Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Triumph of naturestition over reason

It seems science has come full circle. In the middle ages one widely accepted scientific (not religious) explanation for how things like rats or flies existed was the idea of Spontaneous Generation. Due to a desire for a more verifiable and rational explanation, this idea has been thoroughly discredited throughout the centuries. Or so we thought.

Stephen Hawking now declares God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. On the argument’s surface some question arise, such as how do any laws of physics exist without a physical universe to govern? Or, how would physical laws have been established when nothing exists and why would those laws be necessary? How would we know that physical laws preceded the physical universe, rather than the other way around? Or, how is the idea of the universe creating itself out of nothingness any less ridiculous than the notion of an intelligent being creating it? Both notions seem utterly absurd, yet it seems one must be true; thus the endeavor to prove God unnecessary no matter how foolish the explanation.

God did not create the universe, says Hawking
September 2, 2010 by Michael Holden

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

It seems difficult to see Hawking’s argument as anything less than wishful thinking backed up by a faithful adherence to an anti-theistic paradigm. We are now told the more rational (“rational” being so often treated as the opposite of faith) argument for explaining why anything exists is Spontaneous Creation, the cosmic equivalent of Spontaneous Generation. Is this idea a scientific breakthrough or a betrayal of reason itself? I look forward to reading the book when it is made publicly available.

anti-religion, atheism, bias, creation, ideology, philosophy, religion, science, scientists

Filed under: anti-religion, atheism, bias, creation, ideology, philosophy, religion, science, scientists

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: