Let us admit outright that we are dwarfed by scale when we
contemplate the universe. The earth we live on is considered a medium-sized
planet orbiting an average star on one of the outer radial arms of an average
galaxy. On this planet resides an ordinary race of people whose only
outstanding characteristic is that they are, well, not very outstanding. They
are sinful and painfully ordinary. Our galaxy is only one of millions of other
galaxies in the known and observable universe. All these factors though have
led extraordinarily to our healthy existence. The odds of which are… (if you’ll
pardon the pun) astronomically small. In other words the chances of our
existence were statistically impossible as even I will admit. That is...if you
do not believe in God.
Yet based in simple inductive study and basic observation
one could quickly conclude that that this whole vast construction exists
specifically for our sake. It is called the Anthropic Principle or the Law of
Human Existence. It is the principle that our existence in this universe is
contingent upon a myriad of physical factors that must fall within a very
narrow range for the ability for humans to survive at all in a hostile
universe. If even a single variable were off by decimal places, even slightly,
we would be obliterated or simply cease to exist. If the strong or weak nuclear
forces were minutely off, the atoms that compose our reality would fly apart.
If we were even a few thousand miles closer or farther way from the sun we
would either freeze to death or burn to a cinder.
Surprisingly, atheist Stephen Hawking sums up this sentiment
rather interestingly (but errantly) in a quote from weekly German news magazine
Der Spiegel.
“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet
of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us
something very special.” ~ Stephen Hawking [Der Spiegel, October 17, 1988]
We then have another comment about the existence of mankind
and the universe from the same man that defies logic and commonsense.
“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No
one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a
profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either.
We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for
that, I am extremely grateful.” ~ Stephen Hawking [Curiostiy; TV series]
The irony is that it isn’t just hard to believe we
exist…it’s impossible to believe. Too many circumstance speak to the
improbability of our existence...yet we are here.
Hawking’s view is clearly a man-centered view (anthropic),
not a God centered one (theocentric). It is ironic that the Anthropic point of
view in actuality is a theological argument for the existence of God because of
the need for Universe fine-tuning. The problem with Hawking’s view is that it
is purely and only an anthropic view that totally wishes to push out God. The
problem is that he also tries to discount God from an impossible scenario.
Hawking omits the possibility of a Creation, God and anything powerful enough
to have spoken reality into existence. A reality specifically geared to
humanity which Hawking himself has admitted is special or exceptional in its
improbability.
Furthermore, things within his own statements beg multiple
questions. He specifically states that man’s ability to comprehend these very
facts that I state, makes them special. Well, what makes them special? Special
implies a classification system. A classification system that lends itself to
inductive thought and inductive study. Things obviously didn’t have to be this
way. Reality is organized. Even chaos (to some extent) can be quantified, compartmentalized and categorized. The Universe by its very nature is
systemic and principles within the universe tend to be…ironically, universal.
Physics that apply in my backyard mostly likely apply to stars at the edge of
the Universe. The Universe’s physical characteristics are uniform and
consistent from the atomic scale to the intergalactic scale.
Again I ask, special how? There needs to be a measuring
stick or benchmark of special. Special to Hawking? Special compared to what? I
believe exceptional might be a better adjective. Both of these are comparative
words. I believe special in Hawking’s mind is the that they're special as
opposed to nothing at all. A state of being that Hawking has worked hard not to
believe (nothingness). You see, Hawking’s wants to believe the Universe has
always existed in some form either through oscillating universes or an outright
eternal universe even though background radiation in the Universe seems to
refute that claim. If Hawking admits to initial nothingness he knows he
violates a fundamental axiom of logic. That true "somethingness"
cannot arise from "nothingness" (also known as the God Paradigm).
Hawking’s realizes just how precious human existence and
human consciousness is and how special it is yet he attributes it to no
exceptional source. Special and exceptional. In other words…unusual or not
typical. Hawking’s is making comparative claims that these conditions for human
and even Universe/Universal existence are not the norm. How would he know this?
The truth is that he cannot without making himself Omniscient. Mr. Hawking’s is
clearly making himself into an entity with godlike abilities that his physical
condition clearly shows he does not possess. This is not surprising for a man
whose overriding drive behind his theories is to disprove God and deny His
existence. A motive and impetus so strong that it drives him to make
contradictory or irrational statements.
Since he cannot truly know the extent of existence or a lack
of it, deduction tells me that the only comparative point he has to make his
statement is that he is implying it is miraculous that anything exists at all
as opposed to nothing.
Furthermore, it is even more startling to him that human
consciousness exists in addition to what appears to be an arbitrary and
statistically improbable reality. Ontological existence of being as opposed to
nothing and non-being…a start condition that Hawking’s has repeatedly tried to
deny and disprove. Hawking’s has admitted that he wants the universe to have
been eternal so that it discredits a need for God but admits it is improbable.
So in making his statement that human consciousness is special he admits it is
unusual and exceptional while simultaneously affirming a comparative start
point that doesn’t seem physically feasible either by scientific or theological
standards.
It appears we have caught Mr. Hawking in a rather large
philosophical contradiction or in his case he has perpetrated philosophia
contra mundom.
All this to pose an ironic dichotomy in Hawking’s thinking.
Stephen Hawking wants a special eternal Universe with
special human consciousness but simultaneously wants to deny an eternal God to
have created it and sustain it. A desire so great that he has made assertive
philosophical statements to affirm his position on it. It is clear an eternal
God would be needed to create and sustain the universe because physical
constants like entropy require a self-limiting Universe start condition and
also point to an expiration date.
In effect, Hawking’s has made his belief and desire for
ontological eternality publicly known (it is on record). Eternality...a concept
firmly rooted in metaphysics...and a characteristic that should philosophically
be attributed to divinity not physicality in isolation [I discount the idea of Temporalism because
of its errant misunderstandings of God]. All these are concepts firmly planted
in theology and metaphysics not science and physics.
Theology and metaphysics. Two areas Hawking’s is clearly not
an expert on nor should he be making assertive and dogmatic statements about.
Two areas that he conceivable does not even acknowledge exist (an intrinsic
bias then comes into play). Hawking’ expertise lies in science and physics not
theology and metaphysics. It is therefore ironic that Stephen has made the
Universe a god (a form of scientific pantheism) by saying it is likely eternal.
My second point of contention with Stephen Hawking’s
overreaching philosophical and metaphysical statements is when he says, “We
have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that
I am extremely grateful.” I will say outright that his statement begs the
question: Grateful to whom? I wish to sidestep this philosophically
self-negating statement to dive into his other allusion of a "grand
design".
A design implies a designer. If we piggyback this statement
into the one we have already discussed we arrive at a rather peculiar
conclusion. It isn’t just a design; it is a grand design or as other statements
from Hawking’s have alluded to…special and exceptional. This is a lot of
grandiloquent and superfluous language coming from a man who believes in an
eternal but mundane Universe. A Universe he also has stated has a design (which
implies a creator/designer behind it).
So is Hawking being intellectually inconsistent and
contradictory? If so, how many of his other beliefs and statements can become
subject to these deductions? I’d have to say all of them. Can this man’s
theories and conclusions be relied upon to explain reality? Can he be taken
seriously at all? I posit that he cannot be taken seriously.
I’ll leave that to you to determine though. I personally
have trouble taking anything he says seriously anymore based on these and other
observations of him. As my father who was well driller used to say in his blue-collar way, “People like him need to be taken with a grain of salt.” That
is to say that anything he says should be considered something not completely
true or right. Dubious. This word best describes Hawking's
assertions. Taken with a grain of salt. It was an old idea that things
that were undesirable or inedible (hard to swallow) would be easier to swallow
or stomach if you add a little salt to them. There might be something useful in
what he says but most of it is just hard to digest and frankly, unpalatable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Intelligent Responses