God and Stephen Hawking: Whose design is it anyway? Paperback – January 21, 2011

John Lennox. professor of mathematics at Oxford College, responds to Stephen Hawking's “The Grand Design”. Dr. Lennox’s response to the “The Grand Design” strikes at the very foundations of Hawking’s ideas. Lennox puts forth the following points reducing Hawking’s latest book to insignificance.1. After declaring that philosophy is dead (and science will explain all), Hawking begins to posit philosophical statements thus contradicting himself right in the beginning of the book.2. After displaying an inadequate view of philosophy, Hawking displays an inadequate view of God. That is, he shows the foolishness of the old Greek mythological gods but never interacts with the God of the Bible.3. Hawking states, “ Because of the law of gravity, the universe creates itself out of nothing.” Lennox writes “Hawking appears therefore to be simultaneously asserting than the universe is created from nothing and from something - not a very promising start.” Indeed for something to create itself is nonsense.4. Hawking misunderstands the nature of physical laws. These physical laws (and theories) describe the regularities found in nature. To quote Lennox again, “... the theories and laws cannot even cause anything, let alone create it.” He then illustrates this by saying that Newton’s law’s of motion do not cause billiard balls to race across the table.5. Hawking states that the M-Theory (string theory) and the multiverse explain the coming from nothing. Indeed in these theories, whatever universes can exist, do exist. This leads to bizarre conclusions. These theories are not verifiable or falsifiable and therefore can the even be considered science?With these 5 fundamental points, not much is left of Hawking’s book. To quote Lennox again, “.... nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.”“God and Stephens Hawking” is a short book of less than 100 pages and relatively small in size. Lennox gets right to his points and is relatively concise to this book will not be a burden to read. If you want a more in-depth (but readable) critique of M-Theory, check out “Big Bang Big God” by R. Holder.

I was in the process of reading God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox, when I saw this little 96 page book available for download. Having just received a Kindle for Christmas, I figure "What the heck, why not download a quick read for practice?"Wow! Suffice it to say that I am now a complete fan of John Lennox. For starters, with a John Lennox book, it quickly becomes obvious that every single sentence and paragraph has been carefully thought through and constructed. He shoots with both barrels loaded, but he is sooo cool about it.In a world where it is easy to get intimidated by Officially Really Smart People, John takes on all comers. But Stephen Hawking? We're talking about the Einstein of our age! No problem for Lennox.John Lennox doesn't dispute the intelligence of Mr. Hawking, nor does he question Hawking's integrity as a great thinker. He sure does punch wide, gaping holes in Mr. Hawking's philosophical underpinning, though. And yes, Lennox rightly points out how Mr. Hawking dabbles into the world of philosophy and theology, even though Hawking denies his intention to do so.When Stephen Hawing meets John Lennox, it's like the former bringing a knife to a gunfight with the later. Ego versus intellect, it's no match.I would love to see a Hawking response to this book, but I don't think that's going to happen. Hawking can't win.

This booklet is rare in not merely accusing the opponent of illogicality, but also explaining it. Thus the author (pp.29-31), on quoting a main conclusion of Hawking: "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe will and can create itself out of nothing", notes, "...the first part of that statement: 'Because there is a law of gravity...' ...assumes...that a law of gravity exists. One presumes also...that gravity itself exists, for the simple reason that an abstract mathematical law on its own would be vacuous with nothing to describe". He continues, "gravity or the law of gravity is not 'nothing' ...Hawking appears, therefore, to be simultaneously asserting that the universe is created from nothing and from something... But that is not all. His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature...depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe."However, the author looks weaker to me in succumbing to religious doctrine and in his attempts to justify it. He argues for miracles, seeming to presume that God can only be manifested through them, as someone "outside nature that could from time to time intervene in nature" (p.91). He strangely strongly engages in the fallacy of appeal to authority, listing numerous "highly intelligent, eminent scientists" (p.82) in his defense, though authorities for the other side can equally be appealed to. More surprisingly, he denies (p.89) that "the laws of nature know no exceptions", saying: "In order to know that experience against miracles is absolutely uniform, [one] would need to have total access to every event in the universe at all time and places". But this is not how experience works. A law is determined by invariable experience available, and if not found violated, is accepted as universal.The author wants to persuade in particular (p.78) of the miracle of Christ's "resurrection from the dead, which is presented to us as a fact of history". We know that the facts surrounding particulars as recent as the JFK assassination are difficult to establish despite the most modern means of detection, photography being the least. It is accordingly quite incredible to place weight on presumed evidence of similar particulars occurring so long ago, that are additionally stirred largely by religious motives and go counter to discussed laws of nature.Notwithstanding the author's submission to a formal expression of faith, possibly for mental comfort, his rebuttals to atheists follow sound logical paths, and perhaps rather than seeking God in miracles and other interventions in natural processes, he could explore those processes to those ends, as was done two centuries ago by William Paley he mentions (p.40), and by subsequent investigators. Particularly, the answers should be sought in life's characteristic, in contrast to the lifeless, of aiming at survival.