“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.There’s more, read it all if you are interested in this. He is right, Hawking is engaging in a category error, attributing agency to laws which are merely describing relationships between objects.
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.
That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.
Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.
To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.
Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?
Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?
Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.
For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.”
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A Category Error For Hawking
At the Daily Mail, John Lennox discusses Hawking's newest comments and the origin of the universe:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hello dear,
Abdullah here,if u remember.
Anyway ive just read some excerpts from his book.He's gone nuts i guess.This new book is simply an addition to garbage nothing more.
Btw how's ur study about the Quran.The link i gave u.
If I recall correctly, I went to that link, and it helped me decide that the Qur'an is sanitized for the english readers. Frankly I fear Islam more than ever.
Muslims abuse the American flag at the slightest excuse, and riot violently at any perceived slight, whether it is real or not. The behavior of the thousands and millions of Muslims is not consistent with the claim of peace and coexistence of a few Muslims.
I have come to believe that Islam and its Leftist apologists in the western world are the biggest threat to America and to freedom, even worse than the Soviets and Nazis, because the Muslims are able to take advantage of America's freedom of religion policy to successfully infiltrate.
There is no longer much question about what Muslims will do to infidels once they dominate western countries. They do not tolerate infidels, period. This is not based on the Qur'an; it is based on empirical observation of Muslims around the world.
Because that threat is real, the conflict between the west's believers in freedom and the totalitarian Muslim worldview will be inevitable, and it will be violent, and it will be merciless, and it will be as nasty as any world war or fight for freedom has ever been.
It is inevitable because of Islam's inabilty not to dominate and its inability to coexist peacefully, even amongst its own factions, much less with outsiders: infidels.
It is apparent that Islam has forsaken rationality in favor of revelation, and is therefore not subject to rational debate, nor is it expected to behave in a rational manner. It is not possible not to fear an non-rational, violent, world-dominating and totalitarian-oriented, religious hegemony.
Examples seem endless. For every perceived slight, death fatwas are issued. This is not abnormal; it is Islamic nature. No slight is to be without violent repercussion.
Yes, I fear Islam. And I fear Muslims because Islam is more important to them than is coexistence, peace, or anything else, under Islam.
When the time comes to remove our freedom of religion, thought and speech, and to install Sharia, the fight will find ALL Muslims together on one side, and me and the freedom lovers on the other side. How can it be otherwise? Will the "moderate" Muslims rise up on the side of Christians, Atheists, etc. against other Muslims? Today I am totally unable to envision that happening.
Remember, Taqiyya and kitman are required in order to keep Sunni Muslims from killing Shia Muslims. My fate would be immediate death.
Leftist apologists for Islam? From what I can see, most of them despise Islam even more than Christianity. Look at Harris and Hitchens. They are always talking about how dangerous Islam is.
Hitchens is not a leftist he is a conservative war monger - or was, and I'm not sure what Harris is. I was thinking about the general Democrat endorsement of the Cordoba Mosque and grille, the renaming of various Islamic topics by the Feds, folks like Chomsky et al, who side with Muslims every time. That is an interesting topic that I should look into, should I scare up some spare time.
Dawkins finally admitted some fear for Islam in a very tentative way. Like Massimo though, mostly they seem to fear Christianity more than Islam.
How is standing up for America's values considered "supporting Islam?"
I dont want to be dragged into a debate on islam on a atheism analyzing site. I think bro Abdullah should have his discussion somewhere else.
But, reading stans views on his post here were a bit of concern for me as a muslim and its quite clear where such views emanate from.
The following site would clear off such views
http://loonwatch.com
Ahmed,
I have been to the loonwatch site, and the page I viewed was devoted to saying that Christianity has its loons, too. Tu quoque. I will return to the site to see what else it has to say. But how can one deny the obvious, the observed?
Most of the wars today involve Islam. Even wars between states. Observing Islam's relations with its neighbors does not produce a picture consistent with peace, coexistence, and inter-cultural understanding.
Even within a single culture, the internecine violence is an observable negation of the concept that Islam is a religion of peace.
The problem you have as a peaceful Muslim - and I do not deny that you are - is to show us in the west how to differentiate between those Muslims who mean us no harm, who enjoy freedom and democratic governments, from those who wish us to be under a totalitarian Islamic world government. How do we know which of our mosques teach peace? And how many of our mosques teach insurrection and terrorism in their basements at night?
(And if you did differentiate, how would the Muslims involved react? Would they call for your death?)
If you can do that, and if Islam is truly a religion of peace and coexistence, then you will be a hero to both Islam and the west.
If you cannot, then you understand our problem.
Post a Comment