A Critique by: Renowned Artist Jean Vallieres
[work in progress - this article needs to be folded into the article on "Higher Power" below. Physicist Professor Hawking had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science. He seems now to have drifted.
In his provocative new book [co-authored] he concludes the “Big Bang” which ignited the universe was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and nothing to do with any creator. Of course this can neither be proved nor disproved; only guessed at. Guessing it would seem applies to great minds as well as the lesser.
Hawkins now disregards the idea that there is an intelligent agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence.
Hawking now states that physics on its own will settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Of course he is wrong, which is the reason why this new book, to be released on September 7, is fundamentally flawed, though spectacularly interesting.
The new book The Grand Design, co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking contests Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos. [NOTE, even Hawking is prone to jumping from the factual to speculative when no intellectual proof can be presented. Readers seldom note the intellectual leap.]
Hawking says: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can
and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation [ wow, I enjoy
this term] is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why
the universe exists, why we exist. “It is not necessary to invoke God to
light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. Forget about
the idea of an uncaused cause.
This is a departure from the earlier beliefs of Britain’s foremost
physicist. In A Brief History of Time, in 1988 he wrote: “If we discover
a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason –
for then we should know the mind of God.” He was right in his logic,
incorrect in his this conclusion. Science does not carry the empirical
tools and methods to breach philosophical or theological thought. This
is an intellectual impossibility.
Hawking believes that a form of complex theoretical physics known as
M-theory, a type of so-called string theory, can provide the answer that
would explain everything in the known universe.
He also believes in the possibility of the “multi-verse”; that there
could be many other universes outside our own. This I found the most
interesting, and this has indeed caused me much speculative thought this
morning. I sort of like this idea.
He lead me to conclude, quite by surprise when reading an excerpt from
the forthcoming book, that indeed this could be a valid hypothesis, but
also that within our known universe there might well be many planets
like ours that host human life not unlike ourselves. How these planets
evolved, the nature of their creation is amusing to speculate. I am not
so brash as to opine that a creator would create for one small
insignificant planet such as earth alone. This conclusion is absurd.
There may well be many more earth like bodies out there throughout the
universe and many more humanoid like species. This idea is neither
supported nor contradicted by religion and logic.
Hawking has been outspoken this year over a number of issues, arguing it
is perfectly rational to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere in
the universe. I see little to reject his hypothesis. [
Hawking’s rational argument as science trumping religion. He replaces
God with Hawking, essentially jumping in his conclusion from scientific
the guess. His jumps are often unscientific for a scientist and his
conclusions simply cannot ‘create’ logic.
I am guessing that the overreaching failure of his conclusion is the
result of his religious background in Christianity. As a scientist he
finds it necessary to pin the scientific method against logic,
philosophy and religious dogma. In so doing he is forced to make an
intellectual leap from scientific speculation to cognitive belief. This
in turn forces him to defend the un-provable, and to offer up
speculative ideas that are just that, speculation.
I am lined up for a copy of the book [from our public library ] because I
believe it will contain a vast amount of interesting reading, and many
ideas that will stimulate minds to wonder – or should I say wander as in
“the river wandered through the meadows” . I like that. I shall
also read the book with the keen interest in spotting those conclusions
that are based on this scientist’s personal belief system rather than
proven hypothesis. I may change my tune. So, stay tuned. rjv
N.B. Take notice.
It is worth recalling what the scientific method is about if you are to
read Hawking’s book. The application of the scientific method proves
this book flawed, but interesting.
Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be
based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence
subject to specific principles of reasoning.[ A scientific method
consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as
explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test
these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably
predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of
inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a
coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new
hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased
interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
No comments