The best takedown of Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design I have yet heard is by John Lennox, a mathematician and philosopher of science at Oxford. He points out a number of shortcomings in Hawking's case against both God and philosophy, partly by pointing out that Hawking's scientific arguments don't establish what he claims they establish, and partly by point out that his philosophical arguments against philosophy are not only bad but self-contradictory.
His article in the
Daily Mail several weeks back is itself excellent:
But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
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.
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.
But it his speech at the University of Dundee in Scotland in which his mastery of both science and philosophy that makes him the best qualified person to address Hawking is on full display. It is an example of Christian apologetics at its best.
Plus he's got a really cool Irish accent.
You can see the video
here. Just scroll to the bottom of the page. The audio was not good at the very beginning of the mp3 version I have, but they fix it just a few minutes from the beginning and it's excellent from there
3 comments:
In "The Grand Design" Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same "eternal" event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the "seeing" which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]
'But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.'
False.
Hawkings claims that there is a scientific way of explaining our origins that does not require God. This in no way implies any kind of choice. It simply means there is no requirement at all for us to assume a God exists to explain the universe.
If Lennox can't even get Hawking's basic premise right, but instead chooses to erect a strawman, I doubt I will find much of value in the rest of his 'collapse' of Hawkings.
'Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.'
Yes, John. And Hawkings is saying that they describe that our universe arose sponataneously under conditions requiring no agency.
I must say, Lennox is good at refuting himself.
'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.'
This is blatant question-begging mingled with a false analogy for good measure. Hawkings has a model (that is only potentially true of course) that does not require agency. So Lennox blithely asserts that agency is required anyway.
Based on what?
We have very good empirical evidence to suggest that Sir Frank Whittle was responsible for developing the jet engine. We have absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest any 'agency' is involved in the origin of the universe.
Of course Lennox knows all this perfectly well, as educated a philosopher he is. BUt he decides to spew this nonsense anyway because he knows he can get away with this vapid rehthoric. It's called 'apologetics' for a reason. Its apologizing for believing in things you know you have no sound reason to believe.
Thank you very much for posting the link to that lecture by John Lennox, Mr. Cothran. He is a wonderful orator, and his subject was very well presented. I hadn't ever hear of him before......thank you for bringing him to my attention.
Post a Comment