Has Hawking Eliminated God? (part 2)

Transcript Has Hawking Eliminated God? Part 2

Kevin Harris: Thanks for joining us on the Reasonable Faith podcast. Kevin Harris in the studio with Dr. William Lane Craig. Bill, we've been talking about Hawking's book The Grand Design. And we want to spend some more time on this. Check out some of the resources we have at ReasonableFaith.org, an interview that you did on this, and some other things, as well as our past podcasts. But some other issues that Hawking and his co-author bring up in this book, let's discuss that. One of them would be the realism/antirealism debate. Now, that sounds like a big philosophical question.

Dr. Craig: It is a philosophical question, Kevin. This is one of the most important questions in the philosophy of science. And it's ironic that in a book the second paragraph of which pronounces the death of philosophy, and says that philosophy is dead and that now it's up to scientists to bear the torch of discovery in the quest for knowledge, it's ironic that the first third of this book would then plunge into a philosophical discussion about realism and antirealism in science. And for me this was part of the most interesting sections of the book because they weren't dealing here with fine-tuning or the origin of the universe, it was just straight philosophy of science. And I thought this is so bizarre. On the one hand they think philosophy is dead and that scientists are going to answer these questions, and then they find themselves immediately immersed in a profound philosophical discussion, and I thought “Don't they understand what they're doing? Don't they realize that they are practicing philosophy?” But in any case that's what the first part of the book is about; about a third of it is on a discussion about realism and antirealism in science—to what extent do our theories really describe the way the world is? Do they tell us how the world really is, or are they just constructs in our minds that help us get by practically, but they don't really give us any knowledge of the way the world is?

Kevin Harris: So in a way you can construct your own reality? Is there an external world?

Dr. Craig: Well, that's the question that is raised by antirealism. And although they characterize their theory as what they call model dependent realism, in fact, Kevin, it's not realism at all. Hawking and Mlodinov are deeply committed to antirealism about science. They believe that scientific models are simply constructs of the human mind, and they do not tell us about the way the world really is.

Kevin Harris: Is there a difference between antirealism and skepticism? Is it that if you're an antirealist then it's difficult to get at reality, and so you're skeptical about what you're observing or what you think?

Dr. Craig: Yes, it would be skepticism at least with respect to the way the world is. Here's what they say on page 7 of their book: “if two physical theories as models accurately predict the same events one cannot be said to be more real than the other. Rather we are free to use whichever model is most convenient.” Now, what's significant about that is that they say that if these two physical theories or models predict the same results it's not just that we don't know which one is correct and which one is false, but rather that they say one is not more real than the other. It is purely a matter of convenience which one you want to use, and that these are not more or less approximations of reality; these two competing theories, neither of which, neither of them, connect with reality, to tell us the way reality really is.

Kevin Harris: Wow. Didn't Kant bring up some of these issues?

Dr. Craig: Yeah, Kant was an antirealist. He thought that space and time were constructs of the intellect, and that we cannot really know reality as it is in itself, and therefore all we know is reality as it appears to us. And so one way to interpret Hawking and Mlodinov would be as Kantians, that all we know is the world of appearance; we don't know reality as it is in itself. That would be one spin to put on it. And just how seriously they take this, Kevin, is evident on pages 50 and 51 of their book. Let me quote what they say in contrasting young earth creationism with modern Big Bang cosmology. They say,

So that's a description of young earth creationism—the world is not really all that old even though it contains these various appearances of age, and that's one possible model. They go on to say,

Notice he doesn't say 'more true' or 'more correct' than the first – it's more useful than the first – then they go on to say, “still, neither model can be said to be more real than the other.”

Kevin Harris: Wow.

Dr. Craig: So Big Bang cosmology is on a par with young earth creationism, in their view, in terms of its approximation to reality—the way the world really is. Neither of these can be said to be more real or more approximately true. All they can be said to be is more useful than the other, or more convenient. So this is how radical an antirealism they have, that these two cosmologists would think that in terms of reality young earth creationism, while less useful and convenient, is on a par with their own Big Bang model of the universe. There is no truth about how the universe originated. And what's important for the listener to understand is that when they say that they do not mean 'yes, one is more useful than the other and we don't know which one is more approximately true; we don't know which one is a better description of reality'—that's not what they're saying. They're saying neither of them approximates to reality—they're just models, and neither model can be said to be more real or more correct than the other. This is an antirealist view of science where all we have are useful constructs but none of them can be said to be more approximately real or true than another.

Kevin Harris: That really bothers me.

Dr. Craig: Oh, it's incredible.

Kevin Harris: Well, even if you're a staunch antirealist like that, it's as if even to hold the view you have to have some backdrop of reality to determine what approximates . . . “This most approximates reality but we don't know.”

Dr. Craig: You're making a good point, Kevin.

Kevin Harris: It's like illusionism: if you think that all is an illusion, you'd have to have a backdrop of reality in order to say this is reality and this is an illusion. So you need something to compare.

Dr. Craig: Yes.

Kevin Harris: Now, if you're an antirealist there's nothing even to approximate.

Dr. Craig: And that is why people who are antirealists, who are philosophers of science, are not antirealists about everything. They're antirealist with regard to these very high-level theoretical constructs like quarks or strings or other unobservables of quantum physics. But they're not antirealists about dinosaurs, for example. They would say that when we postulate dinosaurs as the best explanation for these fossil remains in the earth we are getting at reality, there really were these animals that once roamed the earth and left these vestiges, that nobody is an antirealist about dinosaurs. But Hawking and Mlodinov are antirealists, not just about these theoretical entities, they're antirealists about everything. Listen to what they say on page 7

And they say, “when that's the case one cannot be said to be more real than the other.” So they're applying this model not just to high theoretical events in physics, unobservables, they're applying it to all of reality, our observations, everything that we have through the sensory input of our brains. And that runs into the problem that you mentioned: if everything is ultimately illusory and a construct of our minds then how can you make any sort of objective judgment about what is most convenient, what best makes the predictions, because you have no knowledge of anything—it's all a construction of your mind.

Kevin Harris: We'll get back to the discussion with Dr. Craig in just a moment, but let me remind you that there are still some spots left for our tour of Israel coming up in May. Israel Tour 2011 hosted by Reasonable Faith and Dr. William Lane Craig, and there are spots left if you'll go there now to ReasonableFaith.org. The visits include Cesarea, Mount Carmel, the Sea of Galilee, Coperneaum, the Jordan River, the Old City, the Dead Sea—just to name a few. And on select evenings Dr. Craig will give after-dinner presentations with some time for Q and A. And you'll also have the opportunity to attend Dr. Craig's scheduled lecture at Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. So take a look at the tour dates, the prices, the full itinerary, and the registration information at ReasonableFaith.org. But you better hurry.

What are the theological implications of this? If this view were to take hold, would it play into the hands of naturalism?

Dr. Craig: I don't think hard-headed naturalists would want this at all. This is post-modernism is what this is. This is radical post-modernist antirealism that says we have no knowledge, really, of anything in the world. All we know are our linguistic constructs, and we get along with what works well, but these cannot be said to more or less approximate reality. And it gets even worse, Kevin, because later in the book Hawking and Mlodinov move from this sort of antirealism to a kind of ontological relativism, where they say that the model creates its own reality. So it's not in fact just a matter of having different models; there are different realities for different people. What this means is that if the model creates its own reality that for Fred Hoyle, who held to the steady state model, the universe really does exist eternally in a steady state. But for Stephen Hawking the universe really did begin 13.7 billion years ago. Reality is different from observer to observer. So for the ancient physician Gaylen blood really did not circulate through the human body, but for William Harvey, who discovered circulation, blood really does circulate through the human body. So on this view the model actually creates its own reality, and people with different models literally inhabit different worlds, different realities. This is a radical form of ontological relativity according to which the world has fallen apart and there is no objective reality. There is only the reality for me, the world for me, and each observer creates his own reality.

Kevin Harris: We've been dealing with this for quite some time, that truth is relative, and what's true for you may not be true for me, and you create your own truth and your own reality. And you hear this a lot in popular language. So this tends to kind of reinforce that a little bit.

Dr. Craig: A little bit!? It is it, Kevin! This is radical post-modernist antirealism, and non-objectivism.

Kevin Harris: [laughter] I was trying to be modest, so – yeah – it really does reinforce it—doesn't it? Well, that has a certain appeal to people who don't want you to impose your view on them.

Dr. Craig: Yes.

Kevin Harris: That's why I think people really like this ontological relativism, moral relativism, truth is relative-type thing, because they don't want their Aunt Edna shoving religion down their throat.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, I think that's right, although I find it odd because the people to whom the Hawking and Mlodinov type appeal is generally your Richard Dawkins New Atheist type who want to get rid of God and believe that God does not exist. But on this theory, for me, God really does exist, he created the Big Bang, and he is just as real as this table; he's as real as I am, for me, on this view, [3] even if for Richard Dawkins God doesn't exist. So I mean, think of that: the model creates its own reality—it means that God really exists in some people's model, and he really doesn’t in others. And so this would completely undermine the New Atheist's claim that there is no God. On this view there is a God, and the young earth creationist is just as much within his rights believing what he does as the atheist/naturalist is in believing what he does.

Kevin Harris: Well, we're all just one big happy family. [laughter] For a book that says philosophy is dead it sure goes into a lot of philosophy [laughter].

Dr. Craig: Exactly, and that was my overriding point, is that it just exposes the pretentiousness and naivete of that opening paragraph, that it is scientists now who are bearing the torch of discovery, philosophy is dead. This is pure philosophy, Kevin, and it is amateurish philosophy, ultimately.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, I'm just trying to point out again, and be careful, because people have accused me of taking him out of context by: “when he says 'philosophy' he means” . . . well, just like this reviewer on Amazon said (that we mentioned in another podcast) and that is: it sounds to me, Bill, like they're saying, unless you’re wearing a white lab coat in a lab with a test tube you don't need to be a philosopher. Those are going to be the philosophers. The scientists are the philosophers today, and not a guy who is a non-scientist – like Alvin Plantinga or yourself – who would write on these subjects. Yeah, but you're not in a lab. And so the scientists are going to be the heroes of philosophy. But philosophy often isn't their field.

Dr. Craig: No, this is incredibly naïve.

Kevin Harris: It is a mess.

Dr. Craig: It would be one thing to say 'philosophy is dead and therefore we're not going to do philosophy—we're just going to do science.' But then you don't plunge into a discussion of realism and antirealism, which is a philosophical question, not a scientific question – it's a question about science, not a question of science – then to take positions like ontological pluralism, that our models do not even approximate reality, and then even more radically, ontological relativity, that our models create their own reality. Those are clearly not scientific conclusions, Kevin. There are no experiments that you can perform to demonstrate those conclusions—this is pure metaphysics.

Kevin Harris: A Bunsen burner is not going to help you arrive at this. [laughter].

Dr. Craig: No. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you're claiming to eschew philosophical questions, and then with the other side of your mouth start espousing ontological pluralism, ontological relativity, and post-modernist antirealism.

Kevin Harris: Bill, you've also been very fair in your review of the book in saying that there are some helpful things in it as far as illustrating some designs and how it works, as well. So what do you recommend about this book?

Dr. Craig: Well, I would say I recommend the discussion of quantum physics that is in the center part of the book. It is a very nicely illustrated and nicely explained introduction to the experimental evidence for quantum mechanics—that's to be recommended. I very much second and applaud their discussion of the beginning of time and the origin of the universe, the Hartle-Hawking model as they interpret it in this book affirms the absolute beginning of time and the universe, that is the second premise of the kalam argument. They give a nice discussion of the fine-tuning of the universe and illustrate that. And they affirm that the fine-tuning is real—they say that this is almost miraculous. So in all of those respects I think the book is very helpful to the natural theologian. And it will be only in these other points of critique that I've offered that one would demur and say that they've been too cavalier in the conclusions that they've tried to draw.

Kevin Harris: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Craig, and thank you who are listening. We really appreciate you being here. Sam Harris – one of the so-called Four Horsemen of the New Atheism – has a new book out on morality. We'll discuss it on the next podcast, right here on Reasonable Faith. See you then. [4]