DOCSLIB.ORG

L . Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
L . Introduction The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow Review by Ian Kluge l . Introduction Stephen Hawking’s and Leonard Mlodinow’s The Grand Design begins with a grand or rather, grandiose claim that “philosophy is dead” and goes on from there. The book proceeds to tell us that an infinite stack of multiverses – instead of turtles – explains our allegedly ‘fine-tuned’ existence on earth. For good measure, the authors throw in what they think is a new philosophy of science, model-dependent realism, and demolish free will. They also add elaborate faith- statements about M-Theory, which, as Nobel-Laureate Steven Weinberg points out, is not nearly so well established or useful as Hawking would have us believe. The book ends by asserting that gravity not God is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Hawking’s claim that “philosophy is dead” (5) is such a sweeping over-generalization that it is hard to know what it actually means. He thinks, “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics” (5). Does he mean philosophy of science? Or ontology? Or medical ethics? Philosophy of physics? Postmodernism? If so, then it is pretty clear he is one who is just catching up with philosophy. He needs to read a little more broadly in modern books on all these subjects. Given his claim, it is ironic that his supposedly ‘new’ model- dependent realism is a hash of warmed-over Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962), postmodernist epistemology and, above all, 18th Century Kantian idealism. As we shall see below, this model makes science impossible. The problems begin early in the book. (We’ll pass over the history of science howlers, like the claim that Aristotle, the father of biology, rejected observation.) In trying to answer the question about the origin of natural law, Hawking conflates and confuses two issues: (1) the existence of God as the ground of being or origin of all that exists and (2) God’s relationship to creation, such as making exceptions to the natural laws He established. In other words, Hawking confuses the question of God’s existence as the source of natural law with the question about God’s interference in His laws. These are two fundamentally different questions and can be answered independently of one another. It is quite possible – as deists like Hume did – to say that God exists as the author of all, including natural law, without subscribing to divine interference, or ‘miracles’ as understood by Hawking. Claiming that we cannot believe in God without believing in miracles is logical nonsense. There is no absolutely necessary connection between the two ideas. The Baha’i Writings recognize this fact: they do not deny the possibility of miracles but do not make belief in God dependent on them, and, indeed, de-emphasize them. According to Hawking, if we distinguish God’s existence from His miraculous deeds, God becomes “no more than a definition of God as the embodiment of the laws of nature” (29). Even if this were true, why would it be a problem? Saying that the laws of nature are divine keeps divinity in our world-picture as surely as saying a transcendent God created all natural laws. Such a world-picture differs significantly from a purely naturalistic world-picture which denies the divine altogether and ascribes everything to chance or quantum fluctuations. The presence of divinity in whatever form – even as a pantheistic God Who embodies natural law –influences not only science vis-à-vis our understanding of causality, but also fundamental issues of ontic, social, legal and spiritual value. In one view, we are the ‘children’ of the divine, in the other a by- product of chance combinations of matter. On the other hand, if Hawking means more than a pantheistic God, i.e. God as the author of the laws, then it is clear that as creator, God transcends the laws He makes, just as any artist transcends his own work. Here, too, as the maker of laws that allow the formation of life God becomes a source of value as well as understanding vis-à-vis causality and cosmic order. Contrary to Hawking’s claim, the subject of miracles has nothing to do with the differences in these two world-pictures. Hawkin and Mlodinow follow the Humean view, that a miracle is necessarily an exception to the laws of nature. God breaks the rules He made. Hawking shows how this view is irrational. But this is not the only possible explanation. First, there is the explanation by secondary causes. In other words, God works through the laws of nature to achieve effects that contradict our expectations and usual experience. He uses natural laws in ways we have not yet discovered. Consequently, no break with natural law is required. Theoretically, if scientists could get enough knowledge, they might even be able to understand how some miracles ‘work’ – i.e. miracles could become quite ‘scientific.’ Furthermore, contrary to what Hawking claims, scientific determinism would not “exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God” (30) because God acts through not against natural laws. Such a conclusion fits in well with the Baha’i Writings which state “No thing have I perceived, except that I perceived God within it, God before it, or God after it.” (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 178). Since God is “in” things, S/he may act through or by means of them. A second possible take on miracles comes from quantum physics. This view defines a miracle as an event of an extremely low order of probability. Quantum physics has established that in the last analysis, all laws are probabilistic i.e. do not operate with 100% guaranteed results in all cases (72). A genuine miracle then, is a highly unlikely – but not impossible – event. Coins can land on their edge. Not often. But they can. Philosophically speaking, this lets us doubt that miracles have occurred but does not allow us to prove they cannot – which is what Hawking seeks (unsuccessfully) to do. In both of these theories about miracles, God can interfere in nature without breaking any physical laws though He can use them in ways we do not expect. In this case, however, the problem is with our knowledge and expectations and not with God even if Hawking would have it the other way around. Of course, this does not mean we must believe all miracle stories in all religions – indeed, we may choose to believe none – but it does mean that we cannot logically rule out the possibility of miracles a priori. Multiverses are another source of logical difficulties for Hawking. The Grand Design claims that the existence of multiverses can explain why the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for life without resorting to God as an explanation. In an infinite array of possible universes, one that contains life is likely or even inevitably bound to appear. Saying that a universe fit for humankind is likely to show up is, in fact, a covert appeal to the laws of probability – which raises the question of the origin of the law of probability. Are they ‘just there’? If so, Hawking has resurrected God – the only totally independent entity – under another name. Did these laws develop through the interaction of particles? If so, how did the particles get the capacity to develop natural laws? How did the particles develop the capacity to interact with one another? And how could we answer such questions by means of the scientific method which requires prediction and observation? Clearly, Hawking’s multiverse suggestion leaves science behind. If, on the other hand, the appearance of multiverses were truly random, then we could not determine that any result was likely, unlikely, inevitable or impossible. This negates Hawking’s claim that countless multiverses can explain the origin of this fine-tuned universe. An explanation must tell us why something happened, must happen or is likely to happen – and if the appearance of universes is purely random, we cannot know any of these things. Simply claiming that because there are so many of these multiverses a world like ours must appear is like saying that sand-castles must appear on the beach because there are trillions of trillions of grains of sand. Well, no . For building sand-castles, sand-grains are necessary but not sufficient causes. Clearly, multiverses by themselves are not sufficient for explaining the existence of a fine-tuned universe. II. Model-Dependent Realism One of Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s main contributions in The Grand Design is their theory of “model-dependent realism” (42) according to which a physical theory or world-picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science. (43) In their view “to model-dependent realism it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation” (46); moreover, if two different models agree with observations, we cannot know which one is “more real than another” (46). This is inane wordplay – saying that a “model is real” means precisely that it agrees with observation. What else could it mean? How can a model “agree with observation” of nature and not be “real” i.e. not correspond to the reality it models? If a model makes testable predictions which are validated, the very fact of validation means something about the model is correct, i.e. corresponds to reality and, therefore, provides real information about nature.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow on the Grand Design
    Book Reviews this if they are to make a significant con- before the creation’ (50). However, then tribution to the interface between science he says, ‘That is a possible model, which and faith. The rather good bibliography is favoured by those who maintain that at the end of this book would be a guide the account given in Genesis is literally to the competition – there are some excel- true’, but the big bang theory is ‘more lent books in this area already. Not rec- useful’, even though neither model is ommended. ‘more real than the other’ (50-51). This is deeply confusing not least because (a) Paul Wraight has retired from teach- Augustine himself did not take Genesis ing physics and electronics at literally, and (b) Augustine’s view is Aberdeen University and is thinking entirely compatible with the big bang and writing about design. theory! However, notwithstanding what comes later, Hawking admits at this Stephen Hawking and Leonard point that it is not clear that we can take Mlodinow time back beyond the big bang because The Grand Design: New Answers to the present laws of physics may break the Ultimate Questions of Life down (51). London: Bantam Press, 2010. 200 pp. hb. Hawking informs us that the 219 here- £18.99. ISBN-13 978-0593058299 sies condemned by Bishop Tempier of Paris in 1277 included the idea that This book was notoriously heralded by a nature follows laws, because this would front page splash in The Times headlined conflict with God’s omnipotence (24-25). ‘Hawking: God did not create Universe’.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas]. Kaiser When Darwin Theorized About How Man and Other
    SoMETHING FROM NoTHING THIS WAY CoMEs Thomas]. Kaiser When Darwin theorized about how man and other organisms might have evolved, he assumed the existence of the lower life forms and proposed an account ofhow others could have evolved from them. With the advent of cellular and molec­ ular biology evolutionists began to theorize how the lowest life forms might have evolved from inorganic nature. More­ over, scientists now think that the elements themselves are the products of evolution. The heavier elements came into being from lighter elements some time after the big bang about r 3. 7 billion years ago. So the theory of evolution itselfhas evolved from explaining the origin of biological species to the origin of the whole universe. The big bang theory now being widely accepted, the next question is where did the material out of which the elements evolved come from? Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their new book, The Grand Design, have answered this question by saying that the cosmos spon­ taneously generated from nothing. According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. In­ stead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the Thomas]. Kaiser is a graduate (1975) of Thomas Aquinas College. He earned his C.Phil. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1980 and completed Ph.D. in Biology in 1986. He has been a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College since 1982. I SoMETHING FROM NoTHING THIS WAY CoMBs Thomas]. Kaiser intervention of some supernatural being or god.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence of God in Physics
    The Evidence of God in Physics By: Br. Joseph Anoop, FSP Amazing discoveries in physics during the 20th century have revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity published in 1915 introduced a totally new scientific perspective to view the world. An analysis of Einstein’s equations led Belgium physicist and Catholic priest George Lemaître to propose in 1927 that our universe is expanding, and it must have its origins in a finite point in time. Known eventually as the Big Bang Theory, the idea that universe had a beginning was met at first with skepticism. However, in 1929 American astronomer Edwin Hubble furnished the first scientific evidence that the universe is expanding based on his observation of galaxies using the giant telescope at Mount Wilson in California. In addition, “The discovery of the microwave radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 also indicated that the universe must have been much denser in the past.”1 Thus Einstein’s equations and Lemaître’s model were confirmed. Under such convincing empirical evidences, the scientific community generally accepted the Big Bang as the best theory to date about the origin of the universe. As the scientists studied the consequence of the Big Bang theory by tracing its origin to a finite point, they realized that a transcendent and omnipotent God is theoretically needed to bring the universe into being. In other words, there should be an outside agency that triggered the bang which started off the expanding universe. However, some scientists attempt to explain the origin without resorting to a God-hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Hawking a Person I Admire
    Stephen Hawking A person I admire By Theodora Kiorpe th Stephen William Hawking was born on the 8 of January 1942 (exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo) in Oxford, England. th He passed away on the 14 of March 2018. He was an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author, and director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. Hawking was the first to set out a theory of cosmology explained by a union of the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Professor Stephen Hawking worked on the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's general theory of relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes. Another conjecture is that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science. Hawking began his schooling at the Byron House School in Highgate, London. He later blamed its "progressive methods" for his failure to learn to read while at the school. At the age of eleven, Stephen went to St. Albans School and then on to University College, Oxford (1952); his father's old college. Stephen wanted to study mathematics although his father would have preferred medicine. Mathematics was not available at University College, so he pursued physics instead. After three years and not very much work, he was awarded a first class honours degree in natural science. In October 1962, Stephen arrived at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) at the University of Cambridge to do research in cosmology, there being no-one working in that area in Oxford at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawking, Stephen and Mlodinow, Leonard. the Grand Design. New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of Life
    Hawking, Stephen and Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. New answers to the ultimate questions of life. London, Bantam Press, 2010. 200 pp. Paperback. Stephen Hawking held the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge University for thirty years. Leonard Mlodinow is a physicist at Caltech University. They are eminent in their fields. The style is light-hearted and occasionally wry, with some amusing cartoons. The production is beautiful and the illustrations are helpful. The writing is clear, but the complexity of the subject matter requires attentive reading and re-reading. The authors tackle subjects such as quantum mechanics, the ‘big bang’, probability theory, the limitations of general relativity, and the surprising fact that we can determine the past by our observations in the present. They draw notably on the work of Richard Feynman who proposes that “a system has not just one history but every possible history”. (p.6) They also speak of M-theory which “predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing”. (p.8) They speak of ‘supersymmetry’ and space-time, Game of Life theory, etc. This is all very interesting, and the authors are at ease in their element. They also admit that there is ignorance on some issues, for example “… we don’t have a complete quantum theory of gravity …. physicists are not sure exactly how inflation happened.” (p. 129) However, at the very start, Hawking and Mlodinow roundly proclaim that ‘philosophy is dead’ and they dismiss theology with equal ease. They present earlier forms of thought as the product of simple ignorance, with human beings inventing deities to explain the events of nature which only science now properly understands.
    [Show full text]
  • Reality, Science and the Supernatural CAN SCIENCE SUPPORT BELIEF in a CREATOR GOD?
    Reality, Science and the Supernatural CAN SCIENCE SUPPORT BELIEF IN A CREATOR GOD? John Brain Copyright © John Brain 2016 PAGE 1 To my wife Joyce for her invaluable support PAGE 2 Contents Preface p 6 Chapter 1 The Project p 14 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Main Doubts Materialism and mind/matter relationship Evolution Scientific and personal explanation Supporting evidence from science 1.3 A Project Outline 1.4 Key Points Chapter 2 Materialism and Reality p 30 2.1 Introduction 2.2. Modern physical sciences 2.3 The nature of matter 2.3.1 Looking inwards Quantum weirdness Vibrating strings of energy The Theory of chaos 2.3.2 Looking upwards Dark Mystery 2.4 Discussion 2.5 Key Points Chapter 3 Evolution and Reality p 53 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Darwinian evolution 3.3 Three viewpoints on human development Young earth creationism Intelligent design Evolution 3.4 Does belief in God prevent acceptance of the theory of evolution 3.5 Does evolution need God? 3.6 Theistic evolution What is theistic evolution? Why can evolution be such a cruel process? Does Theistic evolution introduce a “God of the Gaps”? PAGE 3 3.7 Discussion 3.8 Key Points Chapter 4 Science and Reality p 74 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Advances in Science – emergence of a new reality Biology Physical Sciences 4.3 A More Reliable Explanation of Reality Some dogmas of modern science No “Theory of Everything” No satisfactory explanation of quantum physics More intriguing problems 4.4 The Limitations of Science Science is continually changing Science is not geared to answer “Why”
    [Show full text]
  • The Grand Design
    anglicised hawkings_SO.qxp 29/7/10 12:14 Page v THE GRAND DESIGN STEPHEN HAWKING and LEONARD MLODINOW anglicised hawkings_SO.qxp 29/7/10 12:14 Page 2 anglicised hawkings_SO.qxp 29/7/10 12:14 Page 3 1 THE MYSTERY OF BEING anglicised hawkings_SO.qxp 29/7/10 12:14 Page 5 We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Liv- ing in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a cre- ator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philoso- phy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern develop- ments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different from the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Communities, Science, Scientists, and Perceptions: a Comprehensive Survey
    Religious Communities, Science, Scientists, and Perceptions: A Comprehensive Survey EMBARGOED UNTIL 2/16/14 A paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science February 16, 2014 Elaine Howard Ecklund Rice University RUS Study PI Christopher Scheitle Saint John’s University RUS Senior Research Associate Data presented in this report is part of the Religious Understandings of Science Study (2012-2015) funded by the John Templeton Foundation (grant 38817), Elaine Howard Ecklund, Rice University, PI. The study has received additional support from Rice University’s Shell Center for Sustainability, The Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Rice University in collaborating with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion program, Jennifer Wiseman, PI and Director, which will utilize the research findings to facilitate eXtensive programming among the scientific and religious communities. Direct All Correspondence to Elaine Howard Ecklund Autrey Professor of Sociology Study PI Rice University [email protected] Introduction From Galileo to the Scopes Monkey Trial, science and religion have been pitted as opponents (Numbers 1992). Media attention generally focuses on the conflict that religious and scientific communities have over evolution (Bartlett 2005; Begley 1998; Behe 2005; Cuomo 2005), and controversial court cases over how to teach evolution in public schools have renewed public interest (Berkman and Pultzer 2010). The debate between science and religion, however, goes beyond evolution. Some scientists condemn religious leaders more generally for the perception that they facilitate scientific ignorance among the American public (Dawkins 2006; Editors 2005; Lakoff 2005; Scott 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • The Grand Design
    The Grand Design 55 AM The Grand Design ALSO BY STEPHEN HAWKING A Brief History of Time A Briefer History of Time Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays The Illustrated A Brief History of Time The Universe in a Nutshell FOR CHILDREN George’s Secret Key to the Universe (with Lucy Hawking) George’s Cosmic Treasure Hunt (with Lucy Hawking) ALSO BY LEONARD MLODINOW A Briefer History of Time The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives Euclid’s Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace Feynman’s Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life FOR CHILDREN The Last Dinosaur (with Matt Costello) Titanic Cat (with Matt Costello) The Grand Design The Grand Design The Grand Design 57 AM The Grand Design Copyright © 2010 by Stephen W. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow Original art copyright © 2010 by Peter Bollinger All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Bantam Books, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York. Cartoons by Sidney Harris, copyright © Sciencecartoonsplus.com BANTAM BOOKS and the rooster colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. eISBN: 978-0-553-90707-0 www.bantamdell.com v3.0 The Grand Design The Grand Design The Grand Design 22:47 AM The Grand Design E EACH EXIST FOR BUT A SHORT TIME, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011
    316 SEMINARY STUDIES 50 (AUTUMN 2012) Adventist Church in Tanzania. I recommend this valuable resource for both undergraduate and graduate studies in the disciplines of missions, history, and ecclesiology. University of Arusha MUSSA S. MUNEJA Tanzania Lennox, John C. God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011. 96 pp. Paper, $5.95. John Lennox, Oxford mathematician and philosopher, is well known for his public debates with prominent atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. In the book, God and Stephen Hawking, Lennox presents the arguments he would use if it were possible to debate physicist Stephen Hawking. Lennox uses careful reasoning and logical argumentation to show the fallacies in Hawking’s assertions that science has proven that the universe has no Designer. To put this discussion in context, we need to start with Albert Einstein. Einstein, the most famous physicist of the twentieth century, is quoted as saying, “I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.” Einstein was referring to his search for a fundamental, unifi ed theory of physics that would explain in a single expression the laws that determine how the physical universe operates. According to him, in understanding how the universe is put together, one is in some sense “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Hawking, who has claimed Einstein’s mantle as the most famous living physicist, has expressed a similar sentiment. In his fi rst book, A Brief History of Time (Bantam, 1988), Hawking concludes his discussion regarding the search for a unifi ed theory of physics with a statement referring to what we should do after we discover this ultimate theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Hawking - an Appreciation by Martin Rees
    Stephen Hawking - an appreciation by Martin Rees Soon after I enrolled as a graduate student at Cambridge University in 1964, I encountered a fellow student, two years ahead of me in his studies; he was unsteady on his feet and spoke with great difficulty. This was Stephen Hawking. He had recently been diagnosed with a degenerative disease, and it was thought that he might not survive long enough even to finish his PhD. But, amazingly, he lived on to the age of 76. Even mere survival would have been a medical marvel, but of course he didn’t just survive. He became one of the most famous scientists in the world-- acclaimed as a world-leading researcher in mathematical physics, for his best-selling books about space, time and the cosmos, and for his astonishing triumph over adversity. Astronomers are used to large numbers. But few numbers could be a large as the odds I'd have given, back in 1964 when Stephen received his 'death sentence', against witnessing this uniquely inspiring crescendo of achievement sustained for more than 50 years. Few, if any, of Einstein’s successors have done more to deepen our insights into gravity, space and time. Stephen went to school in St Albans, near London, and then to Oxford University. He was, by all accounts, a 'laid back' undergraduate, but his brilliance nonetheless earned him a first-class degree in physics, and an 'entry ticket' to a research career in Cambridge. Within a few years of the onset of his disease he was wheelchair-bound, and his speech was an indistinct croak that could only be interpreted by those who knew him.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Physics [Cosmology] Render God Unnecessary? a Critical Assessment of the Grand Design *
    Dini Tetkikler Dergisi ULUM Journal of Religious Inquiries !# ﺠﻣ ﻠ ﺔ تﺎﺳارﺪﻟا ﺔﯿﻨﯾﺪﻟا %$ " www.dergipark.gov.tr/ulum Did Physics [Cosmology] Render God Unnecessary? A Critical Assessment of The Grand Design * Mehmet Bulğen ** ABSTRACT In this study, we will consider the claim, defended by world-renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking and science writer Leonard Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design, that science is able to explain the universe as a whole and that therefore there is no need to appeal to a supernatural being in order to account for the coming into existence of the universe out of nothing and its fine-tuned order. In this regard, we will first analyze the extent to which M-theory is scientific. For M-theory is mainly mentioned by Hawking and Mlodinow as the theory that explains scientifically the generation of the universe out of nothing and why the universe is the way it is. In the second part, the conception of science that Hawking and Mlodinow adopt on the basis of the model dependent realism will be analyzed. Moreover, we will call attention to some problems that are rooted in the increased gap between theory and experiment in contemporary physics. In the last part of the article, we will analyze the subject matter from Islamic viewpoint in a theological * This article is the translation of a previosly published article in Turkish: Bulğen, Mehmet. “Fizik Tanrı’yı Gereksiz mi Kıldı? The Grand Design (Büyük Tasarım) Kitabı Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme”. Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi=Journal of Marmara University Theology Faculty 41 (2011/2): 143-166.
    [Show full text]