I want to make a few comments on a review I read of the book 'Music to move the stars' written by Jane Hawking. It's about her marriage to the physicist Stephen Hawking.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...a Creator God was an awkward obstacle for an atheistic scientist whose aim was to reduce the origins of the universe to an unified package of scientific laws, expressed in equations and symbols." [1.]
- There's no such thing as scientific laws. The term 'scientific law' is a pretense meant to steal glory from God and to bring glory to man. The 'laws' we see (if you want to call our formulation of observed regularities laws) aren't scientific but universal; they have nothing to do with man as they aren't inventions but discoveries. (To the extent they're accurate formulations.)
So called 'scientific laws' are only human inventions to the extent they're false; then they become inventions along the lines of fantasy.
I don't see why the existence of God should be an obstacle to studying the universe. This makes no sense to me. Without God there would be no universe and no one to study it.
The major problem with Materialism is the drive to reduce things; to reduce the higher to the lower, to reduce the immaterial to the material. The great danger in this project is that the personal universe ends up becoming (in the eyes of adherents) an impersonal one; and that intelligence gets replaced by the material, and the intentional by chance. Far too many scientists in our day confuse reductionism as a tool to be used in research with a reductionism as a philosophy of life, as a worldview.
2. 'She [Jane] adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’
- I wonder where people like Hawking think mathematics comes from? I wonder how they imagine mathematics is possible, or how it's possible for them to do math. I wonder if they even ask these questions. People are far too apt to take their capacities and abilities for granted. Evolutionary theory can't begin to explain how it is men have the intellectual potential they do. This ought to give them pause to question their materialist worldview. You're in a poor (not to mention hopeless) situation if your basic worldview can't even begin to account for your own existence!
The materialist is too interested in the creation, and not interested enough in the creator. It surely makes sense to think that the creator is much more 'interesting' (awesome) than His creation. Surely the One who created mathematics and creatures capable of comprehending mathematics is someone worth getting to know. The christian believes the creator has far more interesting 'tricks' up His sleeve than the material universe (astounding as it is) Hawking has become obsessed with. ("We as of yet see through a glass darkly...") [2.] The apostle Paul (in Romans) speaks of those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and this is what Hawking appears to have done.
If you walk into a room and see equations covering a blackboard do you imagine no one wrote them?
Does the fact you can describe an object (e.g. a pyramid) in mathematical terms mean it wasn't created by someone?
3. "...‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless." (p. 155).
- People are making a category mistake when they imagine they can understand all things (especially God!) in terms of mathematics. God is far too great and too transcendent to be comprehended by mathematics. Hawking has made the cardinal mistake of ignoring the creator/creature distinction. He somehow imagines he can comprehend all of reality, but has no reason to believe a trousered ape is capable of any such thing. His own worldview (e.g.Darwinism) makes his statements about God and ultimate reality absurd. As Darwin hiimself said, ''why should we pay any attention to what an ape says about reality?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
A materialist is someone who has their nose pressed so tightly to the 'tree' they're studying that they can't see the forest; they're blinded by the physical. (The Hawking equation; Materialism = Reductionism = Absurdity)
4. "...many scientists ‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there.''
- Did these people forget that they're just animals, mere bits of matter, that their thoughts are just chemical reactions? It would appear so. Who are they to tell anyone what's appropriate? If all is matter in motion nothing is appropriate or inappropriate. People will never stop asking why in any event; it's a question from the heart, a question that's part of us, a question we were meant to ask.
The reductionist has a dreary tendency to speak of human beings as if they're all the same. This comes from their reducing human beings to the physical, and the physical to the chemical. On the cellular level it's true that we are much alike (though we don't even lose our individuality at that level; you have to reduce people to the atomic level to destroy all their individuality) and this is why the reductionist lumps all people together. His reductionism leads him to feel that what he thinks is right for him must be right for everyone; that's what he thinks is true must be true for everyone.
We don't ask why Mt. Everest is there because a mountain is not a person. (You wouldn't think we'd have to explain this, but apparently, in the case of the hardboiled atheist we do.) It's typical of course for the materialist to ignore personality and individuality... although there's something comical about a personal being denying the importance of personhood. (It's akin to a cat denying the importance of whiskers, or a bird denying the importance of wings.)
5. "They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy.”
- It's true that some theologians are engaged in the study of fantasy, but so are some scientists. [e.g. the multiverse, imaginary time, etc.] The fact that many theologians are studying false gods and false scripture doesn't prove that a living creator God doesn't exist, or that He hasn't given us His revealed word.
Reductionism means the 'extinction' of the theologian or the moralist (the artist, etc.) as all studies must be reduced to physics. There's a great imperialism involved in the reductionist project, as it allows only a physicalist account of the universe (and that includes the 'universe' of human beings).
As someone who takes the creationist perspective, I believe that much of Darwinism is a study of fantasy; especially as it involves the 'just so' stories that populate the 'soft' sciences. e.g. evolutionary psychology, Darwinist literary critique, evolutionary sociology, etc.
6. "Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components."
- The biggest problem with reductionism is that it does away with intelligence as an integral part of the universe. (I find it comical that some of our most intelligent people deny the role of intelligence. This is akin to fish denying the role of gills, or birds denying the role of feathers.) Materialism is, at best, half an adequate account of the universe. The materialist is akin to the 'head' of a coin denying that a 'tail' side exists; it's akin to the cover of a book denying the pages exist.
- M. D. Johnson
Notes;
1. 100. Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist; A review of Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking - Book Review by Jerry Bergman
2. "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.'' 1 Cor 13:12 [NLT}
3. I've gotten so far behind on my reading list, that I've taken to reading book reviews to try and catch up.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
