Last week I read the Grand Design by Stephen Hawking in preparation for an evening lecture entitled "I want to believe but my scientific brain won't let me". We had a good evening but there were no questions about "The Grand Design". So I thought I wouldn't let my reading go to waste and jot down some thoughts.
The first thing is that I think I've understood the multiverse theory for the first time, but this means that it does not fit into the Evolutionary ideology that Dawkins and others propound. Darwinian evolution works on the basis of natural selection of existing variants - some surive and some don't. And whilst Dawkins postulates the multiverse hypothesis as evidence of his own particular philosphy of life, it is entirely different.
Hawking explains that the multiverse hypothesis is really an application of Feynmans "Sum over histories" approach in the quantum world, that an electron in reality travels in one path, not because it is the only one it travels, but the most probable. "That is, as it moves from its starting point A to some endpoint B, it doesn't take one definate path, but rather simultaneously takes every possible path connecting the two points". Hence in diffraction pattern experiments, even a single electron forms a diffraction pattern, whilst at the same time passing through only one slit. It follows Feynmans "Sum over histories". Similarly if Feynmans "Sum over histories" can be applied to the beginning of the universe, then it means that this universe has not been selected,as evolution would require, rather it is the most probable. It is following existing rules of quantum physics.
But this begs the question - where did these rules come from? They point to a rational mind as Einstein beleived and Paul Davies proclaims, thought neither from a Christian perspective.
Several observations spring from this.
At the beginning of his book Hawking declares - "Philosophy is dead" but then proceeds to use a whole variety of philosophical non sequiturs to infer that God does not exist. For example - he views God as only "lighting the blue touch paper". So if the blue touch paper can be explained - there is no need for God. Few Christians would argue this extreme deist position and few would deny that God has ongoing involvment in what we do understand. Christians do not believe in a God of the Gaps. He thinks that God is excluded from the realms we do understand - which is philosophically suspect. What he does not address is why Feynmans "Sum over histories" should work at all. He seems unaware of the questions that Einstein, Anthony Flew and Paul Davies seem impressed by such as "Why should our minds understand the mathematical laws which seem to governe the universe?" Or "Why is the universe ordered according to rules?" We might add - why is it that Feymans sum over histories comes up with a particular kind of universe - a "self conscious universe" as Paul Davies would put it, and not some other kind of universe. "We are truly meant to be here" he would say.
To boil it down - Stephen Hawking thinks he has eradicated the need for God simply by being able to explain the mechanism of the origin of the universe. Even if he is proven to be correct - this begs the question - where did the mechanism come from? He ridicules God being the answer to an infinite series of causation - but is it not equally laughable to be committed to an infinite series of causation - without end. This somehow makes matter, or the mechanisms of matter eternal doesn't it? What decided that Feynmans "Sum over histories" should be the way things work at the quantum level? And who's to say that there is not some other explanation with different rules behind the quantum level just as the quantum level lies behind the different rules and laws of Newtonian Mechanics?
It seems that atheist scientists are committed to the eternality of matter, an unending causation without beginning and without end. Philosophically speaking they believe that matter is eternal for this is not something that can be scientifically demonstrated - they simply believe it - all matter comes from matter and matter is all that matters. They seem quite ignorant of the fact that philosophically speaking - they attribute divine qualities to matter, and logically speaking they are deifying matter. Christians call this idolatry, the worship of created things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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.
ReplyDeleteEinstein’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]