In the considerations published by "The Times" based on some quotations from Hawking's last book and, supposedly, in the contents of that volume, one can appreciate an overlapping of planes in which some scientists who defend, mainly, thesis materialistic, although not only these, tend to incur lately.

There are dimensions of the physical world and of what is properly human that demand, in a very clear way, an expanded rationality that we could call philosophical. Indeed, even within physics, the legitimate claim to explain all physical phenomena by means of a set of fundamental laws is much disputed. It is surprising that a scientist like Hawking, with recognized merits, should incur in such confusions.

According to The Times, Hawking states that "the Universe can and does create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason why something exists, rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist".

Let us answer clearly that seeing the laws of the Universe as an explanation of its self-creation has no rational or empirical basis. In fact, to speak of "spontaneous creation" is contradictory. Physics deals with the behavior of the subject in all its states: as particles or as energy of different subject. When the expression "spontaneous creation" is used in this science, it usually refers in reality to a simple material transformation. A physicist cannot speak of "creation from nothing", as can the Christian faith. In Christianity, God is the author of laws, not merely using pre-existing laws to organize one or more universes.

Other planets with intelligent life

On the other hand, it seems that, according to Hawking, the existence of God depends on the probability of the existence or not of a world like ours. However, God's own thing is not to fine-tune the parameters so that we can exist, but to create. And creating is a free and loving gift of God. This can hardly be explained by physics and arguments based on probability.

Then, to combat the "anthropic principle" (which, in principle, favors the theistic positions) he goes to the thesis that there is an infinity of universes. In reality, this is nothing more than a mere mathematical hypothesis. At present it has no experimental contrast, nor can it be falsified, that is to say, it is not scientific. It only seeks to remove specificity from our Universe.

The third sentence of Hawking's book that "The Times" spreads postulates: "The fact that we human beings -who are fundamentally mere collections of fundamental particles of nature- have come so close to understanding the laws that govern us and our universe is a great triumph". How can a collection of particles achieve "that great triumph" while remaining just that: a collection of particles? We will be at least something else, not just that.  

Finally, Hawking seems to suggest that if there were many planets like Earth, with intelligent life, Christianity would be refuted or, at least, in difficulty. Whether there are more or fewer planets with or without intelligent life is not directly addressed by the Church's magisterium, but Christianity has never denied this possibility. In fact, the Catholic teaching about angels is a manifestation of the Church's openness to the existence of intelligent beings different from us. Simply put, if there were more intelligent races in the cosmos, it would raise some theological questions about the uniqueness of Christ's redemption (do they need redemption, would Christ be their redeemer, how would that redemption come to them, and so on) that would need to be addressed. But they do not affect in any way the teachings about a Creator God.

Physics gives of itself what its method allows. There will always be questions that will remain out of its reach, questions that this "set of particles" continually asks itself: the meaning of existence, of life and death, etc... Physics does not answer these questions, which are real and important.