This headline made me laugh. A vicar in London is disputing Stephen Hawking's claim that we don't need God as an explanation for the creation of the universe.
Well, what else is the vicar going to say?
"Professor Hawking claims in his latest book that God could not exist as modern physics left no space in the universe for such a deity.
But the Rev Nicholas Holtam, vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields near Trafalgar Square, said increasingly Londoners are turning to religion as they search for the answers to their existence.
In his latest book, Eureka, Professor Hawking argues that the Big Bang which created the universe was an inevitable consequence caused by the laws of physics.
He writes: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe.”
Mr Holtam said: “I feel relieved that God doesn't feel the same way about Stephen Hawking as he feels about God. I don't think Professor Hawking answers those big and ultimate questions that religion deals with.”"
Me again: Really, vicar, is that the best you can come up with? "God doesn't feel the same way about Stephen Hawking." It sounds pretty lame to me.
24 comments:
In the last war Albert Duerer
Had never heard of the Fuehrer.
I wonder if the later...
Oh it really doesn't matter.
E, did you watch the debate between RD & Ruth Gledhill on this? It was lush, she acted like a silly spoilt schoolgirl and was completely trounced (intellectually) She ended up leaving in a huff, no doubt she couldn't cope with all that "shrillness".
I wonder why God gave Hawking such an awful and debilitating disease? perhaps God knew he would grow up to scientifically prove her non-existence, of course at that instant God vanished in a puff of ontological dust, so much for vicars.
I wonder if any religious folk could articulate one single "big question" that is actually "answered" unequivocally by religion?
I love this. Atheists talk almost as much about religion (if not more!) than believers do! Wow!
No such thing as bad publicity, I reckon...
And who's "Albert Duhrer?" I know about "Albrecht Durer" the printmaker, but...? Am I missing something? (Oh, can't wait for the fiery responses to this one...:):)
He is a rhyme, a cipher, no more and no less.
Brenda, it must be frustrating for religious people not to have anything coherent to actually say on the subject... ;)
Hawking may be an atheist, but what of Einstein, who certainly saw the presence of a creator in the universe's precise organization?
Well, no, Steve, not frustrating at all, really. Ordinary, calm, garden-variety religious people (can't speak for rabid zealots, another breed altogether)don't feel a pressing NEED to debate, rebut, cite, rant, and promulgate "proof" (none possible, anyway, as you and your ilk continually point out.) It's not really an argument I'm interested in, unlike, say,this one: did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, or was it Marlowe or Bacon? Or HM QEI? Or the 17th Earl de Vere?
My point (if there was one?:):) is that there's plenty of factual/historical stuff to debate, for which there may exist yet-undiscovered proof---the Creator/primum mobile-vs.-"hard science" debate is pointless. Some of us choose to approach the unknowable via a spiritual/emblematic/poetic path, rather than grinding through Einstein's theory of relativity, *A Brief History of Time,* or any of the Latin texts Newton penned.
I, like many Christians and Jews (and others, thanks, Michigan Mom) don't see scientists-vs.-believers as occupying opposing camps or being sworn enemies. Believe it or not (ho ho) there IS, and always has been, some overlap. And, I daresay, always will be.
It isn't really a contest, is it? Subscribe to whatever floats your own particular philosophical, spiritual, or scientific boat. Jeering at one anothers' viewpoints and preferences seems, at best, senseless, and at worst, rude.
There is a famous story about Laplace meeting Napoleon Bonaparte. [The following account is based on Rouse Ball's, A Short account of the History of Mathematics].
Laplace went to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work. But, someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God. Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, took the book and commented, ``Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator."
Laplace answered: "I have no need of that hypothesis."
Now, I agree that Napoleon was being rude! To criticize another's book, and give unsolicited advice?
Luckily, I've no need to behave Napoleonically re: this blog, as the Creator is mantioned just about daily!:):) For Someone who doesn't exist, He sure gets a lotta press...
Oh, and Tim---silly me. I see that Duhrer was probably just a convenient rhyme---but the check out Durer's image on this site. I was understandably confused---Durer was a 25thc artist, whose most famous work (among the hoi polloi, anyway,) is his "Prating Hands." So I had all SORTS of weird constructions of your clever bit of doggerel! Who wrote it? Sounds sort of Ogden Nash-ish...
http://www.broroy.com/The_Praying_Hands.html
Durer, for those interested...
Wow, it's still early here in America and I don't have my contact lenses in yet. I meant, of course, "15thc artist," not "25th"!
Woah!, the lady doth protest too much, boo hoo :) For all your indignation I was only responding in kind to your original sarcastic comment about Atheists! BTW did you not notice the smiley?
MM, BTW Einstein didn't believe in a personal god like you do, read some of his letters if you don't believe me; the following is a quote from one of them..
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
B, It's a shame you don't want to spar around these things, your literary flair for sarcasm would provide us all with many smiles I'm sure. You also hint at some very good topics to discuss but then immediately slam the door with an ad hom or by claiming not to think it worthwhile discussing them? This sounds more like an avoidance tactic to me, or is it your Catholic penchant for coitus interruptus? :)
Throwing barbed comments into the ring and then not being prepared to back them up is called "trolling", it sure is good fun but don't be surprised if people sometimes respond in kind, if you can't take the heat etc. at the end of the day it's only fun, and might even be educational (perish the thought! :o)
The conflict between science and religion is a complex one and has many facets; it rages to this day with much passion on both sides, and yes it is a contest, but I would hope not malicious one, merely passionate; either God(s) exist or they don't the question is a scientific one and will have and answer some day (I agree we might not be around to see it though!)
B, oh and another thing (whilst I'm ranting ;), if religion truly was benign then no one would ever talk about it; unfortunately as you well know, it isn't, so you're presenting a bit of a straw man there.
Religion thrusts itself into all aspects of all our lives, from terrorism & violence, sectarianism, contraception, education, discrimination against women, HIV suffers, other religions, science, gay people etc. etc. these are not extremist views either, these are main-stream points of view and the extremist nut-jobs go even further!
There is a lot to talk about IMO
And I daresay the rest of us talk about terrorism more than terrorists do!
If only those darn terrorists would stop bothering us, we'd shut up about it...
BTW - I've often heard "So XXX doesn't believe in God - well, I doubt God believes in XXX" or variations thereof from clergy and other assorted apologists for religion.
I'm sure those who trot out this well-worn line think they're being very witty, but it doesn't mean anything. Like a political campaign's one-liner, it might score points, but such hackneyed phrases do nothing to advance the debate.
on the subject of terrorism: oh my GOD you would never believe what I saw in Queenstown! A drink called an Irish Car Bomb! I was absolutely shocked!
I'd heard a rumor that the Americans had that drink and I was like, that's horrid, Americans are stupid when it comes to the Irish but... the Kiwis?
Debates, debates...
Since when has the big bang been confirmed? - even Hawking himself only offers a strong probability for it.
I quite enjoy the thought that the proof Hawking provides for the particle named after him has the potential to deny any single 'big' bang. why not lots of differently sized bangs?
Shakespeare, well, I think a simple analysis of the styles and topics written about combined with the known history of the texts themselves provides the answers - there's no conspiracy why feted masterpieces of their day were forgotten in the first place.
and onto religion...
"if religion truly was benign then no one would ever talk about it"
not a clever comment.
people don't stop talking about things which are settled and agreed, but we do talk about controversies because they are not fully understood; the primary intention of all communication is to be informative, not assertive or confrontational (though it may also strike a pose).
opinion of the positive or negative qualities of a subject are wholly subsidiary to their being shared.
People still talk about beauty; people still repeat the bleedingly obvious, truisms and cliches; people still practise spontaneity.
so unfortunately I'll have to stir this hornets nest by agreeing with nobody, suggest the addition of an extra caveat 'only' and invert the line for the sake of equality.
ie neither is science only benign.
I think we all agree the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons created by science are actively harmful, don't we?
And in the taliban I think we can see a group who are attempting to use the products of science to take the world back to the stone age in order to eradicate the world of the horrors science has created.
Or perhaps the science fundies here are prepared to fund a martyrs shrine to Dr Mengele at Auschwitz... I'm sure that would get universal support, um...
must we all choose between being Frankenstein or being his monster? is that really the only choice? isn't the point of discussion to create new understanding and therefore new options?
Steve, if you stand by your logic you're either bad or wrong.
You've posited that science and religion are necessarily and exclusively opposed, and that religion is not at all benign.
So it follows that you welcome all scientific advances made in any fashion - from Nagasaki to Josef Mengele.
I'm also amused by the repetition of the outdated 'big' bang theory - even Hawking's own proof for the particle named after him casts doubt on it and he now argues for 'lots of differently-sized bangs'.
It's more accurate, but it's just not quite as snappy.
On the other hand the Shakespeare debate illuminates far beyond its narrow confines.
That is, if you can explain why a man so feted in his own lifetime was forgotten in the first place!
debates, debates...
do we always have to choose between identifying with the monstrous Dr Frankenstein and the monster he created?
Don't we begin to recognise at some point that opposites are equals?
OJ, where have you been? I have missed your blog. Gareth Epps stopped by the other evening, and I asked him where you were these days and he said he thought you might be in Edinburgh. Are you working up there now?
Good on ya, Steve, for clearing up that nonsense about Einstein believing in God. Imagine being defamed in that way when you're not around to set the record straight?
OJ, long time no speak :)
I thought we'd already cleared this one up a while back, but you seem to want to flog a dead horse again here..
The atomic bomb was developed, paid for and dropped by the CHRISTIAN president of a CHRISTIAN nation...
So, what has "science" got to do with anything here?
It does not follow in any way shape or form that because I say science is opposed to religion that "I welcome all scientific advances" By what warped "logic" do you assert that? Science and religion are opposed because the scientific method abandons revelation, tradition and authority as sources of truth, religion does not, maybe you could reconcile those two positions for me.. (no? thought not..)
And who are these "scientists"? some secret underground cabal manufacturing everything that could be used to cause human suffering.. I'm afraid you are condemning the first Australopithecus who took up a stone axe if you follow that argument through.
WTF? "Josef Mengele", "Dr Frankenstein"??? as if they represent science in some way; why didn't you use "Alexander Flemming" (the saviour of millions) instead to represent science?
What a load of nonsense!
No, Steve, we did not clear this up.
You satisfied yourself and I got bored of your onanism. Which is a completely different thing.
I find the methodology you use hilarious.
You seem to be able to jump with ease from "scientific method abandons revelation, tradition and authority as sources of truth" to the claim that the atomic bomb was discovered in a 24-hr mini-mart by the religiously-insired leader of a theocracy, before he sprouted wings and flew over the target himself ("developed, paid for and dropped") without missing a beat.
A clearer contradiction could not be concocted - and I think the reality is a weensy bit more complex than you suggest.
Let me repeat what I said (before you quote me out of context again), so 'my warped logic' is easier for you to understand.
You posited "religion is not at all benign".
You then state "science and religion are opposed".
It follows that science is all begign in your view.
Yet this is not a sustainable position when challenged with the fact of atomic warfare, so you deny your previous method of reasoning.
But the rough goes with the smooth - oppenheimer (a liberal), fleming (a socialist) and mengele (a fascist) are equally responsible for advances made by science, but your rejection of the less pleasant side shows you are only happy to select the evidence which flatters your preconcieved conclusions of reality.
Fleming is not 'the saviour of millions' you claim, whatever undoubted qualities he had - he had simply had the insight to understand a lucky discovery he made which allowed a breakthrough. He was just a very .... boy (fill in the blank).
Heroisation is the practise of cults, which you claim to oppose.
Oppositional systems of belief and understanding are precisely those promoted and exposed variously and to different extents by the groups you support and attack, whereas the reality is much less stark than you claim - we don't live in either a religious or a scientific heaven or hell, humanity exists on earth in all it's forms.
Unfortunately the illustrative advatages provided by oppositional systems of understanding (good, evil etc) are often taken as proof of a literal meaning, which is an example of politics coming before intelligence.
But we all just love watching dramas unfold!
So I may ask you why do you think the flag you wave so fiercely is more important than what it supposedly represents?
Science itself can't be malevolent, as it's only a set of desciptions of the way the Universe works. We can make no value judgments about physical laws - they just are.
It when we apply the science that problems can occur. The same science can be used for good or bad applications, which obviously depends on the intentions of those doing the engineering.
Post a Comment