Stephen Hawking’s Descent Into Futility

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlondinow’s latest book The Grand Design has astounded the philosophical community by making the audacious claim that “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.” [i] Dr. William Lane Craig begs to differ, please refer to this.

Demise of philosophy aside, Hawking necessarily robs its grave as his book is a case in point, material reductionist philosophical treatise – not hard science.  He sets forth the preposterous idea that the mere existence of the law of gravity allows that the universe could spontaneously create itself out of nothing. He argues that the entire universe is the product of an arbitrary quantum fluctuation, an unintentional cosmic coincidence that has no spiritual significance.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, 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.”  [i]

Ok let me get this straight… In other words, to create itself, the universe had to exist, before it existed.  Now that is futile thinking! I guess Hawking’s Grand Design is actually no design… but how grand is that? Yet he still must acknowledge that we find an astonishingly well suited set of conditions for life. This transcends credulity and he knows it.  To explain away the inconceivable precision design we encounter. Hawking asserts,

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.[ii]

Multiple universes? Where did they come from?

“Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.”[iii]

Wow! This sounds like magic!  Wait a minute… seriously, how can “nothing” fluctuate?  Nothing literally means “no thing” and it can not do anything. But Hawking believes that nothing did something which made everything. That is futile thinking. For many more detailed rebuttal’s please follow this link as this has been demonstrated as nonsense on a number of levels.

Even his research partner Sir Roger Penrose, who won the Wolf prize for physics with Hawking for their paper which proved that time had a beginning, has spoken out against his unwarranted atheistic assertions. It seems as if a famously brilliant scientist is exhibiting embarrassingly futile thinking. I think I know why…

I have been reading A.W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy which is a book about the attributes of God and how many modern Christians have lost the proper sense of God’s awesome majesty. I highly recommend it and hope that you might read it, as the above hyperlink links to a free electronic copy. In light of Hawking’s nonsense, a few sections really stood out to me. So much so, I feel compelled to post them. First, Tozer speaks to the fact that modern man has lost his proper sense of awe and wonder for creation. Remarking on how much,

Still we do not know. Secularism, materialism, and the intrusive presence of things have put out the light in our souls and turned us into a generation of zombies. We cover our deep ignorance with words, but we are ashamed to wonder, we are afraid to whisper “mystery.”  [iv]

I think this indeed the case. One’s belief in God is inextricably related to one’s sense of awe and wonder with creation. The arrogance of some scientists is rather astounding considering that we actually know so very little. Tozer’s words “that we still do not know what it is” were penned decades ago. Has science proved him wrong? Hasn’t science now unlocked reality? Actually quite the opposite, in fact, we have actually learned that we know a lot less than we thought we did in 1961. David Spergel leader of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe space mission reveals,

“From our experiments, the periodic table which comprises the atoms or normal matter that are said to make up the entire universe actually covers only 4.5 percent of the whole,” lead theorist Spergel said. “Students are learning just a tiny part of the universe from their textbooks. It would be dark matter and dark energy that comprise the next 22 percent and 73.5 percent of the universe.”[v]

As Dr John Lennox so astutely rebutted Hawking,  “What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.” [vi] Dr. Lennox is indeed correct and this is where my current reading of Tozer connected serendipitously. I had just heard Lennox’s rebuttal when I read this section by Tozer:

One cannot long read the Scriptures sympathetically without noticing the radical
disparity between the outlook of men of the Bible and that of modern men. We are
today suffering from a secularized mentality. Where the sacred writers saw God, we see
the laws of nature. Their world was fully populated; ours is all but empty. Their world
was alive and personal; ours is impersonal and dead. God ruled their world; ours is
ruled by the laws of nature and we are always once removed from the presence of God.

And what are these laws of nature that have displaced God in the minds of millions?
Law has two meanings. One is all external rule enforced by authority, such as the
common rule against robbery and assault. The word is also used to denote the uniform
way things act in the universe, but this second use of the word is erroneous. What we
see in nature is simply the paths God’s power and wisdom take through creation.
Properly these are phenomena, not laws, but we call them laws by analogy with the
arbitrary laws of society.

Science observes how the power of God operates, discovers a regular pattern
somewhere and fixes it as a “law.” The uniformity of God’s activities in His creation
enables the scientist to predict the course of natural phenomena. The trustworthiness of
God’s behavior in His world is the foundation of all scientific truth. Upon it the scientist
rests his faith and from there he goes on to achieve great and useful things in such fields
as those of navigation, chemistry, agriculture, and the medical arts. [vii]

When I consider Lennox’s observation of the category error coupled with Tozer’s prescient theological analysis. I think Hawking’s descent comes into sharp focus. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking invoked God and the “mind of God” as an overarching rationality governing the Universe. How can we account for an otherwise brilliant man’s descent into self-refuting nonsense? The Old Testament is crystal clear on atheism (Ps. 53:1). But Romans chapter one actually prescribes specific consequences that aptly characterize Hawking’s latest effort,

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Futile thinking indeed…

[i] Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2010, 14.

[ii] Hawking, Design, 259.

[iii] Hawking, Design, 281.

[iv] Tozer, A.W. “The Knowledge of the Holy.” 1961. (accessed 10 6, 2010). p. 14-15.

[v] Serinah Ho, “Scientists uncover secrets of universe” (accessed 10-5-2010)

[vi]John Lennox, ”Stephen Hawking is Wrong” (accessed 10-5-2010)

[vii] Tozer, Knowledge, p.47-48

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.


  1. Cris Putnam says:

    “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” – C.S. Lewis

    • BOB DOWELL says:

      Where is Stephen taking us now? I was just getting into the big bank theory. Next he will be telling us that we really don’t exist at all. It’s all in our imagination.

    • BOB DOWELL says:

      We really do not exist at all. It’s all in our imagination. (My theory is just as good as Stephens)

      • BOB DOWELL says:

        I only have one thing to say to Stephen.


  2. Brian says:

    Good article!

    I appreciate the efforts of those who keep up with this debate and then give us the ‘cliff notes’.

  3. Stella says:

    If Stephen Hawkiing truly was looking for God he would have found him. God does not hide Himself from those who truly seek Him. He has made Himself as clear as the Sun to Mr. Hawking but for some unknown reason, maybe pride, Mr. Hawking continues to grope for answers in darkness and confusion and ending his life in futility. He might reflect on the words of the great doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas uttered on his death bed as the glory of Eternal Life revealed Himself. “… all I have learned is as so much straw….”

  4. Bret Major says:

    Seems like Hawking invokes sympathy and attention mearly due to his condition. Unfortunately, he is truly a fool. Ps 53:1

    Excellent article Cris….I reposted it.

  5. Stewart Davies says:

    The more that they called themselves “philosophers” the more stupid they became. (St Paul; reference escapes me for the moment).

  6. Katherine B. says:

    Firstly, ‘we’ didn’t materialise out of ‘nothing’. There was a distinct act involved and material matter from both parties. The infusion of our spirit is another dimension.

    Hawkings, basically, lacks any spiritual insight. He therefore projects his own interior darkness and void onto the entire universe and creates a theory from it.

    ‘(Quantum) Physician, heal thyself’.

  7. Gabriel says:

    The “Law of Gravity”? Who created that?

  8. Mike says:

    It’s almost as if he cannot distinguish the creation from the Creator. ?

    Praying for him to get it right while he still can.

  9. Blogrich55 says:

    William Lane Craig promotes the heresy of Molinism which is a kissing cousin of open theology. I would NOT recommend his faulty apologetics methods. God bless.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Denial of the atonement like Bishop John Shelby Spong or denial of the bodily resurrection like the Jesus Seminar now those are heresies. Theories on how predestination works do not qualify as heresy.

  10. Simeon says:

    Good point about Hawking’s and Mlondinow’s attempts at playing in the sandbox of philosophy, which they call “dead,” and showing the world they lack the skills necessary to step outside the world of hard-science, into the world of interpretation of the hard-science. How could they have missed the fundamental issue that they base their entire philosophical “argument” for the “meaningless random” universe they imagine, on the pre-existence of meaningful Laws which they deem necessary for the existence of this universe?

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Hi Simeon, they must acknowledge the pre-existence of the laws and fine tuned initial conditions but they just invoke an infinite number of universes and then say something to the effect of “out an infinite number of universes there must be one suitable for life, we just happen to be in that universe… lucky us!” Following that logic there must be a universe where Richard Dawkins is a Harri Krishna selling roses at the airport and monkeys can fly. Yet there’s no real evidence for the multiverse and they still never explain how it got started. It just pushes the problem up a level…

  11. Kieran Zero says:

    Well written!

    Like shooting the fish of fallcy in the barrel of logic – someone has to do it…

    “nothing did something which made everything”…..very good….


  1. […] I know this is kind of easy if one cares about logic. But I read this today and thought it was a good […]

  2. […] Furthermore, science simply presupposes the rules of mathematics and logic, the uniformity of nature and the rational intelligibility of the universe. In fact, science is dependent on them as articles of faith. Yet given atheism, there are no epistemological grounds to assume a rational universe. Albert Einstein once marveled, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” However, theists believe that reality can be described with humanly derived equations because our minds are the product of the ultimately rational God who set reality into motion. Science is dependent on the theistic interpretation of an orderly cosmos.[5] Thus, there is a profound logical incoherence that undermines all of naturalism’s attempts to answer ultimate questions. […]

  3. […] He existed before everything and He brought everything into being. Anything else is an exercise in futile thinking. That is why the Bible unabashedly pronounces that “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no […]

  4. […] finally got around to making a video version of this post. One added feature is that I adapted the analogy of the chicken and the yard stick form Greg […]

  5. […] before everything and He brought everything into being. Anything else is an exercise in futile thinking. That is why the Bible unabashedly pronounces that “The fool says in his heart, […]

  6. […] before everything and He brought everything into being. Anything else is an exercise in futile thinking. That is why the Bible unabashedly pronounces that “The fool says in his heart, […]

  7. […] Why has a famously brilliant scientist descended into futile thinking? The laws of logic make the conclusion that he indeed has unavoidable. This video suggests answers to that question. I would like to acknowledge Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason ( for the chicken analogy, which I adapted from his talk “Bad Arguments Against Religion.” For a complete list of references please refer to my original post on which this video is based: […]