Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design

[PoliSciProf]

I like Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time’ is one of my favourite science books -
but the problem with the multiverse theory is that it just pushes the question back one level to who created the multiverse?

It is simply possible that Hawking, for all of his genius, is simply not open to theological implications of modern physics. Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, has written a marvelous book that put razredge’s notion on firm ground. Spitzer’s book is New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Spitzer is comfortable working at the intersection of theology and physics. This book is not for beginners but Spitzer argues that in EVERY modern theory (The Big Bang, String Theory, Multi-verse Theories, etc.,) must contain an Unconditioned Reality. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would call this an Unmoved Mover. In short, razredge’s point is fully compatible with modern science and is in fact demanded by the equations. Perhaps someone should introduce Hawking to Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Thomas’ Summa. Their arguments have not been refuted but ignored.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PoliSciProf

It is simply possible that Hawking, for all of his genius, is simply not open to theological implications of modern physics.

The really interesting question is: why is he not open to these theological implications?

Note, these things are not proofs, but implications. There are more implications, based on what we know from science, that there* is* a God, than there are implications that there is no God.

Indeed, name one proven principle of nature that implies there is no God.

 

[tonyrey]

PoliSciProf

It is simply possible that Hawking, for all of his genius, is simply not open to theological implications of modern physics.

The really interesting question is: why is he not open to these theological implications?

None are so blind as those who will not see… But with such a terrible infirmity he should have our compassion. It is tempting to think he was full of intellectual pride but he may well have been motivated by a sense of injustice that he had done nothing to deserve such a “punishment”.

 

[tonyrey]

The sayings of Ecclesiastes should not be taken to be dogmatic because he also observes:
*
]21 “Who knows if the human spirit* mounts upward or if the animal spirit goes downward to the earth?”
From Protector:-

So we shouldn’t trust “The Preacher”, is that right? But, you have a good point tonyrey as we are cautioned to compare Scripture with Scripture; line upon line; precept upon precept.

Thank you for your post.

Protector.

                             "potius ingenio quam vi"

Unfortunately there are thousand of different Christian sects because individuals have interpreted the Bible by themselves, often unaware that the Catholic Church decided which of the Scriptures contained the true facts and teaching of Jesus. He didn’t write any books but He did found a community to preach the Good News…

 

[PoliSciProf]

None are so blind as those who will not see… But with such a terrible infirmity he should have our compassion. It is tempting to think he was full of intellectual pride but he may well have been motivated by a sense of injustice that he had done nothing to deserve such a “punishment”.

I suspect that Hawking is infected with a hubristic intellectual “virus” that makes him yearn to have no need for the hypothesis “God.” This has been around for a while but became epidemic with the Enlightment, perhaps most clearly with Kant. He seems to be accepting (and perhaps even content with) his infirmity. I think he is a happy man who accepts his lot as an arbitrary roll of the cosmic dice. Given this, he can have no sense of injustice or his thought would be incomplete or inconsistant. He has the peace of mind that Lucretius tried to communicate to Memmius (De Rerum Natura) but based on a more compelling mathematical and scientific grasp of the naturalness of things. Yep, “None are so blind as those who will not see…”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PoliSciProf
**
He has the peace of mind that Lucretius tried to communicate to Memmius …**

There are those who seem to have peace of mind, and those who have peace of mind, and those who want peace of mind, and those who wouldn’t know peace of mind if it fell on top of them like a ton of bricks.

If he has any of these is really unknowable … I think he seems more like the proverbial riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a paradox.

But unravel him to his core and you will find a man just like you and me … sorry to leave this world and anxious about the next.

As for peace … I have never been able to detect anything in atheism that cultivates peace.

 

[razredge]

You have a point here. On the other hand, the atheist dream of everyone becoming a ‘rationalist’ and following the ‘scientific worldview’ (whatever that may mean) if they only would give up belief in God is a stupid delusion on its own. Many will believe in such **** as UFOs or, entirely unscientific, Pentawater:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penta_Water

True - though I don’t think UFOs are **** (though alien abduction cases probably are), now I’m skeptical but was quite shocked by some extremely well attested sightings that simply defy any naturalistic explanation.

Indeed, I think certain UFO sightings are the most believable paranormal phenomena of modern times, certainly more plausible than your modern miracles.

 

[tonyrey]

I suspect that Hawking is infected with a hubristic intellectual “virus” that makes him yearn to have no need for the hypothesis “God.” This has been around for a while but became epidemic with the Enlightment, perhaps most clearly with Kant. He seems to be accepting (and perhaps even content with) his infirmity. I think he is a happy man who accepts his lot as an arbitrary roll of the cosmic dice. Given this, he can have no sense of injustice or his thought would be incomplete or inconsistant. He has the peace of mind that Lucretius tried to communicate to Memmius (De Rerum Natura) but based on a more compelling mathematical and scientific grasp of the naturalness of things. Yep, “None are so blind as those who will not see…”

I don’t know enough about Hawking to hazard a guess about his habitual state of mind although it’s obvious he’s so immersed in his intellectual activity he rarely has time to think about himself - and he must be accustomed to his disability by now! A person’s “salvation” often lies in his work. What is certain is your diagnosis of his intellectual pride which seems to admit of no shadow of doubt about God. Who can tell?

 

[razredge]

Why would God choose to reward the very sin that is the worst of all sins since it offends the first and greatest Commandment … to love the Lord with our whole heart?

Well, I think believers tend to anthropomorphize God (which is a category error) by claiming that He is jealous and petty and (the OT doesn’t help either).

I think it’s almost blasphemy to portray God as some sort of divine Kim Jong-il who created the universe so He could have His own personal fan club.

It also goes completely against the idea of God the loving Father portrayed in the Prodigal Son and elsewhere.

So for me, I don’t see why a secular humanist who tries to make the world a better place
will be sent off to eternal damnation while a believer who has lived a life that is far from the precepts of Christ will earn salvation because of their faith.

You have a point here. On the other hand, the atheist dream of everyone becoming a ‘rationalist’ and following the ‘scientific worldview’ (whatever that may mean) if they only would give up belief in God is a stupid delusion on its own. Many will believe in such **** as UFOs or, entirely unscientific, Pentawater:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penta_Water

True - though I don’t think UFOs are **** (though alien abduction cases probably are), now I’m skeptical but was quite shocked by some extremely well attested sightings that simply defy any naturalistic explanation.

Indeed, I think certain UFO sightings are the most believable paranormal phenomena of modern times, certainly more plausible than your modern ‘miracles’.

razredge
Then again, it makes possible whole new kinds of wisdom that are not possible without it. Right?

True

In short, razredge’s point is fully compatible with modern science and is in fact demanded by the equations. Perhaps someone should introduce Hawking to Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Thomas’ Summa. Their arguments have not been refuted but ignored.

Yes - actually credit must go to Al since I got that point from his excellent article on the cosmological argument:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

What really surprises me is that atheists’ response to the implications of a ‘first cause’ is to simply say they either don’t know (but it’s a huge leap to posit God) or that the Universe exists because it could and is the ultimate ‘free lunch’ so to speak - which both don’t answer the question unlike the God hypothesis.

 

[Sair]

Atheism has some of those idiots too. Just look at the “Debunking Christianity” blog and some of the fanatical morons posting there. Typically they had been fundamentalist Christians, and have only exchanged one fundamentalism for another.

Absolutely. Whilst I reject the notion that atheism itself constitutes a religion, it certainly is a component of certain belief systems, whether those systems are inherently religious or not. And again, I don’t think it’s actually possible to be a ‘fundamentalist atheist’, but I would say that what has happened to the former fundamentalist Christians is that, upon rejecting their allegiance to the religion in which they were either brought up or converted to at some stage in later life, they have become what might appropriately be called fundamentalist anti-Christians - essentially, if it’s an article of Christian faith, they reject it.

Whilst I’ve seen some incredibly level-headed and reasonable postings from atheists on various blogs and forums, I’ve seen plenty of aggressive (and poorly expressed) vitriol from others. I’ve not spent a great deal of time at ‘Debunking Christianity’, but I’ve read John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist, and although it contains a few decent arguments (his ‘Outsider Test for Faith’ makes a pretty strong point), a lot of it comes across as petulant and a bit adolescent. He’s not the most eloquent spokesman for atheism out there in the blogosphere…

 

[Sair]

Sair

And so far you’ve done nothing to explain your version of morality other than to claim that self-interest extends to the afterlife.

Without belief in an afterlife, without belief that the good are ultimately rewarded and the evil are ultimately denied their reward, what reason is there to believe in morality at all?

Get away with every possible crime and die without remorse or fear of retribution?

Must sound like heaven on earth to the criminal mind. Sounds like hell on earth to me.

And yet I’ve heard of religious folks who think that as long as they go to confession, they can sin with impunity. I know that’s not proper, official Catholic doctrine, but it doesn’t take much to interpret it that way - people can rationalise just about anything that serves their interests. What it comes down to is that people who are callous and have no empathy will act the way they act, regardless of what they believe about the afterlife. People who care about others will act with compassion, because it feels like the right thing to do here and now.

What I find far more troubling than the (I believe, fallacious) notion that lack of belief in God or an afterlife leads to moral nihilism and extreme selfishness is the idea that someone like a Spanish Inquisitor, who believed in God, heaven and hell, could inflict horrendous tortures on fellow beings and not only get away with them (because they were perfectly legal) but still sleep soundly at night, secure in the belief that he had done the ‘right’ thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**What I find far more troubling than the (I believe, fallacious) notion that lack of belief in God or an afterlife leads to moral nihilism and extreme selfishness is the idea that someone like a Spanish Inquisitor, who believed in God, heaven and hell, could inflict horrendous tortures on fellow beings and not only get away with them (because they were perfectly legal) but still sleep soundly at night, secure in the belief that he had done the ‘right’ **

So far as I’m concerned, here you are preaching to the choir. Notwithstanding, the lack of belief in an afterlife and a God who rewards and punishes according to our conduct is the surest way to justify all kinds of atrocities with impunity. If you don’t thinks so, look at the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, who were self professed atheists. I suppose they also slept well at night, convinced there would be no judgment at the end of their journey.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razredge

I think it’s almost blasphemy to portray God as some sort of divine Kim Jong-il who created the universe so He could have His own personal fan club.

Simplistic analogy. Do you or do you not believe in heaven and hell?

Do you or do you not believe what Jesus himself said?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

If you disagree with Jesus, if you believe these are the sentiments of “some sort of divine Kim Jong-il who created the universe so He could have His own personal fan club,” why call yourself a Catholic?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Just came across a passage from Pascal’s *Pensees *that might illuminate so far as Stephen Hawking is concerned.

Pascal draws a distinction between two types of thought, the intuitive and the analytic.

“Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight and are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed to reason from principles, do not all understand matters of feeling, seeking principles and being unable to see at a glance.”

Someone like Mozart can see God at a glance (intuitively) in “Ave Verum Corpus.” Indeed, it is virtually impossible to explain Mozart’s vision in this hymn if it is not the vision of a loving and merciful God.

youtube.com/watch?v=I71u8fWcdS8&feature=related 4-5 minutes

Could Mozart fathom the kind of mathematical principles at which Hawking would be adept?

Unlikely!

But perhaps Hawking (and many scientists of his ilk) cannot grasp God at a glance because they are seeking a principle rather than feeling a God.

This would be if not the main reason, one of the ancillary reasons, that some scientists like Hawking will prefer an infinity of universes behind the Big Bang rather than an infinite God.

 

[Sair]

Sair

**What I find far more troubling than the (I believe, fallacious) notion that lack of belief in God or an afterlife leads to moral nihilism and extreme selfishness is the idea that someone like a Spanish Inquisitor, who believed in God, heaven and hell, could inflict horrendous tortures on fellow beings and not only get away with them (because they were perfectly legal) but still sleep soundly at night, secure in the belief that he had done the ‘right’ **

So far as I’m concerned, here you are preaching to the choir. Notwithstanding, the lack of belief in an afterlife and a God who rewards and punishes according to our conduct is the surest way to justify all kinds of atrocities with impunity. If you don’t thinks so, look at the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, who were self professed atheists. I suppose they also slept well at night, convinced there would be no judgment at the end of their journey.

That’s kind of my point - in the cases of Stalin and Mao, it wasn’t their lack of belief in gods that ‘justified’ their atrocities, it was their ideology. The things they did believe. Just like the Inquisition justified its actions by its beliefs. It doesn’t really matter whether your ideology contains supernatural elements or not - if you think it’s more important than real human lives, then you’ll use it as a reason for all kinds of abuses.

 

[tonyrey]

That is the very point I have made! Can you describe a feasible better world?

If you accept - as the Pope does - the scientific explanation of the development of life you have to incorporate predation into your scheme of things. You need to explain the mechanisms by which it could be prevented from appearing. It is only from a parochial human viewpoint that predation is intrinsically evil. I would much prefer to be killed swiftly by a lion than linger in pain for three years as a result of cancer like my uncle.

If you rule out predation you rule out all advanced forms of life except herbivores most of which would then die lingering deaths as the result of accidents, disease, drought, disasters and deformities…

 

[Sair]

If you accept - as the Pope does - the scientific explanation of the development of life you have to incorporate predation into your scheme of things. You need to explain the mechanisms by which it could be prevented from appearing. It is only from a parochial human viewpoint that predation is intrinsically evil. I would much prefer to be killed swiftly by a lion than linger in pain for three years as a result of cancer like my uncle.

If you rule out predation you rule out all advanced forms of life except herbivores most of which would then die lingering deaths as the result of accidents, disease, drought, disasters and deformities…

I have no philosophical or scientific issue with accepting predation as one of the driving mechanisms of evolution, but neither do I see how it’s logically necessary. I also don’t believe this process was intended and designed by an all-powerful superbeing. That’s my whole point. An omnipotent being could find ways of creating diversity without the need for predation, if said being was benevolent. Lack of predation would probably rule out more complex life forms in a universe that itself evolved through natural processes. Nothing is explicitly or implicitly ruled out in a universe created by an omnipotent entity.

I don’t think there is anything intrinsically evil in predation - it’s necessary from the point of view of the predators, and also as a check on populations of herbivores. It also helps the overall strength of herbivore populations by weeding out, so to speak, the weaker animals. But these are all evolutionary explanations. The only way to make predation intrinsically evil is to suppose it was the intention of a being who had the power to make things otherwise.

And for the record, there are plenty of predators out there who would not kill you quickly. They might immobilise you so you don’t cause them any injury, but they wouldn’t stop short of starting to eat you whilst you’re still alive. It still won’t be the kind of lingering death you’d get from cancer or the like, but I’d wager the horror and extreme pain would make the time it took you to die seem plenty long enough.

 

[tonyrey]

If you accept - as the Pope does - the scientific explanation of the development of life you have to incorporate predation into your scheme of things. You need to explain the mechanisms by which it could be prevented from appearing. It is only from a parochial human viewpoint that predation is intrinsically evil. I would much prefer to be killed swiftly by a lion than linger in pain for three years as a result of cancer like my uncle.

.
What alternatives can you suggest?

I also don’t believe this process was intended and designed by an all-powerful superbeing. That’s my whole point. An omnipotent being could find ways of creating diversity without the need for predation, if said being was benevolent.

The same question arises.

Lack of predation would probably rule out more complex life forms in a universe that itself evolved through natural processes. Nothing is explicitly or implicitly ruled out in a universe created by an omnipotent entity.

Nothing is ruled out if one is prepared to accept a life which lacks richness, variety, adventure, excitement, challenge and a sense of fulfilment without opportunities for faith, hope, courage, patience, compassion, fortitude, forgiveness and unselfish love.

I don’t think there is anything intrinsically evil in predation - it’s necessary from the point of view of the predators, and also as a check on populations of herbivores. It also helps the overall strength of herbivore populations by weeding out, so to speak, the weaker animals. But these are all evolutionary explanations. The only way to make predation intrinsically evil is to suppose it was the intention of a being who had the power to make things otherwise.

You are assuming that all the attributes I listed are consistent with a world devoid of multiplicity, variety, competition, sentience, interference, failure, frustration, accidents and death…

And for the record, there are plenty of predators out there who would not kill you quickly. They might immobilise you so you don’t cause them any injury, but they wouldn’t stop short of starting to eat you whilst you’re still alive. It still won’t be the kind of lingering death you’d get from cancer or the like, but I’d wager the horror and extreme pain would make the time it took you to die seem plenty long enough.

How many can you cite? You are so paralysed by fear you would rapidly lose consciousness. I was almost trampled to death by a bull elephant in Africa and transfixed with shock for several minutes after he turned away…

 

[razredge]

razredge

Simplistic analogy. Do you or do you not believe in heaven and hell?

Do you or do you not believe what Jesus himself said?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

If you disagree with Jesus, if you believe these are the sentiments of “some sort of divine Kim Jong-il who created the universe so He could have His own personal fan club,” why call yourself a Catholic?

It’s a fair analogy - it’s not mine either, certainly it’s not far from what some believers think.

I believe that hell is ‘a state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God’ as JPII holds or as CS Lewis puts it

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”

 

[Sair]

.
What alternatives can you suggest?

Isn’t that your job, as the one claiming divine creation? I’ve got an explanation for why predation exists - you’ve added another layer that confuses the issue and injects a metaethical element that evolutionary theory has no need to account for.

The same question arises.

God could simply have ‘programmed’ life to progress in the direction of increased complexity, without the requirement of natural pressures such as predation and environmental change to drive such progression. This is surely not beyond his ability.

Nothing is ruled out if one is prepared to accept a life which lacks richness, variety, adventure, excitement, challenge and a sense of fulfilment without opportunities for faith, hope, courage, patience, compassion, fortitude, forgiveness and unselfish love.

You contradict yourself - nothing is ruled out if one rules out the attributes of embracing life in the world? And aren’t things like compassion, patience and selflessness rendered all the more noble if you’re not doing them out of inherent self-interest in the quality of your afterlife?

You are assuming that all the attributes I listed are consistent with a world devoid of multiplicity, variety, competition, sentience, interference, failure, frustration, accidents and death…

Absolutely not. Only claiming that an omnipotent (there’s that word again, the one that means all-powerful, capable of anything) being could provide such experience without the need for catastrophic suffering.

How many can you cite? You are so paralysed by fear you would rapidly lose consciousness. I was almost trampled to death by a bull elephant in Africa and transfixed with shock for several minutes after he turned away…

Was your shock a positive experience?

I’ll start with wolves, hyenas, African wild dogs and killer whales. Oh, and chimpanzees that tear live monkeys to pieces in order to eat them. That’s not a quick death either. And that’s not even beginning to count the multitudes of insect predators and parasites that make life short and terrifying or lingeringly miserable for their prey or their hosts.