the
source of this universe. Our ability to transcend matter in
thought, our deep conviction that reality is rational and
knowable, and our ability to discover truth are evidence that
reality must be understood by appeal to more than mere
matter. Furthermore, accepting belief in a transcendent God
who willed the creation of the world provides a basis for
cosmic meaning. If the ultimate origin of this world is a blind
force like gravity, there is no basis for cosmic or human
“meaning” or value.
In fact, if one is committed to
materialistic explanations of this world, his tendency will be to
5
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
reduce the more spiritual or immaterial aspects of human
experience to merely material effects. Mind and freedom are
casualties since they must be treated as illusions arising from
the complex operations of a purely material system. Indeed,
Hawking draws this conclusion for us in his remarks on
human freedom.
centered in the brain while the truly moral act that includes
freedom involves transcendence above purely material
causality. We might add that it appears there is at least some
empirical evidence for “neuroplasticity,” the notion that the
brain and its activities can be changed over time by deliberate
acts of will.ix
Additionally, the intuitive experience of
“overruling” impulses of the body in view of an intellectually
envisioned “end” or goal is powerful evidence in support of a
real distinction between the brain and the mind.
Contrary to Hawking’s description and suggestions,
moral freedom is not simply physical desire.x Further,
Hawking makes a conscious choice to reject the interior,
intuitive experience of freedom in favor of “the molecular basis
of biology” that shows “biological processes are governed by
the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as
determined as the orbits of the planets.” This is a rather
astonishing admission. Something of which I am immediately
aware (i.e., freedom) is rejected as an illusion in view of
something I observe through my senses (biological processes).
To my mind this move discredits the validity of his theory.
Later Hawking will assert that a “good model” is one that
“agrees with and explains all existing observations.”xi Why
doesn’t the direct experience of freedom through interior
conscious awareness constitute “observational” evidence? If
the reply is that only empirically verifiable observational
evidence will be accepted it is only too easy to reply that all
empirical verification must find its way into the conscious
awareness of the person and therefore our conscious life is the
ultimate context or precondition for a discussion about
No Free Will?
Hawking denies “free will”: “It is hard to imagine how
free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical
law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines
and that free will is just an illusion.”viii Because desire to move
parts of the body can be simulated by electrically stimulating
the relevant parts of the brain, it follows, he argues, that our
actions and desires are nothing more than effects of physical
causes. However, the physical causes of any given desire or
action are so complicated that we can make use of the
“effective theory” that humans are free. In other words, we are
not really free but we can act like we are because of how
complicated the physical causes are that determine our
actions.
In reply, Hawking does not seem to understand what is
meant by freedom of the will. Freedom has specifically to do
with intellectual understanding and moral direction. One can
admit a physical basis for much of human activity without
denying moral freedom. For instance, a person may have the
desire to do one thing but know they should not yield to those
desires. The desire might be rooted in a physical response
6
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
models, theories, God, freedom, or whatever else one might
wish to discuss. Explaining away the conscious life or
experience of freedom as simply a determined or necessary
effect of a purely physical process creates a crisis of truth.
Let’s consider an example. Hawking thinks there is no
God and that gravity is the absolute principle that explains the
entire universe of our experience. I, on the other hand, think
there is a God and that the universe cannot explain itself.
Despite the illusion of freedom and conscious decision-making
involved in our assertions, both of us are really merely saying
and thinking what the physical causes within our biology are
requiring that we say and think. If the physical causes are the
ultimate reason why we say, do, and think, the category of
“truth,” as anything more than an illusion of consciousness,
evaporates. It doesn’t make sense to say that one set of
physical causes is “true” while another set is “false.” These are
merely subjective effects somehow resulting from physical
causes that, if Hawking is right, completely explain our mental
states.
The conclusion, then, is there is no such thing as
objective truth about anything. Hawking wrote his book
because his biology demanded that he do so. The illusion that
he did so freely and that he consciously chose his position
because it corresponds to reality is worthless (except, perhaps,
as an “effective theory” masking the true reality). Unless the
human mind and will transcend matter in some truly
meaningful sense, the pursuit of truth is nonsensical. If
biological determinism is true, neither of us is “right.” This is
so fundamentally opposed to our universal, interior conviction
that we not only are able to make judgments about objective
truths but also that we are able to act freely in acts of selfdetermination. This is especially evident when we think about
truths that have a logical force that compels or forces the mind
to assent. The geometry student that “sees” in the mind’s eye
that the interior angles of a Euclidean triangle must be 180
degrees sees this conclusion through the light of reason that
imposes itself on the human mind. It is this ability to see by
the light of reason that enables us to understand the nature of
the world around us, develop theories about it, know the
reality of our own minds and, at its height, become aware of
the reality of the God who transcends all matter and is the
ultimate source of reason and truth. The Pythagoreans, Stoics,
Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, and a host of others were
captivated by the all-pervasive presence of reason governing
the material world. The very predictability and regularity of
nature that lends itself to mathematical analysis directs our
minds to a supreme mind that is the ultimate source the “laws
of nature.” As mathematical truth properly belongs in a mind
in order to be seen as “true,” so it is the material world’s
ordered activity is evidence of a supreme mind as its ultimate
ground and source.
Just as Hawking leaves out the interior experience of
freedom and consciousness and reduces all of reality to
material processes, so he seeks to reduce all order and
rationality in the universe to purely material causality. The
consequence, as noted, is that if there is no mind that
transcends matter, there is no truth. Hawking cannot lay
7
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
claim to having arrived at truth, then, but only to doing what
his biology required that he do.
energy of this universe will one day undergo a final
development. Mortality will be elevated to immortality. The
process of death and decay will be shed in favor of a renewed
creation featuring the triumph of life over death. Since this
transformation of nature has yet to occur, it is inaccessible to
science. If God has performed a miracle revealing that
ultimate divine intention it could only be accessed by historical
memory. The existence of Christianity through the centuries is
the historical effect of the historical claim that Christ rose from
the dead. If Christianity is right on this point, as I believe it is,
the typical regularity of nature provides a sufficient grounds
for science (as well as other disciplines) while miracle
highlights the inherent limits of science and the power of God
over the creation as well as the conviction that the worldprocess has a meaning grounded in the will of a personal God
who has acted in history.
Conclusion
Although I lack the background to make a judgment on
Stephen Hawking’s scientific achievements, I am relatively
certain that his achievements will merit him a place in books
on the history of science. In my judgment, however, his efforts
at integrating his scientific insights with his commitment to
materialism and, apparently, atheism, are not compelling.
One final thought. Since he rejects the need for God in
his understanding of the universe, Hawking also rejects the
notion of miracle. In this article I have suggested that the
“laws of physics” are not independently existing entities but
are, instead, descriptions of the regular behavior of this world.
The ultimate cause of the structure and behavior of this world
is beyond the methods of science. If the regularity of nature is
ultimately a scientific way of describing divine providence, one
cannot a priori exclude the possibility of miracle. It may be
that the regular providence of God only places an accent mark
on miracles as unique moments in history by which God
directs attention to realities and truths that transcend the
revelatory power of nature. A Christian, for instance, believes
that in Christ God revealed his heart of love in a way that the
created world was incapable of expressing. It is not, for
instance, that the resurrection of Jesus is a “violation” of
nature as much as it is a manifestation of the eschatological
will of God revealed early. The Christian believes that the
Mark A. McNeil
9-26-2010
i
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (Bantam
Books: NY), 2010.
ii
5.
iii
22.
iv
Ibid.
v
46
vi
171.
vii
180.
viii
32.
ix
Schwartz, Mind and Brain.
8
A Reply to Stephen Hawking (McNeil)
x
xi
Hawking, 31-2.
51.
9