The Grand Design Without the Grand Designer
Bhakti Madhava Puri
The well known scientist, Stephen Hawking has exploited the sensitive modern discussion on the existence of God for creating popular success from abstruse science for his latest book, "The Grand Design" which is scheduled to come out soon.
Here are some controversial quotes from his book that have been published in the newspapers to stimulate sales, hoping to meet or exceed the success of his previous book, "A Brief History of Time" that sold millions of copies.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." -- Hawking
Here he supposedly justifies this statement via some mathematically reasoned arguments using 11-dimensional M-theory. Without critiquing the limitations of that theory, and without invoking Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which would charge his formulation with incompleteness even it if were perfectly consistent, we would like to point out one very important fact that should be in the forefront of every scientifically minded person. That fact is: no experiment, no experience confirms the proposal that the law of gravity can create even a pebble, what to speak of creating a universe. Before making such a grandiose pronouncement, should it not be backed up by even a shred of evidence? Particles are created from other particles, but to create a particle from the law of gravity defies experience and credulity.
The Laws of nature are not written in the sky. They are mental constructs, universal ideals that are intended to describe events in the realm of empirical observation. If a universal law can produce an individual event which it is intended to explain, then we have arrived at a monumental occasion in science in which the mental domain creates the sensuous or empirical world.
If he instead means that gravity, itself, is the cause of the existence of the universe we are faced with a paradox. Gravity understood as the curvature of Riemannian space-time, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, indicates the deformation of space-time due to the presence of matter. Thus to say that the deformation of space time creates matter is one possible scenario, mathematically speaking. This leaves us with the problem of where space time comes from, and what causes it to deform. Even if these things were somehow explained, where is the experimental proof to confirm such a theory, despite its inherent flaws? Have the self appointed high priests of science become so admired that their words are sufficient to silence any demand for actual proof.
We are not so foolish. Our challenge to such wild eyed speculators is: let us see you produce even a small pebble before you talk about making a universe. We all know the story of the fisherman who told everyone about the "big" fish that he caught, but only he saw it. By not considering any empirical proof for his claims Hawking's latest book should rather be entitled "The Grand Deception."
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." -- Hawking
This seems to be saying that the reason we exist is because we spontaneously came into existence - we exist because we exist. The Moon exists because the Moon exists. In this way we can go on explaining why everything exists. Generally, if someone wants to explain why something exists, the ‘because' or reason is expected to give us some additional content for cognition beyond that which is immediately presented to us. Without that additional content we remain with the immediate thing with which we began. This empty excursion from the starting content back to the same thing again is logically dismissed as a mere tautology, and is rightly called an empty thought, promising to give us something and then cheating us in the end. Therefore, we feel justified in calling this just another part of "The Grand Deception."
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -- Hawking
Many have seen through this subterfuge that Hawking inserts into a dry book on abstract physics or astrophysics. Why are the initial pre-release comments on this book in the newspapers emphasizing a theological point that is generally not found in or considered relevant to books on physics? Since Hawking's previous book, "A Brief History of Time" also invoked a reference to the deity and sold several million copies, the mention of a controversial/confrontational viewpoint about God in his present volume will undoubtedly stimulate sales in what would otherwise be a tedious read. It may be a good PR ploy, but no doubt this is also part of "The Grand Deception."
We need not stop at Hawking here. Richard Dawkins, the other half of the Hawking-Dawkins sensationalist British scientists, has also found it profitable to cash in on the modern theological theme, basing his whole conception of life on the Darwinian theory of evolution, without even a shred of empirical proof that life could have evolved from matter. We present the same challenge to him: let us see you make one blade of grass before proclaiming that the entire biosphere arose from a soupy mixture of boiling chemicals. In his case it might be appropriate to call his philosophy, “The Grand Delusion.”
Science depends on proof. Theology depends on faith. Theology does not have to prove its principles. That God creates the universe and life is an axiomatic truth of religion that is not in violation of empirical experience. That which is his source and origin and therefore beyond Man and his rational/intellectual faculties, the truly Infinite, cannot be approached by the feeble analysis of his finite senses and mind. The only proof of the spiritual kingdom is the direct experience of those who are given entrance into the Divine by the grace of the Divinity. That is the exclusive purview of faith. But science deals with the finite experiences of Man, so claims that have to do with the material world require material proof – because science is based on observation, not on faith.
There is no proof that God created life or the universe. But we know by scientific observation that life comes only from life – then there must be an original life. The universe is governed by laws – then Who is the universal lawmaker? A grand design is found in the universe – then Who is the Designer? The laws of morality cannot be questioned – such as ‘thou shall not kill.’ If we question the laws of morality, we place ourselves outside morality, and thereby create a situation in which we can become immoral. Thus the laws of morality must be binding on all without questioning or the whole of human culture will fail.
In the same way, God, the archetypical paradigm upon which the whole concept of the State and society is constituted is not to be misunderstood and so easily dismissed without dire consequences (as we have seen in the failed Soviet Union). It is no more possible to dislodge the moral conscience of a man than to dislodge his faith in God, because these are so intrinsic to his very nature. Even the immoral and atheist must have a consciousness of morality and God in order to maintain their hostile opposition and disbelief.
The well known scientist, Stephen Hawking has exploited the sensitive modern discussion on the existence of God for creating popular success from abstruse science for his latest book, "The Grand Design" which is scheduled to come out soon.
Here are some controversial quotes from his book that have been published in the newspapers to stimulate sales, hoping to meet or exceed the success of his previous book, "A Brief History of Time" that sold millions of copies.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." -- Hawking
Here he supposedly justifies this statement via some mathematically reasoned arguments using 11-dimensional M-theory. Without critiquing the limitations of that theory, and without invoking Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which would charge his formulation with incompleteness even it if were perfectly consistent, we would like to point out one very important fact that should be in the forefront of every scientifically minded person. That fact is: no experiment, no experience confirms the proposal that the law of gravity can create even a pebble, what to speak of creating a universe. Before making such a grandiose pronouncement, should it not be backed up by even a shred of evidence? Particles are created from other particles, but to create a particle from the law of gravity defies experience and credulity.
The Laws of nature are not written in the sky. They are mental constructs, universal ideals that are intended to describe events in the realm of empirical observation. If a universal law can produce an individual event which it is intended to explain, then we have arrived at a monumental occasion in science in which the mental domain creates the sensuous or empirical world.
If he instead means that gravity, itself, is the cause of the existence of the universe we are faced with a paradox. Gravity understood as the curvature of Riemannian space-time, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, indicates the deformation of space-time due to the presence of matter. Thus to say that the deformation of space time creates matter is one possible scenario, mathematically speaking. This leaves us with the problem of where space time comes from, and what causes it to deform. Even if these things were somehow explained, where is the experimental proof to confirm such a theory, despite its inherent flaws? Have the self appointed high priests of science become so admired that their words are sufficient to silence any demand for actual proof.
We are not so foolish. Our challenge to such wild eyed speculators is: let us see you produce even a small pebble before you talk about making a universe. We all know the story of the fisherman who told everyone about the "big" fish that he caught, but only he saw it. By not considering any empirical proof for his claims Hawking's latest book should rather be entitled "The Grand Deception."
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." -- Hawking
This seems to be saying that the reason we exist is because we spontaneously came into existence - we exist because we exist. The Moon exists because the Moon exists. In this way we can go on explaining why everything exists. Generally, if someone wants to explain why something exists, the ‘because' or reason is expected to give us some additional content for cognition beyond that which is immediately presented to us. Without that additional content we remain with the immediate thing with which we began. This empty excursion from the starting content back to the same thing again is logically dismissed as a mere tautology, and is rightly called an empty thought, promising to give us something and then cheating us in the end. Therefore, we feel justified in calling this just another part of "The Grand Deception."
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -- Hawking
Many have seen through this subterfuge that Hawking inserts into a dry book on abstract physics or astrophysics. Why are the initial pre-release comments on this book in the newspapers emphasizing a theological point that is generally not found in or considered relevant to books on physics? Since Hawking's previous book, "A Brief History of Time" also invoked a reference to the deity and sold several million copies, the mention of a controversial/confrontational viewpoint about God in his present volume will undoubtedly stimulate sales in what would otherwise be a tedious read. It may be a good PR ploy, but no doubt this is also part of "The Grand Deception."
We need not stop at Hawking here. Richard Dawkins, the other half of the Hawking-Dawkins sensationalist British scientists, has also found it profitable to cash in on the modern theological theme, basing his whole conception of life on the Darwinian theory of evolution, without even a shred of empirical proof that life could have evolved from matter. We present the same challenge to him: let us see you make one blade of grass before proclaiming that the entire biosphere arose from a soupy mixture of boiling chemicals. In his case it might be appropriate to call his philosophy, “The Grand Delusion.”
Science depends on proof. Theology depends on faith. Theology does not have to prove its principles. That God creates the universe and life is an axiomatic truth of religion that is not in violation of empirical experience. That which is his source and origin and therefore beyond Man and his rational/intellectual faculties, the truly Infinite, cannot be approached by the feeble analysis of his finite senses and mind. The only proof of the spiritual kingdom is the direct experience of those who are given entrance into the Divine by the grace of the Divinity. That is the exclusive purview of faith. But science deals with the finite experiences of Man, so claims that have to do with the material world require material proof – because science is based on observation, not on faith.
There is no proof that God created life or the universe. But we know by scientific observation that life comes only from life – then there must be an original life. The universe is governed by laws – then Who is the universal lawmaker? A grand design is found in the universe – then Who is the Designer? The laws of morality cannot be questioned – such as ‘thou shall not kill.’ If we question the laws of morality, we place ourselves outside morality, and thereby create a situation in which we can become immoral. Thus the laws of morality must be binding on all without questioning or the whole of human culture will fail.
In the same way, God, the archetypical paradigm upon which the whole concept of the State and society is constituted is not to be misunderstood and so easily dismissed without dire consequences (as we have seen in the failed Soviet Union). It is no more possible to dislodge the moral conscience of a man than to dislodge his faith in God, because these are so intrinsic to his very nature. Even the immoral and atheist must have a consciousness of morality and God in order to maintain their hostile opposition and disbelief.
Comments