Stephen Hawking says the laws of physics indicate there's no need for God. The laws of PR now guarantee a bestseller. Photo credit: NASA HQ

Theoretical physicist and super smart guy Dr. Stephen Hawking claims that there is no place for God in the creation of the universe. Bestseller now guaranteed.

Dr. Stephen Hawking, probably the world’s best known theoretical physicist, claimed this week that, owing to the laws of physics and the existence of forces like gravity, God wasn’t needed in the creation of the universe. Cue the angry mutterings and outraged protestations of thousands.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking, who had previously argued that a belief in God is not incompatible with science, now claims that the universe can and will create itself from nothing. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he wrote. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

And in so claiming, Hawking lit the blue touch paper himself on the God versus science debate – which could be part of the point. Graham Farmello, writer and biographer of famous physicists, noted in an op-ed for The Telegraph, “It seems to be a fundamental law of PR that the God-science debate is a sure-fire source of publicity. Always welcome when one has a book to sell.” He’s not the only one to suggest Hawking has ulterior motives in his bold claim: Richard Lea, writing at The Guardian’s Books Blog, noted that invoking the G-word in the past brought Hawking fame (in A Brief History of Time, Hawking argued that uncovering a complete theory of everything would be to know the mind of God – an got himself a bestseller). Lea added, rather snarkily, “You may not need God to create a universe, but a little religion goes a long way in creating a bestseller.”

But, motives aside, Hawking’s invocation of God has indeed re-opened the centuries-old debate between science and religions, if it was ever actually dormant. On the merits of Hawking’s argument, which is essentially that the burgeoning M-theory could describe the behaviours of elemental particles and therefore the very nature of the universe, Farmello points out that because it is, at the moment, difficult to test, it has a ring of the theological about it.

“Even religious scientists – and there are still a few – never use the God concept in their scientific work. Perhaps it is time for a moratorium on the use of the concept in popularisations, too?” suggested Farmello. “This would avoid mixing up scientific and non-scientific statements and put an end to the consequent confusions. I think it wise for scientists and religious believers to keep out of each other’s territory – no good has come out of their engagement and I suspect it never will.”

In any case, more than a few were willing to take Hawking’s bait. Professor John Lennox, writing an op-ed in The Daily Mail, just flat-out says Hawking is wrong. “He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe,” he opined. “Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency.”