In his latest book, he [Steven Hawking] said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.The fact that God did not create the Earth "just to please us human begins" is not an argument against the existence of God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
God has his own life and he does not exist to please us. Rather, we exist to please him. He cannot be seen through eyes that seek to exploit and control him.
Nit picking his word choice avoids the crux of his argument. You're getting caught up in his rhetorical devices. His sentiment is aimed not at delineating an audience for whom the universe was created, but rather at our attempt to explain such a complex system, one that our minds might never fully understand, with stories of a creation by one or more supernatural beings. Put simply, he is saying: the universe is big, we're not alone, and our stories are somewhat silly in the face of these facts.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying Hawking's argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a narrative of the universe created for humankind is "silly." It neither lives up to our everyday experience nor stands up to logic. I also agree that the universe might never be fully understood by the human mind.
However, since we've established that the universe cannot be explained by a mind informed by senses or imagination, the question arises: is there a means of "knowing" that does not involve the mind?
Abrahamic religions do not directly address such a question but Hindu Vedanta does. You're probably aware that Vedanta has influenced many modern scientists, including Bohm and Schrödinger, to name a few.
Although the school of Advaita Vedanta can be compared to scientific empiricism, there are monotheistic traditions that build upon its conclusion (Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, etc.). Applying Vedanta involves a "scientific method" that facilitates an experience outside the limitations of the mind.
Essentially, I agree with Hawking's argument, but he should get out of his own head and stop wasting his time refuting mainstream Christianity.