Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not “arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.” Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was “created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition.” The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
read more
Everyone is making such a big fuss about Dr. Hawking’s revelation that he does not believe in gods. This is not news.
What is news is the bluntness with which he said it. I remember him on Larry King a few years ago, when King asked him “Do you believe in God”, he responded with (paraphrased) “yes, if by God you mean the laws of physics and mathematics which govern the universe”.
I remember it so well because I hated that answer so much. I knew what he meant to say was “No” (so did King), but what he said was so cautious that it could easily be inferred that he was religious. He was speaking metaphorically, when he was asked a literal question.
Now, he has fixed it, and said quite politely but firmly that there is no scientific reason to believe in a god. What he said is not news, but THAT he said it speaks volumes.
If only some politicians would tell the truth with the same. The purpose being not to disprove what is obvious to us but to make point that religion has no place in politics or government in general.
Glad to see this site be updated on my blog roll as it has not before.
The politician who tells the truth won’t get enough votes to be re-elected. Which is another reason that religion has no place in politics or government in general.
I wish scientists like Hawking would quit using confusing language. A “god” idea bears no resemblance to a “law of physics” idea, except that for different people, either idea could inspire awe, respect, and a sense of beauty. They are absolutely different on the dimension of faith vs. observability. I think a lot of scientists wish people would redefine religion in terms of awe at the logic of the universe. They imagine our backwards, brutal, and incoherent stone-age mythologies being replaced by a scientific mentality. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but using the religious language isn’t convincing anyone of anything except a misconception that the world’s smartest people believe in a god.
You make the dichotomy of “Faith Vs. Observability” but Hawking discusses a multiverse theory in support of there not needing to be a God. How do you observe an alternate universe? How do you observe a universe where you cannot exist? Just because something is mathematically possible doesn’t mean that it is. Further, how is Hawking not displaying “Faith” in the validity of the multiverse theory?
There’s no dichotomy: 1 can observe directly that faith-based nonsense has no impact on the world outside of making faitheists feel better about themselves.
Don’t really need a multiverse for that.
No criterion whatsoever. Any more than the ‘odds are against us even being here’ argument. Neither works.
Just like ‘not needing evidence’ is hollow.
Scare quotes AND capitalization? Operational definition of ‘Faith’, please.
“Scare quotes AND capitalization? Operational definition of ‘Faith’, please”
Already gave you an operational definition of faith you just refuse to act like you can understand what is meant.
“There’s no dichotomy: 1 can observe directly that faith-based nonsense has no impact on the world outside of making faitheists feel better about themselves.”
Red herring. Ignores the fact that one cannot observe an alternate universe or a multi-verse theory. That’s why it is theoretical physics.
“Don’t really need a multiverse for that.”
Hawking seems to if you read the article.
“No criterion whatsoever. Any more than the ‘odds are against us even being here’ argument. Neither works.”
Can you explain what you mean?
& when was that, exactly? Not here.
Umm…no, it was direct response to your claim of a dichotomy.
For the record, no evidence? Prove there’s an alternate universe, or a multiverse. No free passes.
Well, I don’t agree. It’s that pesky evidence thing again.
You have context comprehension issues? By no criterion, that means you can’t observe an alternate (or multi) universe. Hume extrapolated that when he demolished the whole ‘watchmaker’ nonsense. Also, referring to the ‘X amount of odds against us being here’ argument.
Also, scare quotes indicates that you’re not using the standard definition of the word. Or sarcasm. Also, there are different definitions of faith – so religious faith isn’t comparable to common confidence.
Oh, of course, because he had such a diverse set of alternate data to draw upon.
Oh wait…he didn’t.
More proof that just because someone’s smart, doesn’t mean they’re not stupid.
Also, Newton wrote gobs of biblical interpretations – yet somehow, few people know anything about that…
Newton also lived during a time when heretics and witches were burned at the stake, so I can’t say I blame him for conspicuous religious activities. Atheists go to church in our modern era just out of social pressure.
Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
So are we to believe these “laws” simply came into being through random chance?
Why is it acceptable for an evolutionist to invoke a “Creator” but not acceptable for a creationist in invoke a “Creator”?
Hawking’s comments will reverberate for years in the public arena of whether or not creation will be allowed to be taught in a science classroom.
Gary…does your dislike of censorship extend into the classroom as well? Somehow I don’t think so…you’ll find reasons to justify it. In the end, that view would be no different from the pastor in Florida.
Oh, who appointed you the official Einstein interpreter?
Chance? Yes. Define ‘random’.
Either 1 can invoke all they like, no evidence? No go.
As soon as the creationist side can pony up scientific evidence – which they’ve had well over 31 years to do – then it can be considered.
There’s a huge difference here, so again, a non-sequitor. Classrooms require structure & regulations, otherwise the schools would be 1 big new age woo hippie commune, where any crazy person could stump their wild-ass views.
“Why is it acceptable for an evolutionist to invoke a “Creator” but not acceptable for a creationist in invoke a “Creator”?”
What difference does it make who invokes a “Creator”? Does an evolutionist (or a creationist) somehow have more credibility?
These arguments from authority (“Albert Einstein said…”) are vacuous and silly.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that the laws of nature are random chance – unless you think it’s random that gravity is a function of mass. Random chance would be if the force of gravity was different each day, or the nuclear strong force turned on and off occasionally. Just because a scientist is in awe of how gravity, matter, subatomic forces, and time logically resulted in a universe doesn’t mean they’re invoking a magical character or claiming the universe is random chance. Their language needs to start reflecting that.
The Laws, labeled so by mankind, have always been there. They are what produced the Universe.
I welcome the Bible and Koran, the Vedas and Tao te ching in the public schools. But I see no need for them in science class. Why would this be censorship? A math book would be redundant in a music class as would a trombone in gym.
When the subject is DNA, super novas and super colliders what place would mountain gods, angels, talking snakes and donkeys have there?
In a pre med class as the instructor talks of the mortality rate in certain cancers what place is there for a book that talks about a corpse who stops being dead and fly’s away?
No phreedm, your holy books and their off spring are welcome in schools, in the literature or comparative religion class
Gary…you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Hawking is the one who used the term “spontaneous creation”. Something from nothing.
Will you object to his views being taught in the public school science class?
Gah. This is why I usually ignore you. Demanding equal time/fair play isn’t an option in the science classroom. SCIENCE ISN’T A DEMOCRACY. Regardless of whether Hawking’s views are taught or not, the ‘foothold/precedent’ argument is pathetic. It’s grade school logic @ best.
Evidence or not, Hawking has more logic than your creationist dreck.
So do us all a favor, & drop the ‘he gets to, why not us?’ crap.
“Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.”
Your bolding that line makes it a law? Or did you bold in because it’s a law?
If your trying to justify teaching “Creationism” in the class room and labeling it “censorship” to not then I would like to add a few things.
Firstly, This is the Protestant Christians idea created/invented for the sole purpose of trying to defend their holy book and keep it updated with changing times.
If we teach Creationism in science class then we must also teach the Hinduism belief for how the world was created, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientology, and thousands of other beliefs which in turn would no longer be science class.
Then in Social sciences class we must also teach all of these different religious views as well.
That is not the responsibility of a secular education system to regurgitate the intellectual trash of religion organizations. It is a freedom left to the parents of the children to do individually.
It’s interesting that you use the word “censorship” for not allowing the Christians to get what they want – but not worried about the “censorship” of the thousands of other religions.
Guess that organization is the only group who deserves freedom. To hell with the rest. Literally.
KA…I assumed some actually read the article Dave had linked. Obviously you didn’t.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Meh. You got me.
KA said
KA…I agree. Hawking just gave scientific evidence.