The Bible speaks of an existence prior to the creation of time and matter in which God alone existed. Then, Genesis records God creating time and matter, in the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). That singularity was the beginning of time and matter. As Christians, we believe that by faith, which is not the same as saying there is no scientific or philosophical evidence for our belief that God created time and space; however, it is to say that since no one was there, regardless of one’s view of origins, it is a faith act.
Scientists speak of this event as a “singularity.” The Big Bang would be a theory involving the beginning—singularity—before which there was nothing. Now, when scientists speak of singularity, absolute beginning, they realize that this grants enormous credence to the idea of a creator.
The beginning of the universe is based upon several theological and/or scientific discoveries, one of which is the second law of thermodynamics, which basically says everything tends toward equilibrium, and the universe is not in equilibrium; therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Scientists like Stephen Hawking recognize the theological implication of a singularity and therefore his atheism drives him to make statements that would be scoffed at and ridiculed beyond measure if any Christian scientist or theologian said them about Genesis.
For example, he says, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities…When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.” ((Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 138-39)) So, let me see if I understand, if we deal in imaginaries—like the tooth fairy—there are no singularities, but if we deal in realities there is a singularity and thus a creator. Um, very scientific and objective I might add.
Elsewhere Hawking says, “I’m a positivist…I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it [reality] is.” ((Hawking and Penrose, Nature of Space and Time, 121)) Now, I am just a regular person of faith, so let me see if I understand this rather weighty scientific concept from this Einsteinian surrogate. A theory need not correspond to reality to be accepted by scientists as a valid theory of the origin of the universe or I suppose anything for that matter. WOW, so much for objectively dealing with real knowledge and facts. I always thought that scientists—at least the atheistic and skeptical sort—said Christians operated on faith, religious knowledge while scientists were Sergeant Friday kind of guys—you know, Dragnet and “just the facts ma’am.”
First, if Hawking’s positivism is true, then why invalidate any theory, and more to the point, if he does not know what reality is, and if it does not matter whether a theory corresponds to reality, then no one can or should say one theory is better than any other. A fortiori, if Hawking does not care if his theory corresponds to the way things really are, and he does not even know what that is, then why in the world would anyone listen to him tell us about the way things were, came into existence, or the way we should understand data? If his approach is pervasive, then cosmogonical science is nothing more than a fairy tale peppered with incidental facts, so long as these facts don’t lead to theistic conclusions because if they do, they can be summarily discarded and replaced with a more philosophically suitable story based solely upon the wishes and stature of the scientist.
Can you imagine what scientists and atheists would say, and should say, to someone who believes in the biblical account of creation and said, it does not matter if it corresponds to the way things really came into existence, and it is what should be believed since we don’t know what reality is.
Then Hawking goes so far to as to say, “I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.” ((Hawking and Penrose, Nature of Space and Time, 121; cf.4))
Again, I pause to see if I can grasp such an intellectually stimulating and challenging concept. Not only does it not matter if the theory corresponds to reality, or whether one can know reality, but it is actually meaningless to even ask whether a cosmogonical theory corresponds to reality. It is simply meaningless. Now this causes us to pause and think about what meaningless conversations are about and example would be, what does a rock think about? What does a square circle look like?
Stephen Hawking is said to be the greatest scientific mind since Einstein, and I do not doubt that for a moment. This is apparent to anyone who has read or heard him. However, his faith in naturalism transforms this otherwise luminous mind into a dispensary of childish absurdities. His commitment to positivism, along with his concurring statements about knowing and corresponding to reality are faith statements, which are absolutely contrary to the very claims of the scientific enterprise.
Should scientists be able to get away with this? I think not. If a Christian spoke in such nonsensical pronouncements, he would be summarily dismissed and rightly so. This again demonstrates the underlying biases of even the most renowned scientists.
What if a Christian spoke in such nonsensical ways?