Michael Keas: Stephen Hawking among worst offenders for science vs. religion myths

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 12, 2017

Intelligent Design, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Salvo 26 Supplement From Michael Keas at Salvo:

The truth is that science and biblical religion have been friends for a long time. Judeo-Christian theology has contributed in a friendly manner to such science-promoting ideas as discoverable natural history, experimental inquiry, universal natural laws, mathematical physics, and investigative confidence that is balanced with humility. Christian institutions, especially since the medieval university, have often provided a supportive environment for scientific inquiry and instruction.

…

We have documented the truth that Christianity was a major factor in the growth of science. Why do myths of science–faith disharmony dominate popular culture today? Misconception flourishes when famous and influential scientists make pronouncements about the history of science based on their own biased assumptions rather than the actual historical record. An anti-Christian agenda also often lurks below.

Stephen Hawking is among the worst offenders. His A Brief History of Time (1988), the second-best-selling science book of all time, is riddled with falsehoods about the history of science and theistic religion. For instance, Hawking asserts that the earliest explanations of the cosmos invoked unpredictable spiritual beings as the cause of natural phenomena. Christianity never offered such an explication, but you’d never know it from him. More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Bornagain77@9, I have often wondered. Do your comments that start with "OT" mean "OFF TOPIC" or "ON TOPIC"?Darwins_downfall_{February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

So Rvb8 Science and religion, you seem to have the view that this site and most who post here are anti science nothing could be further from the truth we love science but we also understand the difference between science the methodology, and science the pronouncement of materialist atheists. Regarding the origin of life "yes that old chestnut" I believe based on my reasoning from science that a supernatural intelligence was required for life to originate, if I am wrong please present the evidence from science that life had a completely natural no intelligence required beginning. If said evidence is not forthcoming am I to believe that this evidence is lacking and you just believe (FAITH) that nature created life by chance , or perhaps you are willing to cast off this faith and go where the scientific evidence leads that life is not a chance event, and you are accusing the wrong people of putting faith blind faith first.Marfin_{February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

As to the science vs. religion warfare myth, the truth of the matter is that Christianity and science have never been at war with each other. In fact, modern science owes its very existence to the Christian worldview. The warfare myth, like so many other myths from Darwinists, is a patently false 'just so story' that was invented by atheists from their imagination. A completely false narrative that is continually promulgated by modern day Darwinian ideologues that has, like Darwinian evolution itself, absolutely no basis in reality. Moreover, if any worldview is at war with science, then it is certainly atheistic materialism itself that is at war with modern science
A Heavyweight Look at the Negative Impact of Modern and Postmodern Philosophies - Casey Luskin April 22, 2014 Excerpt: "Not only divine Scripture, but also sound reason teaches us that we must look with amazement on the machine of the universe produced and created by the hand of the infinite Artist. ... Neither art, nor genius, can even imitate a single fibre of the endless tissues that make up each body. The smallest filament, in fact, shows the Finger of God and the Artist's signature." (p. 120) Carl Linneaus, inventor of our modern system of biological classification (Paul Gosselin, Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West) Gosselin observes that "we have discovered further levels of complexity that Linneaus, or even Darwin, could not have imagined." (p. 121) He concludes: "Before the twentieth-century, this symbiotic relationship between science and Christianity was the norm, but since then the Enlightenment and modern propaganda have 'buried' it, keeping such facts out of view." (p. 122) According to Gosselin, this is just another way that modernist philosophy has engaged in a form of intellectual fracking, trying to destroy the theological, philosophical, and other intellectual foundations that built the West. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flight_from_the084581.html The Importance of the Warfare Thesis - Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics - July 26, 2015 Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought. Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,, Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely. Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/07/heres-whats-going-on-with-biologos.html James K. A. Smith on The Territories of Science and Religion - July 2015 Excerpt: There is no perennial conflict between “science” and “religion” because the phenomena didn’t exist to war with one another before the 17th century. But they do exist now, and if there is a conflict between them (now) it’s because “science” — the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart. Thus Harrison closes by suggesting these “skirmishes” are less conflicts between science and religion and more like “theological controversies waged by means of science.” https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/a-therapeutic-cartography The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science - February 27, 2015 Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes: The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes. No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/02/27/the-two-guys-to-blame-for-the-myth-of-constant-warfare-between-religion-and-science/ The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/ Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html "Did Christianity (and Other Religions) Promote the Rise Of Science?" - Michael Egnor October 24, 2013 Excerpt: Neither the Greeks nor Islam produced modern theoretical science. The Greeks produced sublime philosophy and mathematics, but no theoretical science. They excelled in mathematics but never applied mathematical models to the systematic study of nature. Islam produced no real theoretical science. It invaded the Christian Middle East, Christian North Africa and Christian Spain, and expropriated the culture and work of Christians and Jews and pagans in the conquered lands. Centralized government and fresh availability of booty fostered a modest bit of science produced by the conquered locals -- the vast majority of whom were not Muslim for centuries. It took several centuries before most of the conquered peoples under the Islamic boot converted to Islam -- Islamic rulers coveted the dhimmi taxes and were not quick to force conversion -- and when Islamic lands became wholly Islamic, science became wholly dead. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/did_christianit078281.html The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
bornagain77_{February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

OT:
Science Refutes Evolution - Dr. James Tour – interview – Feb. 10, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoXQ75jlT3c
bornagain77_{February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

but it does have a benefit of being true
No, rv, it doesn't. It the half-baked ramblings of a propagandist ideologue. You start with a false premise, then you think you've demonstrated the truth of that premise by using a non-sequitur. You appear unable to think straight.Upright BiPed_{February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Perhaps UB, but it does have a benefit of being true. Religion and science are poles apart, and one of the most glaring truths is that for a scientist to be a scientist, (regardless of their faith), they must leave their faith ouside the lab's door. Their various holy texts are next to useless on science, and the less said about Pi=3.0, the better. Non-sequitur? Religion/Science/Bible/Facts, hmmm.rvb8_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Today religion, and especially Christianity likes to expound the myth that modern science was brewed in the enlightenment pot of Church and Scince; nonsense! No scientist, then or now, goes to the Bible to answer natural questions.
A glaring non-sequitur.Upright BiPed_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

The argument is about, 'ways of knowing'. Religion is a way of knowing and understanding our world, and creation. As such, its historical importance to humanity, and its limited ability to answer natural questions can not be ignored; with its limited tools, and ideas, it came up with some pretty impressive ideas, rules, and questions. But as science became more methodical, and was willing less and less, to accept, 'God did that, back off', as an explanation conflict innevitably grew. Today religion, and especially Christianity likes to expound the myth that modern science was brewed in the enlightenment pot of Church and Scince; nonsense! No scientist, then or now, goes to the Bible to answer natural questions. The church, and Islam today, fights kicking and screaming for science to stop finding things out that upset their powers; and after all, for the Church it is nothing to do with inquiry, and everything to do with their diminishing role, importance, their power. The old univerities were indeed Christian, and they did indeed cultivate inquiry, up to a point. This set up does not bathe Christianity in a warm cloak of fostering Scince. All the universities were originally Christian, if you wanted to learn anyting the first thing needed was a belief in God. The argument that all the old scientists were Christian, therefore Christianity cultivated investigation is absurd on its face. You had to be Christian to get in the door, in fact to be otherwise was almost impossible for these people, living at this time. And today? Well, let's just say no scientist except those at AIG, CMI, and ICR, asks if their findings fit within Biblical parameters. All respected religious scientists today, leave their books, and faith upon the doorstep of the lab, anything else, (I desperately hope you agree) wouldn't be science, it would be faith, and those two simply can not work together.rvb8_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

We know that science was flourished under the auspices of Christianity in Europe just as it did for a time under Islam. The conflict between science and religion only arises when a claim about the natural world by a faith is contradicted by the findings of empirical science. Science recognizes that there is a profound mystery about the origins of the Universe and the laws by which it is governed. A lot of people are trying to come up with new ideas to try an explain it all. Maybe most of them are wrong. Maybe all of them are wrong so far but that is no reason not keep on trying. We cannot rule out the possibility that there is some sort of intelligent agency behind it all. The problem is that knowing who did it doesn't tell us anything about how it was done.Seversky_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

And if we rightly let the Agent causality, i.e. the Mind, of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Planck, among others), then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Specifically, we have evidence that both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead:
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains event horizon) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVUGK6UFK8 The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Astonishing discovery at Christ's tomb supports Turin Shroud - NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. 'However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Verses and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. “Alive” – W,Lyrics, By Natalie Grant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44
Supplemental notes:
(Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4 (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv4wVP_Fkc&index=2&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5 Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://youtu.be/F-TL4QOCiis
bornagain77_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Here a few more take downs of Hawking's book "The Grand Design":
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality. Nowhere is this destructive consequence more evident than in the machinations of multiverse cosmology to “explain” cosmological fine-tuning. Cosmic inflation is invoked to “explain” why our universe is so flat and its background radiation so uniform. All possible solutions of string theory are invoked to “explain” the incredible fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. But the evidence for cosmic inflation is both thin and equivocal; the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ 'What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science." – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip: Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking's New Book 'The Grand Design' - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4 Stephen Hawking is wrong - 2010 “But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. – John Lennox http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
Confusing law with agency is a profoundly deep philosophical error on Hawking's part:
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Agent Causality (of Theists) vs. Blind Causality (of Atheists) – video https://youtu.be/7pnnT0QvWr4
Even Hawking himself reluctantly admitted, via Godel's incompleteness theorem, that a purely mathematical 'theory of everything' is impossible:
"Note that despite the incontestability of Euclid's postulates in mathematics, (ref. on cite), Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable." Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)
Godel further stated:
“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
bornagain77_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

"The truth is that science and biblical religion have been friends for a long time." - not only that, but 'science' is Latin for 'knowledge' and as such it is a composite of Observation and Beliefs: http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/Nonlin.org_{February 12, 2017
February
02
Feb
12
12
2017
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply