Image: Frank Zauritz Redux Pictures
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
Has Stephen Hawking overreached? The publication in September of The Grand Design, a book the British physicist co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow of Caltech, raised hackles as some saw it as denying the existence of God based on scientific arguments.
Physics, the book states, can now explain where the universe came from and why the laws of nature are what they are. The universe arose “from nothing” courtesy of the force of gravity, and the laws of nature are an accident of the particular slice of universe we happen to inhabit. “It is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings,” the authors wrote. (An adaptation of the book appeared in the October Scientific American.)
Theologians were incensed, saying that the existence of a creator is by definition outside science’s domain. Some, including Reverend Robert E. Barron, a theology professor at the University of St. Mary of the Lake near Chicago, also complained that the book is philosophically naive. For example, Barron says, the existence of the laws that caused the appearance of the universe must have predated the big bang. “The ‘laws of gravity’ seem to be something other than nothing.”
As the media frenzy spread from bloggers and tweeters to prime-time television, the authors countered that they never meant to claim that science proved that there is no God. “God may exist,” Hawking told CNN’s Larry King, adding, “but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
“We don’t say we’ve proved that God doesn’t exist.” Mlodinow says. “We don’t even say we’ve proved that God hasn’t created the universe.” As for the laws of physics, he says, some may choose to call those God. “If you think that God is the embodiment of quantum theory, that’s fine.”
On the other hand, the scientific account of the origin of the universe may not be as complete as Hawking represents. It is based on string theory and on an even more mysterious—and just as untested—version of it called M-theory, as well as on Hawking’s own cosmological thoughts. “The theories that Hawking and Mlodinow use to base their arguments on have as much empirical evidence as God,” wrote cosmologist Marcelo Gleiser on an NPR.org blog. Moreover, Gleiser added, “because we don’t have instruments capable of measuring all of nature, we cannot ever be certain that we have a final theory.”
Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, whose 2006 book The Cosmic Landscape also questioned the need for a creator in the account of creation, agrees. “Not all physicists think the quest for a complete theory is over,” he says. “I don’t think we are anywhere near it.” Whether or not there is a God, his or her handiwork is certainly not easy to understand.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
109 Comments
Add CommentTheologians seldom get anything right since each and every one of them even have a different theory about God and who or what God is or may be. Theologians are like Lucifer in the Old Testament...they get pissed off if they feel they are being left out of the scheme of things and try to rile the peons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Hawking knows that the Universes are the product of an intelligent design. Even the smallest atom seems to have intelligence and things don't just happen or by accident without a plan of some kind. Only an idiot would believe that there is no intelligence within the atoms that come together to form a tree or iron. Hawking is no idiot.
Free will does not exist, it is but a useful illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod does not exist, it is an illusion that has out lived it's usefulness.
Your time here is all you get. Enjoy it.
Ah, so true but as long as there are manipulative people (read church, state or a combination thereof) who understand the human need for magic people, religion will continue to flourish and be their tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Theologians were incensed, saying that the existence of a creator is by definition outside science’s domain.... For example, Barron says, the existence of the laws that caused the appearance of the universe must have predated the big bang." I love it when theologians claim that science can't intrude on theology, but theology can intrude on science and theologians feel qualified to step (way) outside their area of expertise and criticize Hawking et. al. And actually, books like Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" demonstrate that religions make scientifically testable claims all the time, and that since those claims fail from the evidence, science is indeed justified in dismissing them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, when religion resorts to unfalsifiable claims, it is inherently unscientific to accept them. Creation myths are just using one unknown--gods--to answer another. Religious accounts also tend to be quite inflexible, unlike scientific theories which are readily amenable to modification or wholesale rejection in the light of new evidence. When you say "God did it" (or Zeus, Mithra, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. did it) you are essentially cutting off any further inquiry into the matter. Science treats the unknown as "presently unknown but potentially knowable." Religion treats the unknown as _unknowable_, forever beyond the ability of mere humans to grasp.
Fortunately, the history of science is filled with the use of human cleverness & ingenuity to turn the once-unknown into the verifiably known. No scientist worth his salt should ever be content with religious explanations of reality, which in reality explain nothing. And I would also venture to say that scientists who criticize M-theory as being forever untestable might want to give it a bit more thought, or resign and move into another field of study.
Anyone who claims that there is intelligence in the atoms of a rock or iron, etc. is free to post their proofs. Until then all that idea is, is another ridiculous religious concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet it straight dude; It is NOT required of science that scientists "prove" every, or any, idiotic "claim" to be wrong (or right). It is the job of scientists to examine any evidence carefully and share their findings through peer reviewed publication of their research.
With regard to the question of "intelligent design" all that scientists have EVER said is, "So far we can find no evidence to support this claim". It is outside of the mandate of scientists to claim that there is no god, just as it is outside of their mandate to say that there is no Santa Claus and no fairies at the end of the garden or no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and they DO NOT DO SO!!
What IS ridiculous is that some people still try to get away with saying that scientists say this, that, or the other when they KNOW FULL WELL that this is not the case at all.
So..... trot your little butt off and go bring back some evidence of your claims and we'll all take a look at your proof. Until then...... put a sock in it....please!
Mankind has always attributed that which he cannot explain to God or the gods. As science has advanced through the centuries, God has taken more and more of a back seat in worldly matters. Theologians become more desperate to keep God and the Bible at the forefront, but to no avail. I will always put my faith in science, even as we stumble through theories until we are sure they are facts. Let the theologians complain ... thankfully they can't burn us at the stake anymore for not following THEIR way of thinking!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFervent theists, detesting agnostics' ambivalence toward their particular deities and beliefs, feel they must call them athiests or fiends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho does Stephen Hawking think he is? The Beatles established that God didn't exist long ago. I think it was John Lennon...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConflict is inevitable when theologians enter the domain of science and vice versa. Science is concerned with understanding that which we can measure and test empirically; theology is concerned with that which we cannot measure or test empirically. No matter how far back we are able to push the frontiers of our understanding of the origin of the universe, there will always be that "causeless cause" that will remain in the realm of theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI respect Dr. Hawking and I believe he did not mean that God doesn't exist. He might have wanted to say that Physics can explain how the universe was created. This, in no way, is similar to saying "God doesn't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read my hub and comment. http://hubpages.com/hub/God-Truly-Exists
"The universe arose “from nothing” courtesy of the force of gravity"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe obvious question is: How did the force of gravity come about?
Having studied human communication theory and history at the university level for 11 years and much longer independently, I suggest that a higher intelligence has done some communicating with the likes of Abraham and Moses, Mohammed, Jesus and the disciples and others. The divided religions we have developed on earth and other divisions within our younger intelligent species may be partially accountable as pre-emptive cold war-like tactics carried out by the communicative interventions of an earlier intelligence in the universe, which has served Their security, life activity and happiness. Our God(s) did not actually physically create the universe, but it has all the other powers ascribed to it over the millenniums. It is not intrinsically hostile as Hawking suggested, but it has and does intervene in our history as it has unfolded. While our human languages, experience and the human mind may lend themselves to building religious myths, I suggest higher, older intelligence did some dramatic communicating in order to co-create the Hebrew, Christian and Muslim belief systems and It is still very much involved with our planet. It has created man, in a sense, but I believe it has left biological and planetary evolution pretty much the way the universe itself has unfolded it. I can’t be sure about linguistic evolution or some of the language divisions on our planet as having or not having been sculptured by It along the way. It appears to me that it does like to get involved in big things in earth history, especially huge religious movements. It can be playful and supportive; awesomeness is pervasive and possibly a default posture in its communication in our history; it insists on its prerogatives. But, I have reasoned that it needs and wants and uses younger planets’ natural evolutionary processes to secure Its universe of intelligence at different levels that It is into (re)living Itself. Might not someone like a billion year older Hawking act mysteriously and highly influentially with younger intelligences in the universe? In order to leave such intelligence's basically intact and responsive to natural evolutionary patterns, but determined by history/nurture in certain respects, caused by the interventions of higher intelligence. My analyses of the history of this communicative power by the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims and others strongly suggests its existence as a nearly unimaginable super technological power that has made earth one of its Hollywood-like theaters. This nascent theory can be fortified by other scientific research. I have written more on this at http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/revolution-or-extinction/11772671
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a layman and long-time subscriber to print SCIAM, I just want to say that despite the learned comments of others here, I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around "nothing." It began years back with the question of, 'if the universe is expanding, into what is it expanding?" Or viceversa. While I'm not a fervent 'theist,' I like to entertain the possibility that there is no such thing as 'nothing' in the sense that energy can't be destroyed, nor created, etc. Of course, it also may be why I purchase the occasional Powerball ticket, not that I think I could actually win, but because I enjoy the brief fantasy running up to the drawing of 'what if' I won. Again, my 2 cents as the armchair 'scientist' holding a beer in one hand, enjoying my daily ration of death, famine and suffering on CNN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would just like to add to my universe, which has evolved much higher intelligence than earth's a long time ago, an intelligence involved in earth's socio-political history, an intelligence that may have even planted in communicative ways its non-existent power of universe creation among its talents during earthling's cultural/historical unfolding, that this universe and all universe's has neither matter nor energy as its constituents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am quite certain that there is a higher intelligence acting in earth history, which did not create the universe. That is, that there is no God within our universe that created our universe. But, I am not certain there is no matter or energy. I believe that there may only be mathematics inside or outside our universe. Mathematics may create universes, create big bangs and the unfolding of relationships that provide an illusion of energy and matter and time and space. That is, math isn't just what we use as a tool to measure things, math really is all the things, including organic configurations.
This suggestion may be really neither here nor there scientifically, but the suggestion/discovery that our historical God(s) is a real communicator like a U.S. counterintelligence agency is based on my scientific research and should change our world, including changing Scientific American.
Napoleon is said to have asked Laplace why in his theory of the cosmos he had not mentioned the Creator. "That is a hypothesis I do not require," Laplace is said to have answered. La plus change...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a ridiculous assertion. Science cannot explain the origins of the universe simply because we cannot make direct observation of the event. The scientific method cannot be used to verify events in the past, only to explain events observable and reproducible in the present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have come full circle. What we call science today is nothing more than Aristotlean philosophy: Observe, hypothesize, argue. He with the best argument wins.
Ask Dr. Hawkings how many Degrees of Freedom he will have in Hell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Zero.
The existence of a supreme being is completely a matter of personal beliefs and faith - things which to not transfer from one person to another. One (or many, or a majority, or a near entirety) person's belief in a SB cannot have a meaningful truth effect on people without that belief. It can be personally 'true' for all, some or none - and all are correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Hydrogeology1: Re: 'Hawkings(sic)... in Hell' Thank you for proving my point. As I said in my earlier post, "Fervent theists, detesting agnostics' ambivalence toward their particular deities and beliefs, feel they must call them athiests or fiends."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the life of me, I cannot understand the conflict between religion and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no conflict - they are about totally different things.
Religion is about people.
Science is about the physical universe.
Remove people and the universe will tick along just fine.
Remove people and religion won't do so well.
The real issue in this book is the Authors' near-religious faith in "string theory/M theory".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter more than 30 years of being told that this Ptolemaic pseudoscience will lead us to a "theory of everything", string theorists have nothing to show.
Not one definitive prediction.
Not one major physics discovery.
Just a "landscape" of 10^500 imaginary pipe dream "universes" and execrable "anthropic reasoning".
Hawking has sold out to dubious fashions, probably to increase book sales. Maybe he has a mortgage to pay off?
Actually, I believe what you're thinking of is John Lennon's comment that The Beatles were more important/significant to Britain than Jesus was. And in fact, he did not make that comment, but it was said to him, so he commented on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can rest assured that one day, people will be removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysics will still be ticking though...
I respect Dr. Hawking his opinion have always been very useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.mendmydebt.com/bailiffs" rel="nofollow">Credit Card Debit</a>
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein’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]
When I was 4, I asked the Sunday School teacher what God is. I got no answer then, or since. I've refined my questions, studied philosophy, got a degree in physics, and now I'm 70 and have been studying cognitive science for a decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion, and all those totally unproven gods, are the outgrowth of social control tools, used to buttress the authority of a leader, or leaders, in the necessary tasks of governance.
I'm a bit amazed at the total crap the editors of Scientific American are putting out. I wish it were still scientific, but then, Americans no longer are.
It's not Hawkings responsibility to disprove everyones wildly varying ideas of gods. If you say there's a god or twenty gods or a whole civilization of gods, then it's up to you to show me that you didn't either just make it up or repeat what someone else just made up. If in your defense, all you can muster is a definition that says god is whatever can't be seen, touched, smelled, measured by any conceivable instrumentation, or proven in any way, then you're talking about a riddle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI this universe, things that exist, tend to exist.
VERY INTERESTING... as I read the first ten responses... they ALL appear to be from people actually grounded in... (wait for it)... ... REALITY! WOW... any blog with GAWD in the title usually brings out the faith-based apologists like dung beatles to a mound o' ... .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYEAH... there be nothin' new here. NEVER been a shred o' scientific evidence that any god or gods have ever existed or intervened in the Natural Universe. In fact, there is strong science and the strength or logic and reason for a Universe completely devoid of such an absurd improbability. One such readable treatise is the work of the eminent physicist and professor Victor Stenger: "god, the failed hypothesis" (check it out).
If there be any god(s), then his/her/it's "celestial touch" has been so incredibly light as to not to have left the slightest of "fingerprints" upon the Cosmos, inexorably unfolding in spacetime. Regarding the specific gawd of the bible... the case is completely threadbare, much like the utterly bogus "shroud of Turin".
TO all "faith-based" believers, I suggest you examine your motives for adopting such delusional thinking. The most popular being the adolescent wish for demigod status. However, nothing that has mass lasts forever or is eternal... not even the stars from which we are all made. Thus, for you to imagine immortality for yourself is... beyond arrogant.
Hey... that's a bit harsh... bloated americans may not be the "brightest" lights... and they may be a skeptical of science (while lustily using every convenience science affords them) but they are RAPTURE READY! Hmmm... I wonder how many these bible-believers thought the world would "end" (whatever that means) during their lifetimes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah... peace to you my friend and take comfort that we are all embedded in Nature and not apart from it... and "life" is one thing this particular Universe does. Cheers!
This is precisely where you strayed from science... to pseudo-science and utter speculation in your comment: "Similarly, mystics experience... "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but it is neither "similar" nor analgous in any way. Oh... regarding that "Divine Essence" and "suprarational cosmic consciousness" sophistry... besides zero proof, if that be the case for you, why are you wasting your time in such a mundane blog as this? Self promotion for yer e-book perhaps?
Wonderful comment... true and beautifully succint! I may co-opt it as my own... Cheers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHDYDROgeology1 opines: "Ask Dr. Hawkings how many Degrees of Freedom he will have in Hell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Zero."
YOU are not only profoundly dimwitted... but malignantly mean-spirited... thus, a typical bible-thumpin' "christian".
BTW: the man's name is HAWKING and the large shadow he has cast from his wheelchair upon the enlightenment of Man is a black hole that sucks lemmings like you up and spits them out.
Thanks to 'Live the future'. You say, correctly, that "Religion treats the unknown as unknowable, forever beyond the ability of mere humans to grasp." One should add, however: "And then they proceed to claim that they know it anyhow." The main issue is not whether there is 'design' or not, or 'God' or not, but what is meant by design and God. Design does not require a human-like creator, first of all. Darwin's theory of evolution is after all a theory of design. It is statistical, but not random. The basic design of the laws of nature needs no designer either, as they could be, as in Plato's Timaeus, eternal. And if there is a personal designer, would he come walking down a slope and demand someone to sacrifice his son. Is that the same one who would also design eyes, butterfly wings, or what have you? Or, more sophistically, spell out the basic laws for a universe that would then run like a machine on its own? The originator of quantum mechanics would create this vast cosmos, and then on a little planet select one small group of people as 'his' and disregard the rest of those he has created? And would that intolerant someone also be - good? How is that possible? That way of thinking is beyond reason, and therefore cannot claim to be reason. One surely has to respect people's emotional needs, and many have a need to believe in some form of higher plane of existence. Perhaps we all do, to some extent. But one cannot respect beliefs which amount to both intolerance and a complete disregard for consistency. Of anyone who 'believes' in something, and also try to force their opinions onto others, it is legitimate to ask what they believe in, specifically, and what evidence they possess for the validity of their belief, specifically. Science does just that. The old saying credo quia absurdum was at least honest in admitting the absurdity of the position, and may be respected as a personal opinion as long as it remains personal and makes no attempt to influence education policies, politics or indeed scientific thinking. And, yes, Darwin is not dead. He is alive, well and evolving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is exactly what you BELIEVE. It is your religion. I don´t argue against it. Still - it is your personal relgion, nothing else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is not about magic. Magic was before religion and is no more. It was contemporary with astrology when astrology was "serious" for thousands of years ago. Then astrology got a baby - astronony which later developed to sciences. While magic and science are related to each other relgion is not ton any of these.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop intefering in other peoples religion! Most people have a god, they just call it something else like money, science, sex, career. The one is not better than the other. if you don´t like someones God then my advice is - create you own, a better God!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the dicsussion was if a creator is necessary for physics. The answer is obvioulsy "we don´t know". What we know for sure is that "religion" meaning "believning in things we actually don´t know a shit about" is necessary for humans. And that the next step almost always is "I want to know more". Even in religions.
Lennon was no God. What he said is no eternal truth. Besides, in the song you mean "Love love love" he replaced God with love. So love became his God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not realize your age in earlier comments at S.A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill you miss my point: God is not unproven but PROVEN for believers! And like scientists, MOST religious people test their God continuously. If God is not what they want he is they turn to atheism, other religion or agnosticm.
And it is not about social control, that is bull-shit atheist-historians fantasies - and Marx of course. But Marx had his reasons, religion was THE rival of revolutionary thinking.
Finally: Religion can be of good or of bad. But as Kant expressed it: not ethichs are possible if you don´t believe in a God. This is a little favour for relgiion.
But religion is not good or bad, it is good AND bad
And God said "let ther be light", and ther was light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas never interfered in the history of cosmos you told?
I am pulling your legs but you are not aware of what you are writing. You don´t know a single religious people (I am not religious), you don´t know anything of any religion, you just write down you own "thoughts".
Actually, religion destroyd Rome. Religion built up U.S.
Religion also destroyd the Twin Towers. You may think "not it was people". Yes it was - religious people. It does not really matter if God is reality or an idea if he has such a power to build and destruct...
Dont mock on specified groups here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVERYONE believes in something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can provide you a little necessary help: Religions had not get anything wrong just because everyone has a different theory of God. This is not a problem, it is the whole IDEA of good religion! It it´s up to sciencis to deliver "universal knowledge". Modern religions provide tools to your "private universe".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe war religion vs. science is imaginary and stupid, it is like Bohrs complementarity never reached people who think science and religion are in opposition. They are equally necessary parts of human thinking. The one is not the problem, not the other - the problem arrives when someone THINK it is.
To those who say that it is all just a matter of belief, the obvious answer is that belief in something does not make it true. Science is therefore based on tested and corroborated belief. It may not be one hundred percent true but it works. Religion is based on wishful thinking, deep existential and emotional needs and the uncritical adherence to tradition. To say that religious people test their god is just a play with words. How does one test the creator of a universe, of which one is, oneself, a part? But primarily, to 'test a person' is not to test a hypothesis experimentally but to oppose him. In this sense God can only be tested if he exists,and that is after all the question. As for science, it does not disprove anyone's belief in any creator, or divine intelligence. Instead it takes as its task to explain the cosmos without any such assumption. Human beings have now explained the physics of the stars, split atom nuclei and made a complete chemical analysis of our DNA. The Earth is round, not flat as the Bible suggests. We now know that. We can even prove it with pictures taken from our own satellites, put in place not by any church but by solid science. Not bad for someone who ate an apple and was thrown out of paradise, and, there you have it. It is not that science opposes religion, nor the opposite. It is a dogmatic form of religion that opposes science, not because science proves it false but because it is making that form of religion obsolete, which claims to be able to explain the world in which we live, not being content to deal with the afterlife. Men of the cloth who used to rule this world no longer do. I guess that must be as thoroughly annoying as it was in Galileo's time, when the new rule was establishing itself. Many scientists, including biologists, are personally religious. I respect them totally. It is legitimate to believe personally that there is, beyond this observable universe, a spiritual world of some sort as long as you do not believe that religion has the right to intervene with science, which deals with the human right to seek for general theories about the world and test them through experiments and observations. And to use them to thwart whatever comets the divine creator may see fit to throw at us. We may be designed to be religious. But we are also designed to question that belief. If that is testing God I am all for it. Stephen Hawking has the same right to disbelieve in the divine that others have to believe in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good comments... well reasoned... and thus, will fly over the heads of the faith-based. I particularly agree that personal religious beliefs be just that: personal and out of the public square. IT was exactly what our Founders had the wisdom to "ordain" for this experimental Republic since the U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. Further, it is when the faith-based inject their stale dogma into politics and seek to constrain science that is the proverbial "root of (all?) evil".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for JARMO... do you have any idea what you are posting... many words... little meaning? You could be the Ultimate Relativist! You may wish to try just a pinch of logic and reason next time out. Of course I "write down my own thoughts" ... duh. Oops... guess I'm "mocking" you.
Why is it going too far to finally show proof that God does not have to exist. We proved that the earth was not flat. Why is it that those of us who choose to believe that there are greater powers at work in the universe than a god are labelled as heathens as those who believed the earth to be round were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not that we do not believe in these god its that we choose to remain curious about our creation without having to label the source.
These gods were created to explain away natural and galactic phenomena before we had the means to explain them through scientific fact.
To Jarmo. Sure, you are completely right, although I know at least one sceptic who claims not to believe anything at all. But some beliefs can be tested and beliefs about divinity can not. Science therefore does not require them, and it is completely legitimate not to believe in them privately. After all, there is a difference between believing in the theory of relativity, or rather judging that it works rather well so far, and believing that the universe has a divine origin in the form of a being who is like us, only much better. Consider the saying of Xenophanes that if horses and oxes and lions were given hands so that they could paint as we do, the horses would depict the gods as horses, while oxes on their part would shape them as oxes. They would depict the divinities in their own form. But, an important point is also that religion has no absolute moral or social claim either. It can only be accepted as a personal position, so science as well as morality and politics are in that sense freed from it. Any religious person has just one vote, as does a non-religious one. Both have human rights, but none more than the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quite familiar with the science, and I must take issue with the idea that science can explain the origin of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a common misconception that confuses description of current theory with explanation of why or how it exists. The descriptions in current theories are just that. They do not explain why it exists or how it exists.
We just don't know, and that's alright with me.
Many scientists should take a basic course in semantics. It would prevent a lot of this kind of thing from happening. Most scientists use words without ever thinking about them or what they are.
You cannot build your house on a map because the map is not the territory. Science, like culture and every other form of symbolic communication, is an abstract map. When we say something as simple as, "tree" we name something. But the "something" is not the same as the word.
One does not need science to 'disprove' many classical religious beliefs. David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion contains most of them. His arguments show that there is ample reason not to believe in a Good and All Powerful Creator, since the creation is such a mess, observations he develops rather extensively, and in addition there are no arguments that prove his existence. Religious so-called proofs are based on unreliable analogies. We can have what looks like a creation without any creator, and the empirical evidence rather than suggesting a perfect and morally superior being points towards a possibly evil, or incompetent or simply a mischievous child God. Hume ends by saying that looking at the world one may be struck with some awe, and even feel some underlying design to be present, but that is just that, a personal feeling. I recommend the book especially to all who have to argue with fundamentalists. He did not publish it in his life, as he did not want, as he said, to lose the few remaining friends that he had. Get your copy today!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@silvrhairdevil, "Religion is about people. Science is about the physical universe." silly me, I thought people were part of the physical universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny it seems that when religion is trying to tell us what to teach our children, how to form government policy, what kind of entertainment we should enjoy, god is suddenly very clear and well defined. There is no question about who is, what he wants, and his abilities. When religious nuts are asked to justify their beliefs and explain contradictions, god is suddenly a great mystery. No one knows the mind of god. You can't have it both ways. If you want to define god in narrow terms than those terms can be tested. One might not be able to claim that there is no god, but one could likely demonstrate that specific gods could not exist given their described natures or were not responsible for certain events. Either way, religion is a load of B.S. Science shouldn't have to apologise for stating the obvious.
AT LEAST the vast majority of posters on this thread at SciAm are not looney creationists or quoting stale scripture. How positively refreshing... as if the Enlightenment had actually occurred, despite the hyper-religous nature of america today, content in its ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAT any rate, besides that fact that "god, the failed hypothesis" (Victor Stenger, physicist and professor) is testable and found totally wanting, an tutored and insightful mind from the 4th century BCE, using the strength of LOGIC AND REASON summed it up best:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)
The thorny "evil" problem for all bible-sky-god believers exposed. NO ladies and gents... there be no devil nor demons to hang this rap on (another inconvenient truth for the faith-based)... no get out of "hell" free card for the "god" of ignorant jewish desert tribes of the late iron age. NOPPERS, Epicurus got it right: either your bible-god is impotent on so many levels or... far more likely, mythos like all other god constructs, folklore to fill the needs of frail evolving humans in a relatively harsh environment.
Completely understandable, but false... and way past time to be jettisoned.
DEUS SIVE NATURA
From ancient time Saga, philosophers are discussing on this subject.Shankaracharya great philosopher of India told you could not prove existence of God by logic but idea of God no one can erase from mind of people. It is emotional. Man created idea of God for his selfish purpose, when fight or flight are not save the life naturally man pray.Death is there till idea of God will not die .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you invoke one creator of everything, you still have to ask who created the creator. The bottom line is that we can't know ultimately how we began. The deeper we get into cosmology, the more it resembles theology, based on ever more assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot believing conventional religions doesn't mean that I'm not religious. I define religion as the values, beliefs and principles that guide my life, and how I apply them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 9th-10th centuries al-Ghazali a Muslim theologian offered the following proposition regarding the origin of the universe;
-Whatever begins has a cause
-The universe began to exist
-Therefore the universe has a cause
More recently the following question was raised:
In the real world of science there are constants and laws of nature and they are as described in the following quote as ‘just so’ and these constants and laws govern the universe and all that is in it.
Quote: “Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different? For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms? If fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist. (For example, atoms would be less stable, or stars and planets would not form.)” End of Quote. Source: Universe Forum, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
In other words why are there laws of physics or gravity or dark energy. Both Hawking and Krauss base their arguments on the spontaneous or even preexistence of physical laws, energy and matter without cause and without questioning why or how. Doesn't this require an almost religious faith in material and physical observable and non-observable 'things' that had no 'cause' and many exist only in exotic, mathematical calculations.
This certainly goes against Hawking's conclusion in his famous book, little read and even less understood,
"A Brief Moment in Time";
"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God."
He has been attacked by some scientists, atheist and other nonbelievers for even referring to the possibility of a God. Since then he first redid his mathematical model to eliminate the Big Bang
and construct a universe that stops expanding, contracts to minimum and then starts expanding again without a Bang or whimper. Now has come up with another theory based on the infinite existence in time of gravity and the laws of physics. This only adds another 'Why?
I still can not belive that someone call himself "scientist" when claiming that something come out of nothing.And more amazing is that there are people that believe him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly the most striking thing about the comments here is the intense level of abuse and disrespect shown by those who are confronted with beliefs that differ from their own. Such attitudes can never be the basis of either scientific inquiry nor religious tolerance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong ago I read a quote from an old book in some obscure religion that said God said, "In whatever way men approach me, in that way do I love them." I think religions differ because people differ. They are paths to God, some more rocky and unclear than others, but all an attempt to get close to something greater than ourselves.
It's part of human nature to make such a journey, and some make it through science and others make it in other ways. Perhaps it's the journey itself that serves whatever need that compels it.
As for me, I don't think Dr. Hawking ever meant to condemn religion by saying physics can explain the universe, though there remain many unanswered questions and perhaps this is only the beginning of understanding.
God, whatever God is, created the universe, is the universe, and is within every aspect of the universe. Therefore show respect to Dr. Hawking and to those who believe in God. Who can say that in a universe, or even multiverses, so huge the mind cannot even comprehend them, that anything is not so.
We all should respect the willingness of some "scientists" to selfbrainwash.But let's not allow this crap to reach the children in the scools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenting on Jarmo's ranting replies to the scientific minded contributors ... such foul language, bad spelling, bad writing and bad temper put you in the same league as the other theologians who have been reported in this Hawking article to have reacted the same way. You may have more success at impregnating minds at your next local Tea Party gathering. I don't think you'll garner much respect here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStuffy opines: "God, whatever God is, created the universe, is the universe, and is within every aspect of the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd tell us... you know this how? List your proofs!
Of course you know nothing of the sort and merely postulate an abusrdly incomprehensibly COMPLEX entity to initiate the most elemental event... which would evolve over 13.8 billion years inexorably... to... ... us. Makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention the inconvenience of having to backfill the origin of this monstruously evolved Creator Being???!!!
Anyway you slice it... and Occam's razor has done that to any human god-construct, as has astrophysics specifically and science in general, Nature is brute-fact and we are fully embedded in it. Any god imagined by humans is just that, imaginary, and there is no trace of them in our reality. The god of the bible is cartoonish against the spectacle and grandeur of the COSMOS>
Deus sive Natura.
BTW Stuffy, if you actually meant to invoke pantheism... then, I'll cut ya some major slack.
Assertion: "freewill does not exist". Prove it. One cannot. Occam's Razor does not mean there isn't a God, but it does contain a useful warning which would rule out most if not all religions - "YOUR God is too small". Atheist and theist - they take positions because they feel in themselves they have to. It's personal. Agnostic, not knowing and not pretending to, but keeping up with the knowledge. Interesting, exciting even, it get's a better read all the time, the mystery deepens, hooray. Here's a thought. If G exists, and has done all this for some "purpose" (his) and that does necessitate free will (if), then proof of his existence would be very inconvenient as free will pure and simple, would disappear. "I don't want to love my neighbour." "YOU SHOULD!" thunders the voice from the clouds. Bit of a dampener on free expression etc ...? So, sorry guys, I think the idea would be that we should never be able to prove it one way or another, as maybe the idea is to see what we will do of our own volition, and surely good old quantum theory is a dead ringer for someone who doesn't want to be found - or maybe it is as the good prof says, G doesn't exist .... or can one say, he doesn't need to be found? Fun, isn't it? Keeps us guessing, and I suspect it would, if true, be right up to The End. If there were to be one of course .....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing is certain: Hawking will go down in history as one of the great minds in theoretical and abstract mathematics and science. Like Darwin, it may take a hundred years for his theories to be proven as facts ... or his theories may be disproven and his efforts will become folly. Like Einstein, though, Hawking's mind has taken science beyond its current limits, and everyone will be trying to catch up. Pretty phenomenal for someone who can't even pick up a piece of chalk and write "x > y" on a blackboard. I can't pretend that I understand what Hawking is thinking, but I'm thankful that he's outside the box trying to come up with answers to the two questions that have plagued mankind since the beginning human thought and reasoning: "Who are we?" and "Why are we here?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are still in the dawn of science, and as much as have learned through scientific reasoning, there is still so much we don't know. It may be quite some time before we know how this universe began, what its demise is, and what lies beyond our universe. But one thing is certain ... as long as there is scientific debate relating to these questions, there will always be a religious zealot outside the lab trying to shout them down. Get used to it Earthlings, and like I said before, thank our new-age loving God they don't burn us at the stake anymore for thinking outside the Church!
Science deals with that which is empirically falsifiable, all else falls within the realm of philosophy. It is not possible to test the paradigms of m-theory, therefore it is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe existence of God is not just wishful thinking. It is the foundation of moral and ethical laws. Without God at the center of the Universe there would be no moral or ethical values that are be absolute. We would be reduced to accepting that Hitler was right, or any other monstrous morality or ethics such as genocide that was right as long as the people making the laws had the might. I don't think science has the answer to this problem of might makes right. There has to be an absolute standard otherwise might makes right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the existence of the spiritual realm has been experienced by many people despite the embarrassment of scientific materialists in trying to put a lid on it or denying its existence. This spiritual realm is beyond science's understanding.
Scientific knowledge is just one realm of knowledge but because it has been so successful we are in danger of making claims about its reach far beyond what scientists would themselves claim for it. Hawking is right. Increasingly we don't have to resort to religious explanations as scientific explanations have filled in the blanks in the details. But to then say there is no God is a leap beyond what scientists claim.
@Centaurus-A, those comments are just the sort of idiotic statements we have come to expect from the essentially scientifically illiterate religious community. The notion that religion, the source of many of the world's great atrocities, could be the sole source of morality is just ridiculous. Religion is a source of hate and intolerance and a sense of moral superiority, but morality itself comes from the innate need of people to live together and cooperate. But regardless of the relative benefits / detriments to society, the burden of proof of the existence of god is on you. It is as simple as that. If you want to be delusional you have a right to do it. But don't bore us with your B.S. here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah... what Sir Roberto Schmidt opined... that's what I'm sayin'! I mean really, could Centaurus-A being any more adolescent with his insistence that his GAWD be at the Singularity with some imagined MORAL ABSOLUTES??? WHAT is he jabbering about? MORALITY is an evolved human construct to deal with... ... (wait for it)... ... HUMAN SOCIAL RELATIONS. Morality functions to benefit A PARTICULAR society that adopts whatever version or societal-norms and laws it deems to be "true". OF COURSE it is relative... duh! Did you not take a history course in your life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOTHING IS ABSOLUTE... except... absolutely ZERO (lol). EVERYTHING about the UNIVERSE changes... everything... NOTHING is static (except the Pope's garb).
Last time I checked, our best minds in the criminal justice system as well as psychiatry and neuroscience would espouse the value of MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES for even the most heinous behaviors. Hitler, in case you forgot, considered the preisthood... and at least 95% of the Germans were christians at that time... as was Adoph's inner circle. The Nazi's were in large measure Aryan christians. Martin Luther was a huge influence on his anti-semetic lust.... and the Vatican kowtowed with their shameful COncordat. And on and on it goes...
Now... what were you saying again about GAWD and morality? Cue the tape of the INQUISITIONS followed by the extermination of the Cathars under Innocent III. Sheesh!
Dr. Hawking,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence would be indistinguishable from god. They may be capable of creating a universe. I think you know this. But this is not the god the theologians of religions are professing.
Come on guys, this is not the playground, can we get back to Hawkings and his views. Frankly proponents for and against religion have blood enough on their hands. It's clear enough that both theists and atheists (and also agnostics) can create valid and workable moralities and ethics, this is a futile argument. And one age's morality is seen as perversion by another, theists argue amongst themselves as to what they want God to be saying. This discussion is about the role of science including its commentary upon origins and basics. The question is, can science and observation say it all. Well, let's say, so far it hasn't. There are those who with some good reasons (for this age) think it never can. Jury out. Minds like Hawkings come but rarely, what they do say is always of importance, but they are also creatures of their age. Newton was a theist, Einstein had this problem with God playing dice. Lesser than Hawkings? I have this problem which I can't ask the Relativistic Professor, my weeja board is obviously only version WBv2.1 - "But what else would He play?" Can 'laws' (meaning a framework which may have a random spontaneous origin) just 'happen' and give us what we experience and of which this discussion is part, or does it all have to have conscious 'purpose'. I say, let's keep banging the rocks together .... but not on each other's heads. (But as for banging HEADS together ...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArthur C Clarke, Dr S? Steady on, all this talk about God is going to our heads. Magic? I must get WBv3.6 beta and get some answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs anyone there? Wait, I'm getting something .... here it comes ....
M - I - N - D - - Y - O - U - R - - O - W - N - - B - U - S - I - N - E - S - S - - -
Robert Schmidt what a small mind you have sir. You react emotionally to the assertion that all ethics comes from God, and instead rely on an ad hominem attack on this view. I suggest you see a psychiatrist to deal with your obvious anger issues towards God. It is obvious to me that you really do believe in God but you have anger issues that cause you to strike out against Him or anyone who believes in Him. If you thought this post so boring as you say why did you respond? Of course you responded because you found it anything but boring. You have not answered my assertion at all and left the argument on the table. I was an atheist myself but could not get around the problem of evil. Evolution cannot be a basis for any sort of ethics except one that would agree with the age old argument by Plato's Thrasymachus that "might makes right." The problem of evil is such that without God outside the system the system itself cannot provide a stable basis for ethics due to the constantly changing mores of society and the people in it. There is no logical basis for us not to say that the Nazi Empire is evil. From the perspective of human ethics based on evolution no one can say anything is evil that has the might to defeat the rest. I dare you or any of your so-called enlightened people to prove otherwise. As for mr. spinoza your very assertion that there is "no absolutes" is an absolute. Logical contradiction isn't it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that we need to bring the discussion back to Hawking. Science has provided a great deal of information about the universe that does not need religious commentary. That is how I interpret this latest comment. I am just pointing out the contradictions of those who would take Hawking and then say there is no God or that God is not needed in the system. I beg to differ for reasons I have given, but I think that the realm of knowledge that religion talks about is different from science just as I believe historical knowledge is different from scientific knowledge. There are definite places where these types of knowledge intersect, and we will disagree on their relative importance in relation to each other. But to take religious thought and experience and subject it to the scientific method is just as absurd as taking it to test historical knowledge. History is not testable. We cannot recreate events exactly as they happened. History and archeology (and all the historical sciences like paleontology) is forensic in nature. We use evidence to reconstruct what most probably occurred, but we cannot replicate these things in a laboratory. Religious experience or spiritual experience is the same way. But just because we cannot scientifically prove (using the scientific method) that we had a particular experience does not make that experience non-existent. Otherwise we would have to conclude that we cannot prove any event as having occurred using this method. The mistake comes when one or the other realms tries to misapply its own way of gathering knowledge to the others.
Ummm... where to begin? So much jibberish... so little time. Since this is SciAM, FIRST precisely DEFINE your "GOD" and the proofs for it. Notions of "moral absolutely" and "evil" are completely anemic for such a claim... ditto for wholly subjective "spritual" stuff (believe in ghosts too?). IF you want to play the creator card... uh, you have major problems as well, as many here, including me, have pointed out... not to mention Mr. Ockhams's very sharp razor... and a Universe complely devoid of such musings. IF... and that is the biggest IF ever... the Universe were "created" by an entity, then it was finely tuned for... ... (wait for it) ... ... BLACK HOLES... and certainly not in the remotest sense, human life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion does make claims vis a vis god and god-men and science has disproved them... check your history, bucko and while your at it, pick up a copy of physicist and professor Victor Stengers: "God, the Failed Hypothesis". Knowledge is indeed a wonderful thing!
I believe it was the 4th century BCE Greek Epicurus who penned these telling lines about dysfunctional HUMAN behavior, aka "evil" and the absurdity of god:
If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is not good.
If god is willing, but not able, then he is not powerful.
If god is both willing and able, then whence cometh EVIL?
If god is neither, then why call him "GOD"?
Indeed... and BTW C-A, there is no logical contradiction in stating brute fact regarding no absolutes in biological behavioral phenomena. It's the old phrase: the only certain thing is change... though, it may be a bit tricky fer ya to grasp.
Well, as the Universe expands ever more rapidly and time itself is relative... and our Milky Way heads inexorably toward entaglement with Andromeda, as the Intelligent Designer ordained... perhaps our little pale blue dot will experience the wrath o' C-A's-creator-god via another Apollo Class asteroid extinction event before humans totally trash the planet... oh look, god set-off another Super-Nova!!!
The simple question, when we roll away all the hype and the angst, is: IS the 'multiverse and and whatever-ever-else-we-have-yet-to-discover-suspect-get-excited-about' the result of conscious purpose or not? Is there any reason why it cannot/must not/ must / be, have we any proof to wrap it up either way? Are we anywhere near being certain? (And who will want to be sure we don't know if the answer is not to their taste .... ? Hmmm)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, the problem of God allowing evil .... etc, ad nauseam. The priests etc get themselves in a knot about this and talk about 'mystery', 'divine purpose', 'beyond the normal ken', 'mysterious ways' .... but .... a moment's thought and consistency would provide a simple conclusion. If this Big G is sensitive to absolutely everything and also has ensured 'free will', you can't have free will just when it suits and the Big G rushes in when e.g. the dam breaks, the car hits, the illness strikes, the asteroid says it's all over mankind. "Hey guys, it's fine, I was on hand. I'm bailing you all out. Well the ones who said nice things about me and who said I was real at least." That would be a Peurile God. Not one who would be able to conceive whatever Grand Design that would explain all we know (very little) and all there is to know (keep banging those bricks guys).
Such a Grand Design would seem to me to demand randomness. I said in an earlier post, Mr Occam is a very useful gent but let's not make too many claims. He says don't make it more complicated than is necessary but he didn't rule out complication or claim that his precept is another Rule for Righteous Living Amen.
The delight of the whole damn thing is that, as I see it so far, the more we delve, the more we cannot answer the question posed by Prof H, and I think he knows it too. Lovely. What a bore it would be if we suddenly had it all fall into our laps. Somehow I don't feel we're too close as yet.
And, of course, this has nothing to do with the predilection of those who want to force us to live according to rules which they claim are divinely inspired and which require us to be ... punished, persecuted, tortured, maimed, mutilated, executed, hung, drawn and quartered if we 'stray' .... and it's not just the religious faithful who've had such bad habits ...
One thing I am sure of - if there is One and I get a chance to ask questions, just get behind me in the queue. Why? Yes, that's the first question.
Ummm.... not sure if any of your post was actually a response to the comments I've made... but it was listed as such. However, here's the proverbial "bottom line":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDEUS sive NATURA
It matters not at all: god or nature (take yer pick)... and I personally couldn't care less what you, C-A or anyone else calls "it". They are transparently inseparable or completely entangled ONEness from the singularity... a PANTHEISTIC "is" for sure. BUT, this Cosmos we observe does NOT even remotely comport with any god, "intelligent designer"... or demi-gods that humans have created over the ages, which I think you pointed out in your next to last paragraph.
Since all we have ever observed is the EVOLUTION of EVERTHING... from 10 to the minus whatever seconds... to the present, it would be beyond ridiculous and in the realm of the impossible to posit a unfathomably complex, occult creator-entity beyond the Universe... and would have absolutely no bearing on isolated C-based lifeforms, existing for a proverbial "blink of a celestial eye".
I have absolutely no need "for all the answers"... perfectly content to be fully embedded in Nature... and fear death, not at all. Of course, our best inquiry into the Nature of Things is scientific, and while we will always be asking questions both inward and outward, we do KNOW quite a lot... and can disprove quite a lot of religious tripe.
I do however, take issue with those, despite ZERO evidence, push their stale dogma upon us in all aspects of our lives... even in the realm of science, our best hope for any "truth".
I simply... push back. Cheers and Regards!
Holy Grail: Particle Physics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(The Quantum – from which we all arise)
Natural Forces, along with energy and matter begin at the quantum level, just as Gravity does…
Even though “quantum gravity” currently seems to be a missing link: The Quantum - is gravities birth place, from which all matter and energy originates. I postulate however that Time and Space are exempt from an inscrutable beginning, as they are “Infinite”, just as possibly, as is gravity and other natural forces are, but that is a question, we may never have an absolute answer to.
We exist because of the concept called a “Paradox. Paradoxes have no answers, they can never be broken. They are the infinite fuel of existence itself.
These ideas I have shared have been a growing process, so they will seem somewhat contradictory or paradoxical at times, but at a basic level, they seek the same objective of simplifying perceptions, based as much on common sense, as on our ever evolving science. The Quantum world is truly our birth place, so it holds our commonality, but as its fundamental structure builds the matter we exist with and by, it may morph its fundamentals in the process. Simply, I believe to begin our scientific pursuits, we do best when we can start at the beginning, with a common foundation and with practical principles, which give rise to a better result in our end conclusions as we pursue the Holy Grail of knowledge.
My hope is that those of you that disagree, or find value with my points of thought, augment this discussion and we will in the end all move forward…
Final Thought:
The quantum world is the sole genesis of all we are, combined with the infinite realm, for which I believe bares the inscrutable nature of space and time, whether we as sentient philosophical beings - exist or not.
In my world view, if a tree falls, and no one’s there to hear it, it still makes a sound…
Infinity and evolution, survives us all… forever! But in the interim of our existence, this ebb and flow throughout time, I believe enhances knowledge. Therefore with the growth of true knowledge we will improve the betterment of how we treat one another. Consequently, science is the basis for all truth, hence either the practical or metaphorical face of god, if you believe in such things. As science underpins philosophies truths and failures, as well.
Therefore science is a worthy journey indeed…
To see a more complete response: otterwrite.blogspot.com "Our Universe in Review"
SciAm Editors!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop pummeling readers with the God arguments! This is not science. So what if Stephen Hawking said this. He's not a chef, so would you publish his opinion about eggs for breakfast, calling it scientifically relevant?? He's not a theologian, so why consider his opinion about God to be scientifically relevant?
Here's the bottom line: If you give a platform to those who "teach the controversy" in physics, then you may be required to "teach the controversy in biology. Do you really want to go there?! I thought you were finally turning away from this never-ending, blog-bloating, polarizing extremist agitation. Give us readers a break! GO BACK TO SCIENCE!!!
"Not knowing" is the beginning of the scientific journey. So long as we remember we are journeying, it will continue to be Fun. God/No God? You don't KNOW nor do I. Physics tells us more and more and throws up even more questions (such Fun). My point is that this issue is likely to be with us a long long way ahead .... if indeed we survive as a species long enough. I suggest religion and science respectively need to focus a bit more on survival and that one quality in short supply is tolerance. If there were indeed to be other intelligent species on other worlds throughout the cosmos and time how many would reach where we are now and then crash their worlds in ruin, is there a point past which the intelligent bacteria inevitably so pollute their test tubes that they destroy themselves? (And would the Big Test Tube Observer simply just observe, allowing that free will to run its course one might provocatively add, if indeed there were One?) Look, we all know one thing, we will all die, and then we may find out ... or we won't! (Personal preference, though 'eternity' is a chilling concept maybe to contemplate, is that I'd at least like to know the answers to the questions about Why. And meet old friends and some interesting guys who have been around, and some who are to come .... I only met my dad six years back ,he died recently aged 97, I have so many things I'd want to ask him, for a start.Pathetic? Yeah of course.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery funny. No. It's Shermer's Last Law. I'm sure Dr. Hawking is familiar with Michael Shermer and Michio Kaku.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we see around us, including ourselves is mysterious. We will keep discussing and come up with theories about the beginning of Universe that could be far from reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery thing seems to happen in cycles, so I wonder how many cycles of “big bang and big crunch” have passed by till now? Can any body prove whether this is the “first” cycle of big bang or the 100,000th? I think there will be no answers because this is the way things are meant to be. We are over-stepping our limits of finding solutions to problems that are really not needed for our day to day existence. Let’s not over-stretch our brains. It could prove disastrous one day.
Let’s be content thinking what Albert Einstein has said – “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”.
The battle of theology against the wave of science has been in a constant state of war since the time of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin, so this struggle that has been unleashed by Hawking is just the natural outcrop of this ideological war. The fact that no one has really proven the existence of any deity throughout the existence of humanity should be cause to question their existence. Theologians are quick to defend the rights of (their) religion and (their) deity while trying to convert all of the non-believers to their religion. Will the theologians fight for the rights for freedom from religion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world, she is a flat, like your head. We still believe that we are the center of the universe and that we are the crown of creation, but the role of science is proving more and more that we are not the fabric of life in the cosmos, but a thread in the fabric of life that stretches far beyond this universe and the mere 13 billion years that we believe is the "beginning of time". Where will be go when we find out that life existed long before the birth of this universe, and that time, space, and matter are infinite, although, the sum of the universe is finite and will not expand into the infinite. Will life as we know it come crashing down all around us is if life proved that there is no supreme being whose guiding hand move us like pawns on a chess board. The lord works in mysterious ways. Do we still believe in the fates that guide man's souls? But will Hawking be treated as Galileo was treated by the Inquisitor as he was tried for heresy by the church? We are in the twenty-first century and still can not have a civilized debate on the existence of a deity that everyone talks about but no one ever sees; except for the few initiated who are part of the choir and want to convert all of the non-converted. Will it always boil down to muck-racking and calls for damnation, fire and brim stones? Maybe we will learn to act like s and not like spoiled children who wants the world to agree with them, or they will throw a tantrum. I give praise to Hawking for his courage in walking into the lions den and facing the wrath of the zealots, for they always seem to strike first and ask questions later.
Look, I have just woken up, literally, photographed a simply amazing sunrise (I do this for pleasure and have a growing tally of images, all from either side of my house, which prove the "if you can't explain it for the moment, just sit back and Enjoy" Theory), and realised that maybe those who want to talk to an Invisible Friend have a perfect right to do so, it may be very comforting, but we mustn't let it take over the household must we? My youngest at age 4 used to have one, called "Groover", and he always "did it, daddy". I recall having to chase said "Groover" out of the curtains every night at bedtime. One evening, Andy looked at me and asked what I was doing. Chasing away "Groover". "Don't be silly daddy, he went ages ago". Keep chasing G out of the curtain ....???? My grandson and grand-daughter look to being as confounding and cute. (Mind my eldest at 4, when a neighbour told him that his grand-dad had 'gone to Jesus', gave her a look only a sceptical child could and said very matter-of-factly "No he hasn't, he's dead and he's sitting on the sofa". No doubt there ...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes Spinoza, an ironic moniker given that this seventeenth century philosopher was arguing for absolutes! Religious knowledge is different from scientific knowledge in that it relies on historical,and experiential knowledge. No one can prove God's existence scientifically, and I don't think anyone would say they can, but there are many things that cannot be proven scientifically that exist. For example, you cannot prove scientifically what you did yesterday. You can testify about what you did or create a document to that effect but can't scientifically prove yesterday's events. It is impossible as historical events cannot be replicated. But just because we can't prove these events scientifically we can get a good idea of what occurred by talking to people you had contact with and see if what they say corroborates with what you say. And this is the way historical evidence (and court cases) are made. If you are saying that everything must be proven scientifically then you will have to say we have to throw out all historical knowledge including the fossil record (as this is also a historical science). Many armchair scientists and atheist amateurs are not aware of this fact, and think that everything we know is based on science (by which they mean the scientific method) which is not true. Even many scientists are ignorant of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKristi276,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes there are different perspectives here, but I welcome it. I am not afraid of taking this head on. There is this mistaken idea that scientific knowledge is all encompassing. It isn't. It's just a start, and the method has been so effective that we have made too many grand claims about it. As I have posted to Spinoza not all knowledge is scientifically testable. And that's okay. It doesn't mean that in the future it will remain un-testable as we have seen new types of knowledge emerge and the frontier of science continually expands. But for now the spiritual realm cannot be tested scientifically.
However, just because we can't test this scientifically does not mean it does not exist. As most here may not believe in the paranormal some may object, but it has gotten to the point where on certain sites there are unexplainable phenomena that occur almost regularly. Testable scientifically? No, but certainly verifiable to meet historical, testimonial standards. And this is not as Shermer pointed out some kind of "imagined other". This is external. It is objective. It can be experienced by several people at once. God is a real person outside of us, not some brain anomaly or subjective feeling. The knowledge of this phenomena is based on testimonial evidence and historical documents.
You may be right, but again? See, that is the precise problem and even Hawkins gets it. Fundamental question is: is there is nothing, how can there be something too? Like gravity? Nothing is nothing, zero, zilch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a wonderful article by Michael Shermer right here in Scientific American, wherein he calls out the negative of the question of God and gives great kudos to Christopher Hitchens for his very "dialectical usefulness of clear logic, coupled to elegant prose....", while waiting die. Is it not the most elegant of ironies that Chris will know the "truth" before any of us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExceptionally well articulated. I was going to comment but this submission says it all. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m certain that neither Lamorpa and Spin-oza were capable of understanding my original statement, and therefore both are rightly labeled “Dunces” and Pseudo-Scientific Protoplasm. And Spin-oza, do you really think I’m mean spirited? I don’t remember mentioning that the good doctor looks like a leftover baked potato in a leisure suit. No, I kept it nice and civil and scientific. And to you two losers, take a look at my user name. Doesn’t it suggest a science background? Your two use names make you sound like hippies on a cocaine Jag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Lamorpa and Spin-oza, if we put the two of you together and we would still end up with a Half-Wit! And, Sci-Am, why can’t you comment section handle apostrophes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Lamorpa and Spin-oza, if we put the two of you together and we would still end up with a Half-Wit! And, Sci-Am, why can’t your comment section handle apostrophes? Just checking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Lamorpa and Spin-oza, remember, von Däniken loves you. Peace, baby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey DiscomBob, you certainly are discombobulated! Riddle me this: If a chicken and a half lays and egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a grasshopper to kick the seeds out of a pickle? Genius that you are. Answer me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are just primates with primitive wiring that seems for many to demand a simple explanation for everything...such as Where are the bananas? Can I get my fur groomed? Will I live forever? Why not? The answer mostly is around the corner, no, no and because you are made of cells and they are gonna want to die. God? It is about as stupid an idea as well, nuclear weapons...Cosmology? Now that is about the first intelligent thing we can discuss..not necessarily understand with our little brains but at least it is a goal worth pursuing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this… ever is uneven any hawking but never was not even one hawkst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all hawks are always without theory because with practum is also not the real hawk …
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(exlusife http://genastropsychicsable.blogspot.com/ inclusife readers until 20 hours long, about no hole/big-bang or versus. Thanks Scientific American for your internetsite and also the best short but PLAIN naturestory's)
Of course the book is 'philosophically naive'. It isn't ABOUT philosophy. It's SCIENTIFICALLY intelligent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMAN’S IGNORANCE ABOUT NATURE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA REPLY TO THE PHYSICISTS OF THE WORLD AND THEIR PUBLICATIONS ON THE RULES OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE CREATOR
The irrefutable clash of Man with his present natural form increases his subjective position, leading him in a constant conflict with his self and, by extrapolation, with others. His self, subjected as it is here in the intermediate universe, follows the unconscious expression and is subordinated to the greedy licence of the messages of his unconscious. The intermediate universe is answerable to the rules of natural conflict. This is why man, when he clashes, follows his natural flow here, element as he is of this universe. This is how he was classified, on the basis of his component course.
The Creator made Nature with its Laws and then took His anonymous place. He furthermore placed the Hierarchies as operators of the Laws of Nature. The Creator, thus, does not inhabit the intermediate universe. He inhabits the place, to us anonymous, of the higher universe. Consequently, let the so-called physicist and philosopher of the Earth first learn where he himself lives and let him then request from above to be accepted and enlightened in order to see how the universe was created and who is its Creator.
The psychiatric branch of medicine says that when one speaks unscrupulously he has special psychological problems. And when someone is ignorant he cannot but speak unscrupulously. He then continues his course in the intermediate and the lower universes.
We cannot speak of science when we do not know the meaning of intermediate universe and science. The Ancient Greeks had made an effort to approach this notion. But the intermediate universe, that keeps man a slave and incoherent in his life did not permit such perceptions to be completed. And learn that parasitism is not without benefit, for it produces energy which has purpose in the universe’s physio-technical legal functions.
At special times the Highest Workers of the higher universe send some persons to Earth who very laboriously leave some guidelines. Nature will accept him who respects them and will guide him so that he should comprehend its organicity, how it is, in which special legal stipulation it functions and which is that most particular objective for which it functions in that way.
What I write here is addressed to those mentioned as experts, who, based on their ignorance, reject the natural Laws whilst not yet knowing how their own gastrointestinal system functions.
With respect, Ioannis G. Tsatsaris, Gnoseologist - Writer.
I'm an old physician, therefore an observer of humans: one of the biggest mistakes we make is not knowing [or admitting] what we don't know. Science may tell us how the universe works, but will never, I think, explain how it was made , or Why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to understand our world, as we often discover knowledge useful in our social evolution along the way.
Just as an ant will never understand that the photons that warms it is mostly due to the fusion of hydrogen in a distant star, our species will never understand origin; it makes me a bit embarrassed when some of my fellow primates are silly enough to think that they will. Mike
It seems to me both atheists and religious people engage in the God debate in an effort to “claim intellectual property” of the notion of creation – whether that is existence of a Creator or absence of intelligence design but spontaneous order through the laws of physics. I agree with Mr Tsatsaris in the sense that most self-pronounced philosophical experts lack basic understanding of all the other numerous and dynamic laws of everyday life that define the way the live, their interactions in a social context and, indeed, themselves. However, they feel absolutely right to proclaim their view on creation as a “papal bull” and with the aggressiveness of an ignorant child who is struggling to impose its own rules of the game in the playground. It is my opinion that certain matters cannot be deciphered in this current world, not because we are not technologically advanced or philosophically sophisticated enough, but because it is merely not possible to know by our human intellect. For example, I applaud scientists for trying to estimate the events that initiated the emergence of matter and energy in this universe after the Big Bang down to fractions of seconds after it occurred. But it is a fact that we will never be able to envisage what was before that. The whole universe was supposedly concentrated in a point that burst, giving rise to our beloved cosmos (or at least the cosmos we know). Then again, we proclaim our expertise on calculations concerning mass and dark matter that only make a tiny fraction of our universe when we lack any understanding about the “dark energy” – a force which probably plays the most important role in our universe. All these are questions that might not be able to be answered. And maybe at this point this is not the worst thing to happen. I admire the efforts of human nature to explore and find answers and that exactly is what makes us human so special.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m a molecular geneticist doing gene therapy research on hereditary blindness and I observe the same discrepancies in my field too. As much as I enjoy contemplating on ideas of atheists like Richard Dawkins and evolution (an undisputed fact) to explain our living world, I would like to leave some options open for further discussion. For that reason it is that I have more respect for agnostics than for staunch atheists. For all my fellow scientists: study everyday life with the same rigour you research your field and you will be surprised how much you will find applicable to your work. Sincerely, a young researcher of life (my name is irrelevant).
I think the gnoseologist – writer Mr Ioannis Tsatsaris describes really aptly our ignorance about nature but, mainly, about our own selves. It’s obvious that his perceptions go far beyond the usual, and that modern scientists will have much to gain studying his writings. Obviously, there will always be people who consider that the experts’ words are unquestionably right. We shouldn’t forget though, that the birth of what we today conventionally recognize as science, was founded not onto any kind of “scientific” knowledge, but rather on arbitrary conventions. The first scientists axiomaticaly set that things where the way they defined them to be, and thereon they developed their own theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet anyone who thinks differently stydy the history of physics, and, particularly, let him focus on one of its most simple, but also basic, points: the metric system. Concentrating, for example, on Europe, we will see that this system was based on definitions that where arbitrarily attributed by the members of the committee of the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1790. One such arbitrary choice, was, for example, to define the meter to be one 10-millionths of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. What’s so bad with that, one could ask? In this connection, perhaps nothing. What is bad is that there have been many other and much more important examples of fundamental principles that, while stemming from arbitrary definitions, have become the basis for whole theories, that nowadays, have taken the form of direct applications in our lives. And maybe this explains a lot about the course of science today.
All such prove that we should be wary towards those who either directly or indirectly claim that they possess the absolute knowledge. It is obvious that what they know is how to use elements they took as given from others, in order to formulate their own ideas, which, at the end of the day, do not always provide good outcomes for man.
On the contrary, the works of the writer – gnoseologist Ioannis Tsatsaris always help the reader acquire a clear view of cosmos, life on earth and man’s position in it. On these grounds I have to say that his work is by far the most “scientific” one, in comparison to the many others I have studied. To my view, every time Mr Tsatsaris speaks, the world should quiesce and carefully listen.
Zoe Pittaki, Economist
MSc in Applied Economics and Finance,
PhD candidate at the National and Capodestrian University of Athens
As an experimental physicist, I would like to greatly acknowledge the penetrating analysis reported here by Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris. Undoubtedly all scientific fields, and first of all physics, remain unable to provide an overall understanding of fundamental processes occurring even around us, besides the enormous efforts expended by scientists up to today. This rather extended sample of efforts, which are most respected and admired, indicates in a sense the limited perception of the mankind (at least while is being defined to exist and operate under the given biological functionality) towards approaching an understanding of the Nature's Laws that lead to this inconceivable complexity and perfection of the Universe. Although established theoretical milestones such as quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics or quantum field theory are being outstanding conceptual and mathematical achievements, are unable to provide consistent overall understandings even though they seem, from our perspective, to successfully approximate various individual experimental findings in an relatively acceptable way. On the other hand, we should note that the cosmological-related theories, or rather ideas, like the ones proposed by Hawking & Mlodinow are in effect subjective philosophical-alike interpretations and are not linked (nor intending to be) with experimental observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany might agree, that 'the clash of Man with his present natural form' pointed out by Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris, as far as the scientists is concerned, manifest also through the "technocratic" way that the science was and still is conceived by the majority of us. Undoubtedly science for the most of us is mainly turned to be an aggressive competition of numbers (publications, citations, etc) rather than a joint quest to comprehend and reveal the "unknown". At least the conservation of energy -that up to now we relate it to the symmetries in Universe- seems to work since, as mentioned, this clash-related energy turned to be...conservable and renewable.
Let the points raised up by Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris awake everyone of us independently, towards accepting our ignorance and bringing the Man 'back in Earth', i.e., first to seek and understand how things are functioning around and inside ourselves and in a later time, if ever, we might receive some tiny conceptions related to the Universal Laws.
sincerely,
Dr. Dimosthenis Sokaras,
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory,
Stanford University,
California, USA
Every coherent legal system ought to have specific set boundaries, rights and duties and a hierarchy in the authorities before whom the citizen should follow inductive procedures, if he wants exercise and protect the freedom that the law bestows to him. Infringements of the inductive procedures or the boundaries have repercussions of different degrees, because social cohesion and equilibrium as well as individual integrity are some of the intimate goals of an organized society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if the man was clever enough to structure a legal and polity system governed by the above mentioned principles, then why not assume that the “legislators of Universe” could have been equally clever to create a system with the same rationale? A tantamount difference though would be that these “legislators of Universe” are not representatives of anyone but themselves, since they are not elected, thus not accountable or checked by their constituents, even if these constituents happen to be famous in one particle of the cosmos.
Therefore, Mr. Tsatsaris, it is really encouraging for the advancement of the human understanding to read your comment which is probably the most unconventional, yet quite logical analysis of the “institutional framework” of our lives and our planet. Encouraging because one can see that you manage to escape the centripetal force that drives scientists and exhausts their valuable skills and time into various orbits with a velocity that does not allow them to think, or at least suspect, that maybe things are not the way their hypothesis led them to believe, even if the results of their searches prove catastrophic, as the evidence -the reality we are all experiencing nowadays- shows.
Cleo Katsivela, Civil Law Notary, LLM.
Reading the above comments, I observed that there is a reference of Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris (comment 94) and perceived that he has gnoseological ideas and not hypothetical desires. As a biologist and a member of the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology research group at the University of Athens, I would like to remind to you the intense efforts of the scientists regarding the discovery and comprehension of the molecular diakinetic functionality of the human organism. Since many decades ago, a plethora of studies has emerged, aiming to contribute to the therapy of cancer, AIDS and other incurable diseases. However, up to the present time, the scientific data serve as a way to prolong one’s lifetime. It’s obvious that there is limited knowledge with regard to our molecular endo-community! I agree with the Gnoseologist-Writer Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris that “the experts, (…), based on their ignorance, reject the natural Laws whilst not yet knowing how their own gastrointestinal system functions”. Indeed, if we were minutely aware of the sources of molecular interactions, should not we be living in a healthy world? Shouldn’t we have known how to keep the enviroment of mother Nature that nourishes us healthy and unpolluted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the controvercial issue of the creation of the Universe, based on the results, I believe there doesn’t exist any kind of scientific mind with the competence to decipher the Nucleus of the Universe. Considering that everything emerges through the code commandment of the nucleus, shouldn’t it be that the laws of physics that configure the order of Universe, are acting through a kind of a nuclear cipher? Is it possible that the Nucleus of the Universe represents the Creator? There are maybe people with a great perception, who can approach theories that refer to the initial stages after the Bing Bang. Nevertheless, as the “young researcher of life” (comment 96) reports, we can not appreciate what happened at that precise moment of the Big Bang, or what was before it.
I respect and appreciate the efforts of those researchers who call themselves “learners” and not “experts” in the research field. Because, rightfully, the possible conclusions of a study pertaining to an unexplored micro or macro-community should not be redefined as rules representing the thesis of any self-pronounced expert.
Georgia Papachristopoulou
Biologist – learner researcher
MSc in Molecular Medicine, Medical School, National and Kapodestrian University of Athens.
As I was reading Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris' comment, I remembered my own journey through education. Since the moment our teacher in elementary school told us that light's angle of incidence on a boundary surface is equal to the respective angle of reflection, I got fascinated by that symmetry. Maybe because I like symmetries and patterns I didn't ask for a proof; it fitted just fine in my "universe".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a student to my first degree in Civil Engineering, our professors were trying to teach us on how materials behave under tension or compression, how they decay and all these in an absolute way. They were asking from us to be accurate to our calculations, and we really tried, and we finally made it. But it comes a time when they have to reveal you a term named "Safety Factor". And then you were wondering "why didn't I calculate everything accurately?" and they replied "in practice, we don't know exactly how materials will react."! They just grouped materials and make some rules which those materials have to follow. Like they have a say in that! And you are hopping the material you are using is not the exception of those rules. But as a symmetry lover I just couldn’t accept the different behavior of two "identical" steel rods.
So I decided to get a second degree, this time in Applied Physics, so that I can study matter in subatomic level and because in experiment is where the theory is tested. Beyond classical physics comes quantum physics with various laborious approaches, all of them trying to explain the nature from their own perspective. And all them everyday are trying to understand nature and how everything works and they are really doing a great job, but they haven't really scratch the surface yet; there are many that they fail to understand.
Unfortunately, although our civilization is said to try to understand nature for more than 2000 years, somehow manages to harm nature. So some "cleaver" scientists came up with the solution: "Let's abandon Earth and go to Mars." Well, wherever we want to go, we can't escape from our own gastrointestinal system and we still don't know how it functions, as Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris said.
Yours truly,
Vlasios Sokaras,
Civil Engineer,
Applied Physicist
After reading several comments on this particular subject, I was greatly interested in the comment of Gnosiologist and Writer Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris (comment no. 94), under the title “MAN’S IGNORANCE ABOUT NATURE”. On this comment I should like to express some of my thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have observed that many scientists have greatly tried to offer something good and useful to humanity in all their respective areas - Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, Sociology, and Psychology, and for this they really deserve every accolade and respect. However, despite their research and experiments, the general state of humanity is continuously deteriorating. One can characteristically refer to the pollution of the atmosphere, the reversal of the climactic equilibrium, the extreme side effects of many medicinal drugs, the depression and the drug use by youth, the several types of delinquency, the wars. Thus, and since it is commonly accepted that all situations are judged by their results, it is obvious that in this case the consequences are definitely negative.
Consequently, it is proven that scientists intervene in Nature’s processes, while in the same time they do not know the laws that govern its function and mystical operations. Let us remember here the sage words of Heraclitus: “Nature loves to hide”. Maybe they think that as ‘scientists’ they know everything, and thus they act in ways that can be proven dangerous to them but also to humanity itself. A current and quite important example is the colossal, complex and ambitious experiment about the nature of the Universe which is conducted at the CERN Research Center outside Geneva, where Physicists aim to decode the particles and forces of the Universe. After the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) where they tried to recreate conditions similar to the Big Bang with questionable results for the atmosphere - as if they were sure for this specific theory - now they try to catch Universe’s pulse by using an experimental device called ‘Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer’ which will be transported on February to the International Space Station. Meanwhile, at CERN they bombard with protons this spaceship-like device, without knowing its consequences to the atmosphere. Dr. David Spergel, Astrophysicist at Princeton, says that “It is difficult if not impossible to discern the signals of dark matter from the background noise from pulsars or black holes. The cosmic rays which Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is going to study is the most unorthodox manner to detect dark matter” (TA NEA newspaper, Science, 27-28/11/2010). Thus, we see that contrary to the opinions of eminent scientists, people conduct experiments by deifying science and ignoring any other form of knowledge. Could it be that this type of behavior proves a lack of culture? Could it be that scientists should better observe with respect and as humble researchers all Nature’s phenomena, and not as its omniscient violators? And finally, could it be that their ignorance and irreverence some day will be proven fatal to the acceleration of the Earth’s destruction, something that will be the result of their own ignorance?
For the above reasons I agree with the view of the Gnosiologist - Writer Mr. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris, and I believe that if scientists could follow his reasoning, then Humanity would witness a ‘New Scientific and Technological Miracle’, a ‘New Civilization’ which would offer balance to human beings across their paths on Earth, and elevate them to higher levels beyond here and now.
Dimitra Hatziaggelaki,
Professor at the Arsakeia Senior High Schools, Psychiko, Athens.
Political / Jurisprudence Scientist & French Language Professor,
M. Sc. in Interculture and Education,
Ph. D. cand. at Panteion University of Athens. Management in Education.
God is an invention. Jezus was an invention. The real GOD wanted to test the people.To see, if they would throughsee the unrighteous God, like also Jesus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a lot of people failed the test.
They somewhat or really believed the FALSE bible. Not one of the humans knew or know from the more omniversal book of love. People got separated in groups of sinners, none-sinners and separated in groups of inbetween sinners.
The fals law: the ten commitments, is nowadays the fundament of human goverment. The causative evilness has been done. People were setup against one another. The real God never wanted to be responsible for so much sorrow. The real God could not rule thanks to the "intelligent" sinfull human, but out of mercy there will be a second test.
Spin-oza, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Nobel physicist, in 1959 invited me to the University of Chicago's Yerkes Observatory. He introduced me to mysticism and the universality of the Universe. Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington were supporters of mysticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Nobel physicist, in 1959 invited me to the University of Chicago's Yerkes Observatory. He introduced me to mysticism. Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington were supporters of mysticism. A good reference is "Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of the World's Greatest Physicists," edited by Ken Wilber (Shambhala 1984, 2001). There are some things beyond the realm of current science; the unknown far exceeds the known.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinadmissible god makes popular unnecessary god by s hawking like no need god to casual daily life of his intellectual, god look burden alternative of it's no profile can we disobey the burden? if it's can so just element we live with by that semiotics atheism appear result proove science versa domainly recently .why s hawking like that ? because he do not candidly or devout life with any tendention characterize philopialy .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquantum religi by this science and religion is mingle,which religion stuff (rosary toll) during pray priest create quantified internal so physics admission allow in this situational.so what tendention after that? no more tendention it's absolved for godot of on religional condition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice to see such surety that the Universe must have a purpose....why else would it be here. If it does have a purpose then it must be reasonable to assume a creator. Then what is the purpose of the creator? All of which just shifts everything up another order of complexity. So I shall only believe in things I am comfortable with, like a lot of others seem to do and leave it at that. With luck I can get back to the steady state theory which I have always liked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, despite our scientific advancements, and the fact that all the religious hypothesis have been discredited, there still remains those that continue to live by these fantasies. Fortunately, as we progress in space exploration, begin interplanetary travel & ultimately interstellar voyages, the theists will finally realize that the whole idea of god and religion are nothing more than an example of our ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisf