Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Belloc. 👍

Not only is it a circular argument, but it presupposes (begs the question) that an infinite number of universes exist aside from our own.

One would think that with such imagination run rampant, Ockham’s Razor would kick in and the simplest explanation is to go with what we know only for a fact: that our universe is the only one known to exist; that it seems to have been fine-tuned from the start to produce life; and that the simplest explanation for fine-tuning the universe is that it was fine-tuned by an Intelligent Designer some people are pleased to call God. 😃
 
This is such a weird contention to me. I find myself confused that intelligent, educated adults think it even makes sense. Especially since in A Brief History of Time one gets the impression that Hawkings has some idea about what the religious issues involved are, I would have expected his argument to be more substantial or educated.
 
People who value their wishful-atheism or willful-agnosticism will entertain an infinite number of universes, if that is whats necessary in-order to remain atheist. I at least feel comforted by the fact that he is intelligent enough to know that God is the only justified conclusion if there are not an infinite number universes; otherwise he would not have felt the need to make such an outlandish argument in the first place. For that i applaud him, because what it means is that some of the most intelligent atheists in the world require themselves to believe something that seems so obviously contradictory in-order to justify non-belief. This is something academic atheism accuses us of all the time.

Its a sad state of affairs indeed.
 
People who value their wishful-atheism or willful-agnosticism will entertain an infinite number of universes, if that is whats necessary in-order to remain atheist. I at least feel comforted by the fact that he is intelligent enough to know that God is the only justified conclusion if there are not an infinite number universes; otherwise he would not have felt the need to make such an outlandish argument in the first place. For that i applaud him, because what it means is that some of the most intelligent atheists require themselves to believe something that seems obviously contradictory in-order to justify non-belief. This is something academic atheism accuses us of all the time.

Its a sad state of affairs indeed.
I don’t think the multi-verse theory has any impact on the likelihood of God at all. God has the same role to play if there are many universes as if there is only one. (A matter on which I have neither a scientific nor theological position.) That’s why it is such a strange argument.
 
I truly find it odd that there are people that will believe in infinite universes* without substantiation* but will unconditionally deny the possibility of an infinite being. :confused:
 
I don’t think the multi-verse theory has any impact on the likelihood of God at all. God has the same role to play if there are many universes as if there is only one. (A matter on which I have neither a scientific nor theological position.) That’s why it is such a strange argument.
I agree. Given a Thomistic account of God the issue really does become irrelevant. They have a straw-man conception of what Christians mean when they say God is the creator. They have straw-man concept of God full-stop. However, looking at the same issue from a purely scientific position as opposed to metaphysics, an infinite number of universes would do away for the need of what somebody might call a “physical God” (Greylorns God) somewhere out there in the past. Thus scientifically speaking the fine tuning argument would be defeated; not because of evidence, but rather because the possibility of an infinite number of universes allows the atheist to be agnostic; especially in regards to their idea of what God is. Occams razor would be in favor of an infinite number of “evolving” universes as opposed to an infinitely complex intelligence at the beginning of time, which didn’t “evolve” but instead exists by fiat for no reason.
 
I agree. Given a Thomistic account of God the issue really does become irrelevant. They have a straw-man conception of what Christians mean when they say God is the creator. They have straw-man concept of God full-stop. However, looking at the same issue from a purely scientific position as opposed to metaphysics, an infinite number of universes would do away for the need of what somebody might call a “physical God” (Greylorns God) somewhere out there in the past. Thus scientifically speaking the fine tuning argument would be defeated; not because of evidence, but rather because the possibility of an infinite number of universes allows the atheist to be agnostic; especially in regards to their idea of what God is. Occams razor would be in favor of an infinite number of “evolving” universes as opposed to an infinitely complex intelligence at the beginning of time, which didn’t “evolve” but instead exists by fiat for no reason.
Yup. Though I don’t think they realize that it is a straw-man understanding of God - so it isn’t straw in a way, it is really what they think is meant by “God”.
 
Bluegoat

**I would have expected his argument to be more substantial or educated. **

But this is where we overrate the scientist. We assume that his brilliance in science crosses over to philosophy. It obviously doesn’t. This is one of the things that has been observed by many critics of Einstein …that he sometimes seemed to lack the ability to think with depth on the most important issues of the day.

He even failed to foresee the disastrous consequences of building nuclear weapons. :eek:
 
Bluegoat

**I would have expected his argument to be more substantial or educated. **

But this is where we overrate the scientist. We assume that his brilliance in science crosses over to philosophy. It obviously doesn’t. This is one of the things that has been observed by many critics of Einstein …that he sometimes seemed to lack the ability to think with depth on the most important issues of the day.

He even failed to foresee the disastrous consequences of building nuclear weapons. :eek:
I wasn’t thinking of him as a scientist in general. It’s no surprise to me that someone like Dawkins for example seems to have little knowledge of what is involved in theology. And by the same token many religious people seem to have little understanding of science. And it isn’t uncommon for both groups to be a bit short on the philosophy of science. It seems that very few get a good liberal arts education these days.

But I was thinking of Hawkings in particular - I had rather had the impression that he had some grasp of what theology was about, whatever his personal opinions on it were. But this argument seems to me to suggest he doesn’t.
 
I don’t think the multi-verse theory has any impact on the likelihood of God at all. God has the same role to play if there are many universes as if there is only one. (A matter on which I have neither a scientific nor theological position.) That’s why it is such a strange argument.
I think you’re right about that. Since God’s omnipotence entails that He can do whatever He wills, He could easily will into existence universe after universe to His heart’s content. It’s interesting that Stephen Hawking, who said “philosophy is dead,” is the same person who is making philosophical remarks about the multi-verse theory.
 
Bluegoat

**But I was thinking of Hawkings in particular - I had rather had the impression that he had some grasp of what theology was about, whatever his personal opinions on it were. But this argument seems to me to suggest he doesn’t. **

This raises an interesting question. Why doesn’t he? I suppose you could say he has so many debilitating problems that he feels he has to limit his interests to his talents.

But I think it runs deeper than that. When you have suffered greatly with a disease for as long as he has, one would think a man would be grappling with the future of his soul, since the future of his body has been a foregone conclusion for several decades.

Why is he not able to shift gears and seek the God of Pascal instead of the God of Descartes … the God of “love and consolation” rather than the God who is Prime Mover and not much else?
 
Bluegoat

**But I was thinking of Hawkings in particular - I had rather had the impression that he had some grasp of what theology was about, whatever his personal opinions on it were. But this argument seems to me to suggest he doesn’t. **

This raises an interesting question. Why doesn’t he? I suppose you could say he has so many debilitating problems that he feels he has to limit his interests to his talents.

But I think it runs deeper than that. When you have suffered greatly with a disease for as long as he has, one would think a man would be grappling with the future of his soul, since the future of his body has been a foregone conclusion for several decades.

Why is he not able to shift gears and seek the God of Pascal instead of the God of Descartes … the God of “love and consolation” rather than the God who is Prime Mover and not much else?
I have a few thoughts, most of which apply to the population at large.

One is that most people are pretty poorly educated with regard to philosophy.

Secondly, different personality types tend to gravitate to different ways of thinking, and many scientists have a tendency toward the concrete, which makes them distrust religion.

Many Christian churches to not represent their intellectual heritage very well.

People do not read history.

As far as Hawkins in particular goes, he is pretty much a genius in his field. Sometimes people like that are so invested in that particular field that they do not have much time or interest in anything else. In fact, I wonder if a big part of genius isn’t a kind of fanatical interest in one’s subject.

As far as facing death - it may be he had to become comfortable with that early on, and reconciled himself to whatever it is he thinks happens. If so, he might not feel the need to go through that in his mature years as many people do.
 
I’ll start by saying I miss Carl Sagan. Now professor Hawking is a brilliant man and his theories are fascinating, I’ve read all of his books, great stuff. However I think he’s starting to reach too far in his attempt to create a theory of everything. This is what happens when analytic egoism collides with abstract passion.

[SIGN]Hawking says, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.[/SIGN]

So the majority of the people on this planet are simple children who are alone and in their terror can think of nothing to do but cry in the dark. That is pretty blunt. Lets see what a wiser man than professor Hawking has to say about the afterlife.

[SIGN]“Either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I myself, too, shall have a wonderful interest in there meeting and conversing with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and any other ancient hero who has suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall then be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in the next; and I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions: assuredly not. For besides being happier than we are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true”. - Socrates from Plato’s Apology part III.[/SIGN]
On an unprovable question of faith and life I’m leaning with the great mind of Athens.
 
Hawking says, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

There is a kind of spiritual hopelessness here that matches the hopeless physical condition of Hawking’s disease. Doom is a better word for it. Hawkings is the exemplar of doom, both physical and spiritual. His imagination only soars when he can use it to fortify his own doom and the doom of the entire human race which is living a fairy tale “for people afraid of the dark.”

But more to the point, why is Hawkings afraid of the light? Why is anyone afraid of hope?

Hope has always animated the human race … both hope in this life and hope in the next.

Those who would crush out that hope in the next life have already crushed out hope in this one, because if there is no next life, there is really no reason to value this one. The stats for suicide among atheists are incontrovertible. It is the single clear statistical fact that distinguishes theists from atheists.

When you have to invent an infinity of universes to assure yourself of your own doom … you have reached the nadir of hopelessness.

He said it himself.

“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”

Hawkings embraces his own ultimate doom … but not yet.
 
There is a kind of spiritual hopelessness here that matches the hopeless physical condition of Hawking’s disease. Doom is a better word for it. Hawkings is the exemplar of doom, both physical and spiritual. His imagination only soars when he can use it to fortify his own doom and the doom of the entire human race which is living a fairy tale “for people afraid of the dark.”
I’ve been reading this thread with a certain incredulity, and not only because so many posters have misspelt Hawking’s name in a thread that is largely about him and his views. We’re talking about an extraordinary, inspirational human being here, not just for his perseverance in the face of a great hardship, but because he has turned an undeniably brilliant mind to the task of furthering our understanding of the cosmos. The fact that he speaks as he finds when it comes to matters of gods and afterlives does not diminish his achievements.
But more to the point, why is Hawkings afraid of the light? Why is anyone afraid of hope?
If the hope is very possibly false, it ought not to be indulged.
Hope has always animated the human race … both hope in this life and hope in the next.
Humans are so constituted as to be always looking forward, making plans, seldom living in the moment. Makes you wonder what we miss here and now, being so future-driven.
Those who would crush out that hope in the next life have already crushed out hope in this one, because if there is no next life, there is really no reason to value this one.
The more I’ve thought about this proposition, the more it strikes me as peculiar. Why shouldn’t we value this life and make the most of it, if it’s the only one we get?
The stats for suicide among atheists are incontrovertible. It is the single clear statistical fact that distinguishes theists from atheists.
I would be surprised if the suicide stats for atheists outstrip those of religious believers in predestination…
When you have to invent an infinity of universes to assure yourself of your own doom … you have reached the nadir of hopelessness.
I don’t think his motives are as negative as your interpretation would suggest. He’s dealing in possibilities, based on what we know - he’s not making a random leap into the uncharted territory of supernatural superbeings. We know at least one universe exists, because we’re in it. It’s a smaller step to contemplate multiple universes than to contemplate absolute, eternal, immaterial beings, the like of which no-one, thus far, has reliably encountered or observed in any fashion.
“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”
Hawkings embraces his own ultimate doom … but not yet.
Frankly, I think he is admirable for making the most of the hand life has dealt him - how many people do that who believe they’re just warming up for the next round?
 
Sair

If the hope is very possibly false, it ought not to be indulged.

If the hope is very possibly true, why shouldn’t it be indulged?

The more I’ve thought about this proposition, the more it strikes me as peculiar. Why shouldn’t we value this life and make the most of it, if it’s the only one we get?

But that doesn’t square with the suicide rate for atheists and agnostics.

We know at least one universe exists, because we’re in it. It’s a smaller step to contemplate multiple universes than to contemplate absolute, eternal, immaterial beings, the like of which no-one, thus far, has reliably encountered or observed in any fashion.

I have encountered God because I am open to the possibility of encountering Him. Those who are not open to the possibility obviously aren’t going to encounter the Absolute.
**
Frankly, I think he is admirable for making the most of the hand life has dealt him - how many people do that who believe they’re just warming up for the next round? **

A good many more than you are likely to admit. 😉
 
Frankly, I think he is admirable for making the most of the hand life has dealt him
Good point.

Although I don’t agree with him that philosophy is “dead”, or that God is an unnecessary hypothesis, Hawking is still an amazing guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top