The Times has been devoting masses of pages to publicise Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design in which, like Laplace, he points out that physics has no need of the God hypothesis. Cynics are saying Hawking is just trying to boost sales of his book, and that the Times is just trying to boost subscriptions to its now pay-walled website.
The Grand Design is M-theory, a development of String theory, which implies that a universe can spontaneously emerge from nothing, thanks to the negative energy of gravity balancing out the positive energy needed for matter. This is pretty much what Victor Stenger has said, in "The Comprehensible Universe" and "God the failed hypothesis", along with other physicists, but no doubt Hawking carries more clout.
The title The Grand Design strikes me as a bit of a gift to the creationists who will say a Design implies an Intelligent Designer.
The Times has got quotes, for and against, from just about everyone including a whole page from the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He claims "Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean." I would have thought both those processes, analysis and synthesis, were part of science, which is the search for understanding. He also has the effrontery to say: "The Bible is relatively uninterested in how the Universe came into being. It devotes a mere 34 verses to the subject." Now he tells us!
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Darwin, God and the Human Species
Yesterday I went to Westminster Abbey for the lecture by Nick Spencer, of Theos, publicising his book on Darwin and God. On the whole his treatment of the subject was objective, based mainly on Darwin's extensive correspondence, much of which survives. He admits that Darwin lost his christian belief in a benevolent god, and that at the end of his life he was an admitted agnostic. Any god belief that he might have had would have been in a deistic creator who left the process of evolution to natural selection.
Nick Spencer objects to modern evolutionists going further than Darwin and arriving at an atheistic viewpoint, but much more knowledge of the nature of the universe and of life has emerged since 1882. In the question and answer session at the end he cited Simon Conway Morris, the Cambridge biologist who in Life's Solution claims that evolutionary convergence would "inevitably" lead to the evolution of some creature like the human species. This argument appeals to christians who see human beings as the pinnacle of creation, but it is also attractive to old-fashioned "progressive" humanists, like myself, who see the emergence of rationality as the spearhead of evolution.
I've said some more about my visit to Westminster Abbey in my personal blog the "Jeepyjay Diary".
Nick Spencer objects to modern evolutionists going further than Darwin and arriving at an atheistic viewpoint, but much more knowledge of the nature of the universe and of life has emerged since 1882. In the question and answer session at the end he cited Simon Conway Morris, the Cambridge biologist who in Life's Solution claims that evolutionary convergence would "inevitably" lead to the evolution of some creature like the human species. This argument appeals to christians who see human beings as the pinnacle of creation, but it is also attractive to old-fashioned "progressive" humanists, like myself, who see the emergence of rationality as the spearhead of evolution.
I've said some more about my visit to Westminster Abbey in my personal blog the "Jeepyjay Diary".
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Strange Thought for the Day
This morning's Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4, is one of the weirdest I've heard for a while. The author is named as Rhidian Brook, but without any details of his affiliations.
He begins with a story about receiving £1000 in a brown envelope through his letterbox from an unknown donor which he used to pay off his rent arrears. He says "The anonymity of the giver left me with no one to thank but God". He says nothing about reporting the find to the police, or how he decided it was meant for him. Might it have been put through the wrong door? Might it have been protection money, or a blackmail payment, or from a drug deal?
Then he goes on to the recent big lottery winners. "I found myself wondering who or what they would thank for the millions they had randomly won." and "The lottery almost certainly transgresses the 1st 8th and 10th commandments." Later he says: "they are people experiencing a shocking unmerited favour". Is he trying to make them feel bad about their luck?
Then he comes to the theology: "While lots were drawn in biblical times they were always a means of determining the will of god and underpinned by a belief that nothing in the universe is down to chance." Does he mean to claim that this is still the case, that nothing is due to chance? Surely this is the belief of fortune tellers and astrologers. This is simple reversion to primitivism.
He then talks of God's "amazing grace" whatever that is. If God is responsible for deciding who wins the lottery he is presumably also responsible for deciding who loses, in life as well as in the lottery. Religion seems unable to come to terms with the undoubted role of Chance in the universe.
He begins with a story about receiving £1000 in a brown envelope through his letterbox from an unknown donor which he used to pay off his rent arrears. He says "The anonymity of the giver left me with no one to thank but God". He says nothing about reporting the find to the police, or how he decided it was meant for him. Might it have been put through the wrong door? Might it have been protection money, or a blackmail payment, or from a drug deal?
Then he goes on to the recent big lottery winners. "I found myself wondering who or what they would thank for the millions they had randomly won." and "The lottery almost certainly transgresses the 1st 8th and 10th commandments." Later he says: "they are people experiencing a shocking unmerited favour". Is he trying to make them feel bad about their luck?
Then he comes to the theology: "While lots were drawn in biblical times they were always a means of determining the will of god and underpinned by a belief that nothing in the universe is down to chance." Does he mean to claim that this is still the case, that nothing is due to chance? Surely this is the belief of fortune tellers and astrologers. This is simple reversion to primitivism.
He then talks of God's "amazing grace" whatever that is. If God is responsible for deciding who wins the lottery he is presumably also responsible for deciding who loses, in life as well as in the lottery. Religion seems unable to come to terms with the undoubted role of Chance in the universe.
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Did god survive Darwin?
Many thanks to Dean Morrison who gave a very interesting presentation under the heading “Did God Survive Darwin?” on Thursday 18th June 2009.
Dean’s talk was wide ranging, giving an historical perspective, and discussing how breakthroughs in scientific discovery have been received by religious organisations. He also described the evolutionary process in straightforward terms.
Dean is clearly very knowledgeable on his subject, having obtained his science degree in Edinburgh and been actively involved in scientific groups ever since. However, he put across his argument in terms that the non-scientific of us could understand and provided pictures and statistics to demonstrate his points.
In conclusion? God has survived Darwin, but is now seen very differently by most people. Although creationists still accept Genesis as a literal re-telling of history, many believers now see their god within the context of evolution (such as the provider of the “soul” or the being who started the whole process).
The answer to the question posed, therefore, brought a wry smile to some of the members present.
God has survived Darwin, but only by evolving.
Thank you again to Dean.
Dean’s talk was wide ranging, giving an historical perspective, and discussing how breakthroughs in scientific discovery have been received by religious organisations. He also described the evolutionary process in straightforward terms.
Dean is clearly very knowledgeable on his subject, having obtained his science degree in Edinburgh and been actively involved in scientific groups ever since. However, he put across his argument in terms that the non-scientific of us could understand and provided pictures and statistics to demonstrate his points.
In conclusion? God has survived Darwin, but is now seen very differently by most people. Although creationists still accept Genesis as a literal re-telling of history, many believers now see their god within the context of evolution (such as the provider of the “soul” or the being who started the whole process).
The answer to the question posed, therefore, brought a wry smile to some of the members present.
God has survived Darwin, but only by evolving.
Thank you again to Dean.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Did God Survive Darwin?
As part of the bicentenary celebrations of Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of publication of Origin of Species, Dean Morrison proposes to examine the impact of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution on religious belief. He has given his 11th June talk the provocative title "Did God Survive Darwin?".
Did Darwin simply make God unnecessary? Did God need to change to survive? Are there mysteries of the Universe that still need the concept of God to explain? Dean promises an illustrated talk, covering the latest science, and the philosophical implications for us all.
Dean studied Ecological Science at Edinburgh University. His working career has been in environmental protection; for most of the last twenty years organising environmental volunteers in Hastings. He has had a lifelong interest in Evolutionary Biology.
Did Darwin simply make God unnecessary? Did God need to change to survive? Are there mysteries of the Universe that still need the concept of God to explain? Dean promises an illustrated talk, covering the latest science, and the philosophical implications for us all.
Dean studied Ecological Science at Edinburgh University. His working career has been in environmental protection; for most of the last twenty years organising environmental volunteers in Hastings. He has had a lifelong interest in Evolutionary Biology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)