Slashdot Mirror
Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that in his new book, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,' Hawking writes. 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: 'If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.'"
Professor Hawking,
Is this all?
Is that all the best of the best in physics has to argue about? Gravity vs god? Thats like arguing over air vs oxygen.
Can you get back to the energy problem please? Neither god nor gravity will save us from that.
Thanks
Duncan
OK, Hawking has officially lost it. He's past his prime. Also according to the laws of physics, you can't create something from nothing. Is he trying to claim that energy from gravity just spontaneously turned itself into all sorts of matter? Where did gravity come from? Where did energy come from?
Really Hawking, you could just say "I have no frakin clue" and people would still think you're a genius. You don't need to try to claim such asinine things. I'm not arguing there's a divine being of some kind that created it all, but c'mon, his argument by contrast is just as insane.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Wow. That's some world class crazy you have going on there. Must be fun.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I would disagree with many people. Religion and science should have things to say to each other. If you have science unrestrained by religion, you have the ability of science to go unrestrained into immoral acts. The scientists of Nazi Germany were unrestrained by religion and did unspeakable atrocities. Religion unrestrained and controlling science gave us periods of time where to speak scientific truth would earn you torture and prison. Neither should control the other, but I do believe the two should strongly influence each other.
I know that atheists will come and try to claim they are moral and don't require religious influence, but I respectfully disagree. I am not saying you have no morals if you are an atheist. But if you are an atheist and have morals, you have been influenced by religion. You can deny it, but I would be willing to bet any language and concepts you use to describe your morals have been developed and established using concepts and language made by a religion. Additionally, there is nothing inherently moral about atheism as people familiar with Pol Pot and Stalin will easily tell you. While there have been religious offenders that have done unspeakable things, I see no movement shaping the morality of our culture without religious influence behind it, and cultures die without morals (at least shared ones).
Religions at their core gave us their vision of how society should be. I'm not sure it would be to our benefit to cast that off, and societies that have done that have not been the better for it.