Changing Opinions in Hawking's Brief History of Time

Galaxy Messier 82, from NASA

I recently read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which is a fascinating book discussing if there was a beginning of time, whether or not the universe is infinite, and a number of physics theories and proposals attempting to explain the world we live in. One aspect of Hawking's book which I found very interesting was the way in which opinions or beliefs that do not fall within the limits of science have been used to try and influence the conclusions of scientific theory - either to add support for a theory or to try and detract from one.

Hawking is of course best known for his work on singularities. Without getting too complicated here, I'll just give Hawking's own explanation of what a singularity is:

"At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedman's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite."

If you are not the scientific type, don't worry if that's as clear as mud. What we keep in mind here is that the universe is described as having four dimensions, which we can't picture as we are used to thinking in three dimensions. Space-time (space and time linked together) is a fourth dimension. The singularity is a mathematical way of showing that space and time had a beginning, and that we cannot tell what existed (or exists) before that or outside of that using science. (Even in saying that I am using spatial words like "before" and "outside" - it is impossible to imagine something that is not a space and doesn't follow linear time). Scientific theories break down and cannot be used to explain why there was a beginning of space-time and exactly what caused the beginning of the universe. The singularity goes beyond the limits of science and leaves us empty handed in terms of explaining why we are here.

What interests me is that the singularity and beginning of time has been controversial not so much scientifically but philosophically and spiritually. Hawking writes:

"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, siezed on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the bible)."

I find this interesting because my observation is that some people claim reliance on scientific facts and human reason, and eschew a belief in spiritual or supernatural causes. Yet when science puts forward a theory that indicates or suggests a cause beyond the limits of facts and reason, the response is not scientific but subjective. Hawking relates different attempts by some scientists who tried (and failed) to disprove the singularity because of the philosophical implications, i.e. that it implied a supernatural or divine cause for the beginning of space-time and existence of the universe. For example:

"There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein's theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

Marxism puts its boast in materialism, and as such it needs a determinist approach - everything material can be measured, or predicted, and the causes of events can be explained in solely material terms. Singularities, and thus the big bang, cannot be reduced to determinism because all the theories of science break down in a singularity. We cannot look backwards and scientifically determine the causative reason for the beginning of the universe. We also cannot start with scientifically knowing the cause for the origin of the universe and then be able to predict exactly what happens either. One way that the origin of the universe is sometimes described is that it is "a quantum event outside of space-time", which really just means that something we can't predict happened outside of space and time as we know it.

So you would think that science would admit its limits and acquiesce. Yet Hawking himself became dissatisfied with the implications of the singularity, and discusses his proposal for a universe without beginning or end in the later chapters of A Brief History of Time. Why? He admits that what he puts foward is "a proposal" and throughout his discussion of different hypotheses he wrestles with the role of God as the creator. At one point he proposes that there is no need for a creator when he hypothesises that the universe has no beginning or end. At the same time he is unable to dispense with the singularity, which he tries to incorporate into his eternal universe model. This doesn't really make sense when the theories of science break down in a singularity, and Hawking is really just speculating. It seems to me that Hawking at times falls into a one dimensional view of God, similar to Einstein's, in which God is a system of logic and is not considered as a Spirit. That is, he attempts to confine God within scientific boundaries, yet at the same time is discussing singularities which are not restricted by scientific theories. Hawking's philosophical underpinning here is human rationalism. He discusses the possibility of scientists discovering a complete theory of the universe and says:

"Then we shall all, philosophers, scientisits 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 ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

I admire Hawking's brilliance as a physicist, but don't agree with his later proposals, which lack the elegance and mathemetical robustness of his singularity work. To be fair, he doesn't shy from asking some hard questions and making some fascinating observations. For example, although we cannot explain what caused an initial singularity, the resulting precision is astounding:

"If the rate of expansion [of the universe] one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." [Added note mine]

Having come to the limits of scientific laws and theories, scientists themselves begin to resort to philosophical explanations for the reason for our existence. However some philosophical explanations, such as materialist determinism, are insufficient to explain a cause which cannot be explained by the materialistic laws of science. Opinions have changed over time, although one explanation has always been constant - there is a God who is not confined by the laws of science, and who created everything contained by them. This is the Logos - the spirit and reason which is the cause. I agree with Hawking that we are seeking to know the mind of God, but I do not think human reason can attain this. That would be trying to enclose the infinite within the finite. I would say we can begin by considering that aspect of ourselves which desires to know why we are here, and acknowledge that the mind of God is beyond our human capacity. We can begin by considering the spiritual reality behind the material world. It requires more than science to comprehend that.