| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Kingfish" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2004 11:55:14 PM |
| Object: |
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University
of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited
as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in
my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and
saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a
little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.
The views presented in this lecture are neither supported nor opposed by the
University of Georgia. These notes were printed and paid for privately, and
not in any way at the expense of the University of Georgia.
The Big Bang
Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole - its structure, origin,
and development. The subjects cosmology addresses are profound, both
scientifically and theologically. Perhaps the best way to define cosmology
is in terms of the questions that it asks. Hugh Ross does an excellent job
of stating these questions in his important book The Fingerprint of God
(Second Edition, Whitaker House, 1989):
Is the universe finite or infinite in size and content?
Has the universe been here forever or did it have a beginning?
Was the universe created?
If the universe was not created, how did it get here?
If the universe was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what
can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics?
Are such laws the products of chance or have they been designed?
How do the laws and constants of physics relate to the support and
development of life?
Is there any knowable existence beyond the apparently observed dimensions of
the universe?
Do we expect the universe to expand forever, or is a period of contraction
to be followed by a big crunch?
Let me begin by noting the relationship between my own research as a quantum
chemist and the field of cosmology. On November 5, 1973, my research group
published its first paper on interstellar molecules, the molecules that
exist in those relatively empty regions between the stars. Our paper
appeared in the journal Nature and was titled "Theoretical Support for the
Assignment of X-ogen to the HCO+ Molecular Ion." The motivation for research
on interstellar molecules has largely derived from the suggestion that these
are the elementary materials from which life might have originated. My
research group has continued its interest in interstellar molecules over the
years, with many of our papers being published in the Astrophysical Journal,
considered by some to be the premier journal in the field. Our most recent
paper in the field, titled "Ion-Molecule Reactions Producing HC3NH+ in
Interstellar Space: Forbiddenness of the Reaction between Cyclic C3H3+ and
the N Atom," appeared in the November 10, 1999 issue of the Astrophysical
Journal. Three more recent astrophysical papers involving my research group
are in various stages leading to publication.
The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been
philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. Hugh Ross
has done an excellent job of summarizing this resistance. Ross begins with
Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), who experimentally confirmed Einstein's
(1879-1955) general theory of relativity in 1919. Eddington stated a dozen
years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present
order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole."
Eddington later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to
get started."
Albert Einstein's response to the consequences of his own general theory of
relativity may be reasonably interpreted to reflect a possible concern about
the peril of a confrontation with the Creator. Through the equations of
general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time
to some sort of a beginning. However, to evade this seemingly inevitable
cosmological conclusion, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a
"fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. He longed for a
universe that was infinitely old. In fairness, Einstein later considered
this to be one of the few serious mistakes of his scientific career.
However, even this concession must have been painful, as Einstein had a
strong conviction that all physical phenomena ultimately should be accounted
for in terms of continuous fields everywhere (see Max Jammer's 1999 book
Einstein and Religion).
Einstein ultimately gave at best reluctant assent to what he called "the
necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior
reasoning power." But he never did embrace the concept of a personal
Creator, a compassionate God who cares for men and women and children.
To understand the intensity of the objections to the idea that the universe
had a beginning, an excursus may be helpful. Again following Hugh Ross, let
us note the five traditional arguments for the existence of God. These
arguments may be found in Augustine, and they were of course further
elaborated by Thomas Aquinas. This may seem an unlikely starting point for
our topic, but I think you will see as we proceed that these arguments keep
coming up. I am not going to take a position on whether these arguments are
valid, but I will state them, because throughout current discussions of
cosmology these arguments are often cited:
The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have
a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or
direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and
natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you
like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted
for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by
a higher being
So then, why has there been such resistance to the idea of a definite
beginning of the universe? Much of it goes right back to that first
argument, the cosmological argument. It may be useful to break down the
cosmological argument into three parts:
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause;
If the universe began to exist, then
The universe must have a cause.
You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing - a direction of
discomfort to some physicists and others knowledgeable about these matters.
Such a person was the Princeton physicist Robert Dicke, advocate of the
infinitely oscillating theory of the universe, of which we will say more
later. Dicke stated in 1965 that an infinitely old universe "would relieve
us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time
in the past."
In 1946 George Gamow (1904-1968), a Russian-born American physicist,
proposed that the primeval fireball, the "Big Bang," was an intense
concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now
exists in the universe. The Big Bang Theory predicts that all the galaxies
in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a
result of that initial event, which some have described as a singular
explosion. A possible future dictionary definition of the hot big bang
theory encompasses the idea that the entire physical universe, all the
matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst
forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and
pressure.
The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias
(1933-) and Robert Wilson (1936-) of the Bell Telephone Laboratories
(regrettably partially dismantled following the breakup of AT&T) convinced
most scientists of the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Further observations
reported in 1992 have moved the Big Bang Theory from a consensus view to the
nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the
universe, perhaps 13-15 billion years ago. My former Berkeley colleague
Joseph Silk and his coworkers gave a brief summary of the evidence for the
Big Bang Theory in their February 17, 1995 review paper in Science magazine:
The hot big bang model is enormously successful. It provides the framework
for understanding the expansion of the universe, the cosmic background
radiation, and the primeval abundance of light elements, as well as a
general picture of how the structure seen in the universe today was formed.
Many scientists have been willing to comment on the philosophical
consequences of the Big Bang Theory. For example, Arno Penzias,
co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel Prize
recipient in physics, stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978:
The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would
have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the
Psalms, the Bible as a whole.
When asked more recently (in Denis Brian's 1995 book Genius Talk) why some
cosmologists were so affectionate in their embrace of the steady state
theory (the idea that the universe is infinitely old) of the origin of the
universe, Penzias responded: "Well, some people are uncomfortable with the
purposefully created world. To come up with things that contradict purpose,
they tend to speculate about things they haven't seen."
Perhaps the most amusing statement in this regard came from Cambridge
University physicist Dennis Sciama, one of the most distinguished advocates
of the steady state theory of the universe. Shortly after he gave up on the
steady state hypothesis, Sciama stated: "The steady state theory has a sweep
and beauty that for some unaccountable reason the architect of the universe
appears to have overlooked." Of course we theoretical scientists have an
abundance of excuses for why our cherished theories sometimes fail. But the
notion of blaming our failures on the "architect of the universe" is very
creative.
It is an unusual day when newspapers all over the world devote their front
page headlines to a story about science. But that is exactly what happened
on April 24, 1992. Announced on that date were the results of the so-called
"big bang ripples" observations made by the cosmic background explorer
(COBE) satellite of NASA. These ripples are the small variations in the
temperature of the universe (about 2.7 degrees Celsius above absolute zero)
far from heavenly bodies. These observations were remarkably consistent with
the predictions of the Big Bang Theory. The particular item that the London
Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George
Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It's
like looking at God." For obvious reasons, this headline captured the
attention of thinking people throughout the world. In the euphoria that
followed, Stephen Hawking described the big bang ripples observations as
"the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time."
A somewhat more sober assessment of the big bang ripples observations was
given one week later in the Los Angeles Times by Frederick Burnham, a
science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea
that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at
any time in the last 100 years."
George Smoot, leader of the COBE team of scientists, and I were
undergraduate classmates at M.I.T. We both arrived in September of 1962 and
graduated in June of 1966. I do not remember meeting George Smoot, but his
last name was famous within the M.I.T. community from the first day of our
freshman year. However, the fame of the name Smoot was not such as to
suggest that George would become one of the world's most famous scientists
26 years following his graduation from M.I.T. Social fraternities were very
popular during our years at M.I.T. In fact, about one-third of the
undergraduate student body lived in these fraternities, which were located
across the Charles River from M.I.T. Students were encouraged to join a
fraternity in the week before the beginning of their freshman year. One of
the "better" fraternities was named Lambda Chi Alpha. I visited Lambda Chi
Alpha, but chose instead the best fraternity at M.I.T., namely Sigma Alpha
Epsilon. For those of you who believe that American social fraternities
excel primarily in drunkenness and debauchery, let it be noted that it was a
full ten years later that I became a Christian.
Returning to the story, in 1958 Oliver R. Smoot, Jr., a new member of Lambda
Chi Alpha, is said to have consumed an excessive amount of a common chemical
reagent, namely ethyl alcohol. In a semi-conscious state, this Smoot, 5'7"
tall, was rolled across the Harvard Bridge by his fraternity mates numerous
times. On the next day, the Harvard Bridge was smartly adorned with Smoot
markers. At every ten Smoots (an interval of about 56 feet) brightly painted
markers noted the achievement. The total length of the Harvard Bridge was
boldly proclaimed at both ends to be 364.4 Smoots plus one ear. During the
1963-1964 academic year, my fraternity decided that Smoot was getting far
more credit than he deserved. One of our members, Fred Souk, declared that
he was fully the equal if not the better of Smoot in every respect. So we
went out in the dark of night, painted out the Smoot marks, and replaced
them with Souk marks. Fred was a bit taller than Smoot, so the total number
of Souks did not quite match the old Smoots. As it turned out, this action
enraged the members of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity. The Souk marks were
obliterated the very next night, and replaced with the venerable Smoots,
which continue to this date to be repainted regularly on the Harvard Bridge.
I must confess to some surprise that when I read George Smoot's
semi-autobiographical popular book about the big bang ripples, titled
Wrinkles in Time, I found no mention of the most celebrated achievement
associated with his name, the immortal Smoot marks. However, on his web site
George Smoot acknowledges that Oliver R. Smoot, Jr. is "a distant relative."
Apparently, the only Smoots ever to attend M.I.T. were Oliver R. Smoot, Jr.,
George Smoot, and Oliver's son Stephen Smoot.
Not everyone was ecstatic about the Smoot observations that revealed the
so-called "big bang ripples." Certainly, those who had argued so strongly
and passionately for a steady state model of the universe did not appreciate
the interpretation of these results. The latter group included most
prominently two senior scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-), the British
astronomer, and Geoffrey Burbidge (1925-), a distinguished astrophysicist at
the University of California at San Diego.
We may continue to probe the philosophical implications of these big bang
ripples observations by assessing a statement of Geoffrey Burbidge (made
during a radio discussion with Hugh Ross) concerning these matters. Burbidge
discounts the most obvious interpretation of the new experiments. He remains
a strong advocate, in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence, of the
steady state theory. Remarkably, Burbidge stated that the COBE satellite
experiments come from "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Of
course George Smoot took strong exception to this statement. In his popular
1993 book Wrinkles in Time Smoot does write cautiously "There is no doubt
that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian
notion of creation from nothing." Burbidge did say something in the same
interview that is indisputable, however. He predictably favored the steady
state hypothesis and claimed that his view supports Hinduism and not
Christianity. That is correct, because the steady state theory of the
universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the never
ending cycles of existence taught by orthodox Hinduism.
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist turned generalist, has written very
persuasively on this topic. He again brings us to the philosophical
implications. Ross states in his book The Creator and the Cosmos (Third
Edition, Navpress, 2001) that:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena
take place. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the
universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe
must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of
and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is
powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God
is not. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the
dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe
itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
Perhaps some readers are inclined to say "So what?" If you fall into that
category, may I remind you that well more than one billion people on this
planet believe either that God is the universe itself or that God is
contained within the universe. If the Big Bang Theory is true, it creates
serious philosophical problems for these world views. Some scientific
discoveries do have profound metaphysical implications. An entire book on
this subject, titled The Dancing Universe, (1997) has been written by
Dartmouth College physics professor Marcello Gleiser. Without displaying any
theistic sympathies, Gleiser confirms much of what Ross states above. His
flow chart on page 303 labeled "A Classification of Cosmogonical Models" is
of special interest. Gleiser asks the question "Is there a beginning?" to
provide a primary sorting of world views. On the left side of Gleiser's
diagram a positive answer to the above question leads via a particular path
to creation by the sovereign God of the universe, as described in Genesis.
On the right hand side, a "no" answer in regard to a beginning leads by
another path to a rhythmic universe, as perhaps exemplified by the dance of
Shiva in Hinduism. The resistance of several streams of Hinduism to the Big
Bang Theory was recently highlighted at a symposium sponsored by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington,
D.C. (April 1999). In prepared remarks Hindu philosopher Anindita Baslev of
Aarhus University in Denmark quoted from the ancient texts of her religion
and summarily dismissed the discussions of big bang mechanics as
"cosmological speculations."
Following the remarkable financial success of Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A
Brief History of Time, a number of distinguished physicists have tried their
hands at the same literary genre. In this context I would like to quote from
a book that I do not necessarily recommend to the general reader. This
particular book is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize
winner and also a gifted and dedicated educator. Lederman's book is called
The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the best
material is in the first few pages. The remainder of the book is largely a
case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting Super Collider, a
proposed massive particle accelerator near Waco, Texas that was torpedoed by
the U.S. congress some years ago. Therefore, reading the book today is a bit
of a Rip Van-Winkle experience. But the first section is wonderful; it is in
fact a good summary of what I have attempted to say in this lecture thus
far. Leon Lederman states:
In the very beginning, there was a void - a curious form of vacuum - a
nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet
the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A
story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the
universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None,
zero! We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature
age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second - that is, some very short
time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything
about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the
realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.
In candid moments, outstanding cosmologists make statements rather similar
to that quoted above. For example, Stephen Hawking states that "The actual
point of creation lies outside the scope of the presently known laws of
physics." M.I.T. professor Alan Guth, critical contributor to the
"inflationary" understanding of the Big Bang Theory," is often considered to
be the American counterpart of Hawking and has said analogously "The instant
of creation remains unexplained."
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. The tenth
anniversary edition of his book, A Brief History of Time, is available in
paperback and I strongly recommend it. The book has sold in excess of 10
million copies. For such a book to sell so many copies is essentially
unheard of in the history of science writing. For the past five years I have
used A Brief History of Time as the centerpiece of a course that I teach for
a select group of 15 University of Georgia freshman. For balance, the class
also studies the novel That Hideous Strength, the third book in the C. S.
Lewis space trilogy. My course falls in the "Get to know the professor"
category that is becoming popular in large public universities to offset the
sense of anonymity that many entering freshmen feel.
An excellent film (1991, director Errol Morris) has been made about A Brief
History of Time, and we enjoy the film every year in my freshman seminar.
There has even been another good book (A Reader's Companion, Bantam, 1992)
made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He displays it
in the foreword of the Reader's Companion, stating "This is The Book of The
Film of The Book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of
the film of the book."
I want to begin our discussion of Stephen Hawking by saying something about
his scientific research, without getting bogged down in details. Hawking has
made his well-deserved scientific reputation by investigating in great
detail one particular set of problems: the singularity and horizons around
black holes and at the beginning of time. Now, every writer in this general
area is convinced that if you encountered a black hole, it would be the last
thing you ever encountered. A black hole is a massive system so centrally
condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, including
light, from escaping. The reassuring thing is that, despite what our
children see on the Saturday morning cartoons, no black hole appears to be
in our neighborhood. That is, the closest black hole to planet earth is far
more distant than could be traveled in the lifetime of a human being using
conventional rockets.
Stephen Hawking's first major scientific work was published with Roger
Penrose (a physicist very famous in his own right) and George Ellis (not as
famous as Penrose and Hawking, but still very well known), during the period
1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the equations of general
relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and
time in the past. This landmark is now known as the "singularity theorem,"
and is a tremendously important finding, being about as close as we can get
to a mathematical rationalization for the Big Bang Theory. Later, of course,
Hawking began to carry out independent research, both by himself and with
his own doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows. As early as 1973, he
began to formulate ideas about the quantum evaporation of black holes,
exploding black holes, "Hawking radiation," and so on. Some of Hawking's
work is radical, exploratory, and even speculative in nature. However, by
any reasonable standard Stephen Hawking is a great scientist. Even if time
shows some of his more radical proposals to be incorrect, Hawking will have
had a profound impact on the history of science.
The scientific centerpiece of A Brief History of Time would appear to fall
in the speculative category of his research. In fact, I think it is fair to
say that the scientific centerpiece of A Brief History of Time was not
considered one of Hawking's most important papers prior to the publication
of the book in 1987. I am referring to the "no boundary proposal" that
Hawking published in 1984 in work with James Hartle, a physics professor at
the University of California at Santa Barbara. Using a grossly simplified
picture of the universe in conjunction with an elegant vacuum fluctuation
model, Hartle and Hawking were able to provide a mathematical
rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the
beginning of time. This model has also been called the "universe as a wave
function" and the "no beginning point." While such mathematical exercises
are highly speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper
understanding of the creation event. I postpone my analysis of the no
boundary proposal for a few pages.
Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won
the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled some people. Many people automatically
assume that Professor Hawking has already won the Nobel Prize. Yet as of
this writing (late 2001) he has not. This is probably because the Swedish
Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by
verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work to date
remains largely unconfirmed. Although the mathematics and concepts of his
theories are certainly beautiful and elegant, science waited until 1994 for
rock solid evidence for even the existence of black holes. The verification
of Hawking radiation or any of his more radical theoretical proposals still
seems far off. In this context, we must recall that Albert Einstein was
wrong about a number of important things scientific, especially quantum
mechanics; yet we recognize him as one of the three great physicists of all
time, along with Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell. I should conclude
this section by noting that a number of Nobel Prize Committees have shown
themselves to be composed of rather savvy people, capable of compromise. So
I would not be surprised to see the old gentlemen in Stockholm find a way to
award the Nobel Prize in Physics to Stephen Hawking. Perhaps Hawking could
share the prize with those responsible for the first observations of black
holes.
And God
Those who have not read A Brief History of Time may be surprised to find
that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the
feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit
distressing. Sagan wrote the preface to the first edition of the book, but
was less famous than Hawking by the time of arrival of the tenth anniversary
edition, in which Sagan's preface does not appear. God is discussed in A
Brief History of Time from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo
of the final sentence. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in
some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking seems to have
made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.
Not surprisingly, the principal influence in Stephen's early life was his
mother, Isobel. Isobel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in
England in the 1930's, and her son has carried some of that intellectual
tradition right through his life. Incidentally, Hawking's fame is now such
that he felt obligated to endorse one of the candidates in the 2000 United
States presidential election. By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the
brilliant agnostic philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the
same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955
Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers (Michael
White and John Gribben), Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a
certain amused detachment." There is little in A Brief History of Time that
deviates in a significant way from what we know of the religious views of
the 13-year-old Stephen Hawking. However, we must note that in public
questioning Hawking insists that he is not an atheist. And I am told by
eyewitness observers that in recent years Stephen Hawking has appeared "once
or twice a month" in an Anglican church with his second wife.
Perhaps the most important event of Stephen Hawking's life occurred on
December 31, 1962. He met his future wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, at a New
Year's Eve party. One month later, Hawking was diagnosed with a debilitating
disease, ALS or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in North America as Lou
Gehrig's disease. He was given two years to live at the time. That was
nearly 40 years ago. I have seen three chemistry professor friends die of
this terrible disease. My three friends lasted two, three, and five years,
respectively, the last surviving on an iron lung for his last tortuous year.
By anyone's estimation, the preservation of Stephen Hawking's life is a
medical miracle. And he is a man of great personal courage.
At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an
average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. I hasten to add
that even average doctoral students at Cambridge, still one of the five
great universities in the world, can be very good. Let me quote from his
biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point:
However, there is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was
a major turning point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to
see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was
finding Jane Wilde that enabled him to break out of his depression and
regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to
Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It
changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to
live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not
have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.
They married in July of 1965, somewhat past the expected date of Stephen
Hawking's death. The fact that three children followed is indisputable
evidence that Stephen was not dead. Hawking himself said in an interview
shortly following the publication of A Brief History of Time that "what
really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde.
This gave me something to live for." Jane Wilde is an interesting person in
her own right. I think she decided early on to pursue an academic discipline
as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval
Portuguese Literature!
Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my
faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation (namely,
the deteriorating health of her husband, with no obvious income but that of
a Cambridge don to live on). I would not have been able to marry Stephen in
the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me
through, and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."
The reason the book has sold more than 10 million copies, i.e., the reason
for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the
problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people. The book
overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously
and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with
respect and attention. There is no reason to agree with everything put forth
in A Brief History of Time and you will see that I have a couple of areas of
disagreement. It has been argued that this is the most widely unread book in
the history of literature. I first began to prepare this material for a
lecture in December 1992, because I was asked by a friend (John Mason) in
Australia to come and speak on the subject. John wrote to me, "A great many
people in Sydney have purchased this book. Some claim to have read it." So I
encourage you to join the students in my University of Georgia class and
become one of those who have actually read A Brief History of Time.
Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the
relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult
to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of
God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between
science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the
border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described
by scientific laws." When asked by a reporter whether he believed that
science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied
cleverly "Then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." Dr.
Hawking is well aware that Newton had strong religious convictions.
A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as,
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory (here he is alluding to
the envisioned unification of our understandings of quantum mechanics and
gravity), it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes
fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" In a
similar vein Hawking asks "Why does the universe go to the bother of
existing?" Although Hawking does not attempt to answer these two critical
questions, they make wonderful discussion topics for university students,
and I have enjoyed using them for this purpose.
Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics.
When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would
sometimes say things like "God doesn't play dice with the universe." On one
such occasion, Niels Bohr is said to have responded "Albert, stop telling
God what He can do." Hawking's adroit response to Einstein is that "God not
only plays dice. He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen." Of
course, I like Hawking's response very much, having devoted my professional
career to the study of molecular quantum mechanics.
For me (and for Hawking's now distinguished student Don Page; more on
Professor Page later) the most precious jewel in A Brief History of Time
reflects Hawking's interest in the writing's of Augustine of Hippo (354-430
A.D.). Hawking states "The idea that God might want to change His mind is an
example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a
being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God
created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up."
The first time I read A Brief History of Time, admittedly not critically,
for the first 100 pages or so I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is
building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But things
then begin to change and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes
adulterated by poor philosophy and theology. For example, Hawking writes on
page 122 of the first edition, "These laws (of physics) may have originally
been decreed by God, but it appears that He has since left the universe to
evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it". The grounds on
which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated, and a straw God is set up
that is certainly not the God who is revealed in time and space and history.
What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous "god of the
gaps." Stephen Hawking thus appears uncertain (agnostic) of his belief in a
god of his own creation.
Now, lest any reader be uncertain, let me emphasize that Hawking strenuously
denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of atheism, he is
affronted and says that such assertions are not true. For example, Hawking
has stated "I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme
Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know
to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of
physics." Stephen Hawking is probably an agnostic or a deist (a believer in
an impersonal god) or something in between these two positions, his recent
church attendance notwithstanding. He is certainly not an atheist and
sometimes does not even appear very sympathetic to atheism.
One of the frequently quoted statements in A Brief History of Time is, "So
long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator (the
cosmological argument). But if the universe is really completely
self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning
nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Hawking's
most famous statement is contained in the last paragraph of A Brief History
of Time. Perhaps attempting to balance the quotation just cited, Hawking
writes "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . . . then we would
know the mind of God." As a person who has dedicated his professional life
to science, I am personally sympathetic to this statement. John Calvin was
correct is stating that "All truth is God's truth." But I think Professor
Hawking is claiming too much here. I would modify his statement to say that
if we had a unified, complete theory of physics, we would know much more
about the mind of God. To claim to know God comprehensively is beyond the
capability of any human being.
The Anthropic Principle
I feel the necessity to say something here about the anthropic principle.
One statement of the anthropic principle would be that there are a number of
fundamental constants (for example, the mass of the electron) or derived
scientific parameters (for example, the dipole moment of the water
molecule), any one of which changed just a little bit, would make the earth
uninhabitable by human beings. In this regard a book that I strongly
recommend is Hugh Ross's The Creator and the Cosmos. Ross has a substantial
discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists
and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only
was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed.
One such person is Amherst College astronomy professor George Greenstein (a
pantheist or something similar), who makes this statement: "As we survey all
the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency,
or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without
intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a
Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the
cosmos for our benefit?" Personally, I fear that Greenstein has gone,
relative to Hawking, a little too far in the other direction. I do not think
we have indisputable scientific proof of the existence of God. But I am
convinced that we do have, in the big bang understanding, some very good
evidence for the existence of the transcendent God of the universe.
Others have commented, sometimes inadvertently, on this evidence. A book I
recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg (1933- , Nobel
Prize in Physics, 1979, and considered by many to be the greatest physicist
of the last half of the twentieth century). Although Steven Weinberg is a
staunch atheist, Chapter XI of his book is titled "What About God?" Therein
Weinberg tells a story related by the Venerable Bede (672-735), English
theologian and historian of the Middle Ages. In the story, a speech is made
before King Edwin of Northumbria in favor of the adoption of Christianity.
In this speech the term "banqueting hall" is used to describe the ordinary
existence of human beings on planet earth. Weinberg's perceptive comment on
the speech is, "It is an almost irresistible temptation to believe with Bede
and Edwin that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall."
There must be something beyond strict reductionism or materialism. This view
is echoed in the New Testament. For example, St. Paul wrote, "Ever since the
creation of the world, God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible
though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has
made" (Letter to the Romans 1:20). This is essentially what Steven Weinberg
is attempting to describe - that almost "irresistible temptation" to believe
in God.
It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why
is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine
tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty
member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to
expect." Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, notes the
same facts. Rees recently stated "The possibility of life as we know it
depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some
respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit
remarkable coincidences." Science writer extraordinaire Paul Davies adds
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind
it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to
make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming." Some
scientists express surprise at what they view as so many "accidental
occurrences." However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees
purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.
Against powerful logic, some atheists continue to claim, irrespective of the
anthropic constraints, that the universe and human life were created by
chance. The main argument seems to be "Since we human beings are here, it
must have happened in a purely reductionist manner." This argument strikes
me a bit like the apocryphal response of a person waking up in the morning
to find an elephant in his or her bedroom. The individual in question
concludes that this is no surprise, since the probability of the elephant
being in the bedroom is a perfect 100%. Obviously this is a philosophical
rather than scientific response to the situation.
A reply to this argument has been developed by the philosopher/historian
William Lane Craig. The atheist's argument states that since we're here, we
know every element of the creation must have happened by strictly material
forces. Craig's philosophical counterargument, as reported by Hugh Ross,
goes like this: Suppose a dozen sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner
by firing squad. They all shoot a number of rounds in just the right
direction, but the prisoner escapes unharmed. The prisoner could conclude,
since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some extremely
unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to some remarkable
piece of good luck. But he would be far more rational to conclude that the
guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters had all deliberately
missed. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its
appearance almost immediately (in geological terms), perhaps within as short
a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our
once-molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical
laws.
The No Boundary Proposal
Let us return to Hawking's no boundary proposal - the idea that the universe
has neither beginning nor end. By treating the universe as a wave function,
Hawking hopes to rationalize the universe's popping into existence 12-15
billion years ago. Critical to Hawking's research in this regard is the
notion of imaginary time. The concept of imaginary time is a powerful
mathematical device used on occasion by theoretical chemists and physicists.
I remember clearly the day in the autumn of 1965, during my Complex
Variables class as a senior at M.I.T., when I learned that the result of
contour integration was two pi i times the sum of the residues. For me, it
was about as close to a revelation as I had received up to that time in my
life. My closest colleague at Berkeley, Professor William H. Miller, in 1969
used imaginary time to understand the dynamics of chemical reactions, and it
made him a household word in the world of science. The use of imaginary time
is indeed a powerful tool.
Indulge me while I attempt to convey the essence of how imaginary time is
exploited in theoretical physics and chemistry. One approaches a well
defined problem, with all variables necessarily being real. This means, for
example, real positions for all particles, real velocities, and so on. Real
problems begin with all quantities real. Then one undertakes a carefully
chosen excursion into the complex plane, making one or more variables
complex. Subsequently we do some really cool things mathematically. Finally,
all the variables revert to real values, and we find that something
important has been mathematically derived that would have otherwise been
impossible to prove.
Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal begins by adopting a grossly
oversimplified model of the universe. Then the authors make time imaginary,
and prove in their terribly restricted model that the universe has neither
beginning nor end. The flaw in the exercise is that the authors never go
back to real time. Thus the notion that the universe has neither beginning
nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only. In real time,
to which we as human beings are necessarily attached, rather than in
Hawking's use of imaginary time, there will always be a singularity, that
is, a beginning of time.
In an obviously contradictory statement in A Brief History of Time, Hawking
actually concedes this point. What we are seeing in this situation is
Hawking versus Hawking. I view the following statement as Hawking speaking
in his right mind: "When one goes back to the real time in which we live,
however, there will still appear to be singularities . . . In real time, the
universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to
space-time and at which the laws of science break down" (first edition, page
144). Only if we lived in imaginary time (not coming soon to a neighborhood
near you!) would we encounter no singularities. In real time the universe
was created ex nihilo 12-15 billion years ago.
With some trepidation, I will venture further. A case can be made that the
Hartle-Hawking "no boundary proposal" is only of marginal scientific
interest. The reasons for this conclusion might include: (a) the theory is a
mathematical construct that has no unique empirical support; (b) the theory
makes no verifiable scientific predictions that were not achieved earlier
with simpler models; (c) the theory generates no significant research
agenda. The primary purpose of the theory seems to be an attempt to evade
the cosmological argument for the existence of God, via the claim that
nature is self-contained and effectively eternal.
Science is primarily concerned with facts, not motive, and thus a complete
scientific description of the creation does not necessarily rule out a
providential account at the same time. William Paley's famous design
argument suggests that if you are taking a walk in the woods and find a
watch on the path, you should not conclude that the watch just assembled
itself - despite the fact that we can take the watch apart, look at every
single part and completely understand how it works. We look at the watch on
the path and prudently conclude that it was designed by some higher
intelligence.
In A Brief History of Time, Hawking states, "If the no boundary proposal is
correct, He [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions" This
statement strikes me as a leap into irrationality. Why does Hawking find,
within the functioning of the universe, aspects that appear to him to be
limitations of God's power? This stems not from any attitude of an infinite
God, but rather from the attributes of finite man. Namely, we as human
beings are able to scientifically discern characteristics of the Creator
only as they are related to that which is created, that which we can
observe. This limitation of ours immediately reduces what might be infinite
to the finiteness of our existence. Of course, Biblically, there is no
problem in accepting divine constraints to divine options, if the Creator
chooses to run the universe according to His stated and established laws.
Divine tenacity to His own laws is, of course, the very essence of the
Biblical God.
Another of Hawking's controversial statements needs to be addressed.
Although it is not original with him, Hawking states: "We are such
insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the
outer suburbs of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to
believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence." I
take a different position. In his recent writings, Hugh Ross has
demonstrated that our solar system, and in particular planet earth, are in
fact quite peculiar in several respects. Further, there is no plausible
evidence to date that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Human beings,
thus far, appear to be the most advanced species in the universe. Maybe God
does care about us! Stephen Hawking surveys the cosmos and concludes that
the principal characteristic of humankind is obscurity. I consider the same
evidence and conclude that human beings are special. I must be quick to add
that a Christian world view does not exclude the possibility of life, even
sentient life, elsewhere in the universe. Precisely this possibility is
addressed by C.S. Lewis in his two science fiction novels Out of the Silent
Planet and Perelandra.
Before moving on, two related issues need to be addressed. The first
concerns the infinitely oscillating model of the universe, which posits a
ceaseless sequence of big bang/big crunch pairs. This model, popularized by
Robert Dicke, makes the universe effectively eternal. The infinitely
oscillating universe model, as noted above, comports nicely with Hinduism's
dance of Shiva. Since the hypothesized period between the present big bang
and its imagined big crunch would be just one of an infinite number of such
periods, any problems relating to the time scale that might be needed for
evolution are resolved by the conclusion that our interval must be "just
right." On many occasions when I have presented this lecture, the Q&A time
includes a question concerning this cosmological model. Actually, this issue
was resolved in 1983 in a critical paper by Alan Guth (best known for his
pioneering work on the inflationary features of the Big Bang Theory)
appearing in the influential journal Nature, volume 302, beginning on page
505. The title of Guth's paper tells the story: "The Impossibility of a
Bouncing Universe." Therein Guth showed that even if the universe contained
sufficient mass to halt the current expansion, any collapse would end in a
thud, not a bounce. Incidentally, the weight of opinion among cosmologists
has shifted over the past five years to the position that, short of direct
intervention by God, the universe will continue to expand forever.
The second and perhaps most recent attempt to evade the (theistic) logical
consequences of the fine tuning of the universe (anthropic constraints) is
the proposal that there are an infinite number of universes. This proposal
has been given wide attention through the popular 2000 book by Martin Rees
entitled Just Six Numbers. Rees's logic flows something like this: (a) he
concedes that a universe like ours is overwhelmingly improbable; but (b) we
know that God doesn't exist, or if He does He had nothing to do with the
design of the universe; (c) thus there must be a near infinite number of
universes; (d) ours just happens to be the universe that is just right for
human life. Since no evidence for other universes is provided, Rees's
argument is less than convincing, particularly for those who are prepared to
consider the possibility of the existence of a personal God. The Rees
proposal might be broadened a bit by adding that other universes might have
their own forms of intelligent conscious life, very different from what is
observed on planet earth. One could go further and state that there is no
need for life in the proposed other universes to be based on carbon. John
Polkinghorne has responded to these ideas as follows:
Those who make such a claim are drawing a very large intellectual blank
check on a totally unknown bank account. Consciousness seems to demand very
great physical complexity to sustain it (the human brain is the most
complicated physical system we have encountered). It is far from persuasive
that there are many alternative routes to the generation of such complexity.
In his paper in the April 2001 issue of the journal Science & Christian
Belief, Rodney Holder critiques the postulation of the existence of many
universes as an alternative to design. Holder states some of the problems
associated with the postulate of an infinite number of universes;
the existence of infinitely many universes depends critically on parameter
choices;
the probability that any universe in an ensemble is fine-tuned for life is
zero;
the physical realization of any ensemble will exclude an infinity of
possibilities;
the hypothesis is untestable and unscientific;
The hypothesis is not consistent with the amount of order found in our
universe, nor with the persistence of order.
In completing this discussion, I note that a Christian world view does not
exclude the possibility of other universes. One of the great hymns of the
Christian faith in fact begins with the words "O Lord my God, when I in
awesome wonder, consider all the worlds Thy hands have made." However, a
plausible scientific case for an infinite or near infinite number of
universes has yet to be made.
A Broader View
Does everyone agree with Stephen Hawking concerning the metaphysical
consequences of recent cosmological discoveries? Certainly not. Alan
Lightman, a MIT professor with no obvious theistic inclinations, states in
his book Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists (Harvard
University Press, 1990), "Contrary to popular myths, scientists appear to
have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general
public." This fact can be established either from anecdotes or from
statistical data. Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, conducted a
systematic poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday,
around 41 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general
population the figure is perhaps 42 percent. So, whatever influences people
in their beliefs about God, it does not appear to have much to do with
having a Ph.D. in science. It is true in science, as well as in essentially
all other professions, that after income levels reach perhaps $50,000 per
year (in North America), further increases in salary may be correlated with
higher percentages of agnosticism. In his 1998 paper in Nature Edward Larson
showed that for incomes above $150,000 per year, belief in God falls off
significantly. The same trend holds, for example, for lawyers at these
income levels. This finding, of course, is consistent with the words of
Jesus on the difficulty of a rich person entering the kingdom of heaven.
There are many prominent scientific counterexamples to Stephen Hawking. One
is my former colleague at Berkeley for 18 years, Charles Townes (1915-).
Townes won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for discovering the maser,
which led quickly to the laser, surely one of the most important scientific
advances of the twentieth century. In a statement from his recent book
Making Waves (American Physical Society, 1995) Professor Townes takes dead
aim on Hawking. Charles Townes states "In my view, the question of origin
seems to be left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone.
Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical
explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence."
Arthur Schawlow (1921-1999) was another Physics Nobel Prize winner (1981),
honored for his work in laser spectroscopy. Schawlow was a professor at
Stanford until his recent death and did not hesitate to identify himself as
a protestant Christian. He stated, "We are fortunate to have the Bible and
especially the New Testament, which tells us so much about God in widely
accessible human terms." I view this statement as uniquely scientific,
knowing that Professor Schawlow was convinced that his discoveries in laser
spectroscopy were telling him something about God's handiwork. However,
unlike the New Testament, Schawlow's research was difficult to express in
"widely accessible human terms."
The other chaired Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge (Cambridge
is very stingy about handing out Professor titles; most tenured faculty
members retire at the rank of Senior Lecturer) for much of Hawking's career
was John Polkinghorne, a nuclear physicist. He left the chair of
mathematical physics at Cambridge in 1979 in order to train for the ordained
ministry of the Church of England. Upon ordination, Polkinghorne became a
parish priest for five years. He returned to Cambridge in 1986 as Dean of
Trinity Hall and subsequently President of Queens' College. I am very
familiar with the grounds of Queens' College, as it is immediately adjacent
to St. Catherine's College, where I stay in Cambridge courtesy of my
longtime collaborator, Professor Nicholas Handy. John Polkinghorne's
statement of belief is straightforward: "I am a Christian believer and
believe that God exists and has made Himself known in human terms in Jesus
Christ."
Probably the world's greatest living observational cosmologist is Allan
Sandage. Sandage works in Pasadena, California at the Carnegie
Observatories. In 1991 he received the Crafoord Prize, given by the Royal
Swedish Academy every six years for cosmology and worth the same amount of
money as the Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize given for cosmology).
Sandage has been called "the grand old man of cosmology" by the New York
Times and is viewed as the successor to his mentor, Edwin Hubble
(1889-1953), who is considered the father of modern cosmology.
At the age of 50, Sandage became a Christian. In Alan Lightman's book,
Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, Sandage states "The
nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science.
For that, one must turn to the Scriptures." When asked the famous question
regarding whether it is possible to be a scientist and a Christian, Sandage
replied, "Yes. The world is too complicated in all its parts and
interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the
existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too
well put together."
Of Hawking's two earliest collaborators (1970, the singularity theorem),
Roger Penrose seems to be some sort of an unconventional theist, while
George Ellis is a Christian. Ellis is Professor of Applied Mathematics at
the University of Cape Town, South Africa. In the book Quantum Cosmology and
the Laws of Nature, Ellis states his position with respect to ultimate
questions:
God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and of humankind,
transcending the universe but immanent in it;
God's nature embodies justice and holiness, but is also a personal and
loving God who cares for each creature (so the name "father" is indeed
appropriate);
God's nature is revealed most perfectly in the life and teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth, as recorded in the New Testament of the Bible, who was sent by
God to reveal the divine nature, summarized in "God is Love;"
God has an active presence in the world that still touches the lives of the
faithful today.
One of the scientists closest to Stephen Hawking and prominent in the movie
about A Brief History of Time is Donald Page. Page is Professor of Physics
at the University of Alberta, where he hosted my lecture on this topic in
July 1997. Our discussions following my lecture lasted for four hours spread
over three days. Don Page has had an excellent physics career in quantum
cosmology in his own right, but he began to achieve fame as a postdoctoral
fellow with Stephen Hawking. The Hawkings were not financially well off in
the years prior to publication of his best selling book and needed some help
to keep going. So Don Page went to live with the Hawkings for the period
1976-1979.
Page describes these years in the book (the book about the film about the
book!). He said, "I would usually get up around 7:15 or 7:30 AM, take a
shower, read in my Bible and pray. Then I would go down at 8:15 and get
Stephen up. At breakfast, I would often tell him what I'd been reading in
the Bible, hoping that maybe this would eventually have some influence. I
remember telling Stephen one story about how Jesus had seen the deranged
man, and how this man had these demons, and the demons asked that they be
sent into a herd of swine. The swine then plunged over the edge of the cliff
and into the sea. Stephen piped up and said, 'Well, the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not like that story, would they!'"
Page has stated, "I am a conservative Christian in the sense of pretty much
taking the Bible seriously for what it says. Of course I know that certain
parts are not intended to be read literally, so I am not precisely a
literalist. But I try to believe in the meaning I think it is intended to
have." Expressing the universal goal of theoretical physicists for
simplicity in their methods, Page makes an interesting connection to the
spiritual world: "If the universe basically is very simple, the theological
implications of this would need to be worked out. Perhaps the mathematical
simplicity of the universe is a reflection of the personal simplicity of the
Gospel message, that God sent His Son Jesus Christ to bridge the gap between
Himself and each of us, who have rejected God or rejected what He wants for
us by rebelling against His will and disobeying Him. This is a message
simple enough even to be understood by children."
My final example is Chris Isham, Professor of Theoretical Physics at
Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London. The superb
popular writer and former research physicist Paul Davies has described Isham
as "Britain's greatest quantum gravity expert." This is high praise indeed
when one considers that Stephen Hawking's research area is quantum gravity.
I had the pleasure of chatting with Professor Isham for a while when I gave
this lecture at Imperial College in May 2000. Alluding to the philosopher
Paul Tillich, Chris Isham states "The God of Christianity is not only 'the
ground of being.' He is also Incarnate." Essential therein "is the vision of
the Resurrection (of Jesus Christ) as 'the new creation out of the old
order' and . . . the profound notion of the 'redemption of time' through the
life and death of Jesus Christ. I think it will be rather a long time before
theoretical physics has anything useful to add to that." Let me be quick to
extinguish one possible interpretation of Professor Isham's last sentence.
By no means is Chris Isham belittling the importance of theoretical physics.
Isham has committed his entire professional life to the pursuit of
theoretical physics. Isham is passionate about theoretical physics. Isham is
rather saying that what he has found in Jesus Christ surpasses anything that
physics could hope to provide in terms of ultimate meaning.
The Limits of Science
A statement that I think gives some balance to this discussion was made by
one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schroedinger, after whom the most
important equation in science is named: the Schroedinger Equation. I have
spent a good bit of my professional life trying to solve this equation for
atoms and molecules. Toward the end of Schroedinger's career he began to
write more expansively. His 1942 book What is Life? is thought to have
inspired an entire generation of molecular biologists. The statement I would
like to quote comes from Schroedinger's 1954 book Nature and the Greeks. In
it he takes a dim view of what we might call scientific imperialism. The
Schroedinger statement in question is:
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me
is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our
experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent
about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters
to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet,
physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly,
good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer
questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we
are not inclined to take them seriously.
Although science is an inspiring pursuit in its proper domain, and a genuine
delight to me and others, it is not the whole story. Jane Hawking commented
on this aspect of her husband's work following the publication of A Brief
History of Time. She said "Stephen has the feelings that because everything
is reduced to a rational, mathematical formula, that must be the truth. He
is delving into realms that really do matter to thinking people and, in a
way, that can have a very disturbing effect on people - and he's not
competent."
In a similar vein my longtime friend and Berkeley faculty colleague Phillip
Johnson states
The irony of the situation is that Hawking"s professional life currently is
devoted to telling a story about the cosmos in which the elements that make
his life interesting - love, faith, courage, and even creative imagination -
disappear from view. Aspiring to know the mind of God, he can imagine
nothing more interesting than a set of equations governing the movement of
particles. A unified field theory would be a major scientific
accomplishment, of course. But to Hawking it is just a step toward a distant
but attainable goal of what he calls "a complete understanding of the events
around us, and of our own existence." The way to this goal does not seem to
require reading the Bible or Shakespeare, living in a variety of cultures,
experiencing art, climbing mountains, or falling in love and having
children. All it involves is "the intellectually challenging task of
developing better approximation methods."
Although Phil does not seem to appreciate the great affection with which
persons such as Hawking and I hold equations, there is much that is worthy
of consideration in Professor Johnson's analysis.
Richard Feynman states in his 1990 book, The Character of Physical Law, that
"Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons and electrons
[parenthetical remark by HFS - and don't we love them, especially
electrons!], while in daily life, we talk about men and history, or beauty
and hope. Which is nearer to God - beauty and hope or the fundamental laws?
To stand at either end, and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping
that out in that direction is a complete understanding, is a mistake." I
would have to say that, at least in the final sentence of A Brief History of
Time, Stephen Hawking has walked off one end of Feynman's pier.
Where Do We Go from Here?
In his book The Fingerprint of God, Hugh Ross seeks to construct a bridge
between cosmology and matters of ultimate importance. With minor
modifications, I wholeheartedly concur. Having presented the opinions of
many others in this lecture, the following represents my own position:
The big bang represents an immensely powerful yet carefully controlled
release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of
very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their
behavior and interactions. The power and care this explosion reveals exceed
human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.
A Creator must exist. The big bang ripples (April 1992) and subsequent
scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent
with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.
The Creator must have awesome power and wisdom. The quantity of material and
the power resources within our universe are truly immense. The information,
or intricacy, manifest in any part of the universe, and (as Allan Sandage
has well stated) especially in a living organism, is beyond our ability to
comprehend. And what we do see is only what God has shown us within our four
dimensions of space and time!
The Creator is loving. The simplicity, balance, order, elegance, and beauty
seen throughout the creation demonstrate that God is loving rather than
capricious. Further, the capacity and desire to nurture and to protect, seen
in so many creatures, makes sense if their Creator possesses these same
attributes. It is apparent that God cares for His creatures, for He has
provided for their needs.
The Creator is just and requires justice. Inward reflection and outward
investigation affirm that human beings have a conscience. The conscience
reflects the reality of right and wrong and the necessity of obedience.
Each of us falls hopelessly short of the Creator's standard. We incur His
displeasure when we violate any part of God's moral law in our actions, our
words, and our thoughts. Who can keep his or her thoughts and attitudes pure
for even an hour? Certainly not me. If each person falls short of his or her
own standards, how much more so of God's perfect standards? For many years I
sought to get a "passing grade" with God by comparing myself with other
sinners.
Because the Creator is loving, wise and powerful, He made a way to rescue
us. When we come to a point of concern about our personal failings, we can
begin to understand from the creation around us that God's love, wisdom, and
power are sufficient to deliver us from our otherwise hopeless situation.
If we trust our lives totally to the Rescuer, Jesus Christ, we will be
saved. The one and only path is to give up all human attempts to satisfy
God's requirements and put our trust solely in Jesus Christ and in His
chosen means of redemption, namely, His death on the cross.
The above outline is, of course, just an outline. To fill in the outline of
this bridge over the troubled waters of human experience, the reader may
turn to my lecture entitled The Ten Questions that Intellectuals Ask about
Christianity. Several of these questions arise persistently during Q&A times
following the present lecture on cosmology.
Copyright © 2001 by Henry F. Schaefer III. All rights reserved.
© Leadership University 2002
Copyright/Reproduction Limitations
Unless preceded by another copyright in the text of the previous article,
this data file/document is the sole property of Leadership U., It may not be
altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for
circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data
file and/or document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright ©
1995-2002 Leadership U.) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
This data file/document may not be used without the permission of Leadership
U. for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
The content of some files are also protected under additional copyrights.
Christian Leadership Ministries
P.O. Box 129
4901 Keller Springs Road
Suite 106
Addison, TX 75001
Phone: 972-713-7130
Fax: 972-713-7670
Email:
.
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
21 Dec 2004 02:06:49 PM |
|
|
"Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6J8xd.5328$SX.1722@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
[snip]
It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist.
Why
is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine
tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty
member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to
expect." Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, notes the
same facts. Rees recently stated "The possibility of life as we know it
depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some
respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does
exhibit
remarkable coincidences." Science writer extraordinaire Paul Davies adds
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind
it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to
make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming." Some
scientists express surprise at what they view as so many "accidental
occurrences." However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees
purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.
I'd just watched a documentary presented by Martin Rees when I read this.
He highlighted the amount of fine-tuning needed to bring about this
'workable' universe and said there were four options: that there is an
intelligence that created the universe; that there is an almost infinite
number of parallel universes; that our reality is, in fact, just a virtual
reality created by some alien civilisation; or that there is some
fundamental law that we just haven't discovered yet, and indeed may never
discover. The last option is the most attractive in that the other three
require a great leap of faith, which brings me to your own leap of faith.
I don't argue with your choice of believing that there is a Creator - given
the above, all rational people may eventually be led to deism through
science - but I do argue with the traits you attribute to such a being. You
seem to think that because we wouldn't exist if this fine-tuning were not as
it is then that shows that this Creator must be benign and loving. Since
there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary, how do you arrive at this
view?
Because science has arrived at this point, you claim that it can answer no
more and that we must turn to philosophy and religion, in fact the
scriptures. Why the scriptures? Why not the earlier or later philosophers?
Do you really think it's likely that the thinkers of thousands of years ago
got it right the first time? They could have had no conception of the
immensity of the universe and the comparative insignificance of our planet
in cosmic terms, so almost by default would diminish the power of a Creator.
If there is such a being then I boggle that anyone could claim to know how
that mind works and what 'his' will would be.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
20 Dec 2004 10:39:24 AM |
|
|
In article <6J8xd.5328$SX.1722@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
........
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kingfish" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
20 Dec 2004 02:56:10 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:cq6v7s$ha6$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <6J8xd.5328$SX.1722@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
.......
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
have you read the rest of the thread or the related threads?
Here ya go - I believe God exists and from what I continue to read, science
has not disproved God, and there ARE respected scientists who believe the
same. I am curious about respected scientists that do believe in a divine
power. Considering that there ARE in fact scientists who believe as I do,
I have been curious about the ideas of creation and ID. Whether it is from
a philosophic standpoint or a scientific standpoint (again a hazy line,
IMO) - very intelligent scientists still manage to believe. From what I've
been reading about cosmology - it seems to me that all of the guesses
pertaining to origins of the universe are philosophy by your standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
20 Dec 2004 03:15:41 PM |
|
|
"Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K%Gxd.6780$SX.1243@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:cq6v7s$ha6$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <6J8xd.5328$SX.1722@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
.......
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
have you read the rest of the thread or the related threads?
Here ya go - I believe God exists and from what I continue to read,
science has not disproved God, and there ARE respected scientists who
believe the same.
No, science has not disproved god and it never will. Neither will it prove
the existence of god. Yes, there are some respected scientists who believe
in god, Dr. Kenneth Miller, being one of the most respected. So what?
Most scientists don't. Biologists are the most atheistic of the scientists
with only 7% believing in a god.
I am curious about respected scientists that do believe in a divine power.
What about them?
Considering that there ARE in fact scientists who believe as I do, I have
been curious about the ideas of creation and ID.
No respected scientist believes as you do if you believe that ID and
creation are sciences. The number of scientists who believe such is
infinitesimal. Take Dr. Miller for example, he spends the first section of
his book, "Finding Darwin's God", ripping the creationists a new one. If you
define your beliefs as ID and creation you have no scientific support.
Whether it is from a philosophic standpoint or a scientific standpoint
(again a hazy line, IMO) - very intelligent scientists still manage to
believe.
Yes some do, but not perhaps as you do if creation and ID are involved.
From what I've been reading about cosmology - it seems to me that all of
the guesses pertaining to origins of the universe are philosophy by your
standards.
I don't know how much about cosmology that you have read but the origin of
the universe isn't in question at all, it was the Big Bang. What caused the
Big Bang is a matter that is highly speculative.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
20 Dec 2004 03:32:50 PM |
|
|
In article <K%Gxd.6780$SX.1243@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
.......
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
have you read the rest of the thread or the related threads?
Yes.
Here ya go - I believe God exists and from what I continue to read, science
has not disproved God, and there ARE respected scientists who believe the
same.
Science doesn't even define God let alone deal with existence of the divine.
I am curious about respected scientists that do believe in a divine
power. Considering that there ARE in fact scientists who believe as I do,
I have been curious about the ideas of creation and ID. Whether it is from
a philosophic standpoint or a scientific standpoint (again a hazy line,
IMO) - very intelligent scientists still manage to believe. From what I've
been reading about cosmology - it seems to me that all of the guesses
pertaining to origins of the universe are philosophy by your standards.
Fair enough, but I think the line between science and philosphy is
rather clear.
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God |
21 Dec 2004 01:05:30 AM |
|
|
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
.......
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
have you read the rest of the thread or the related threads?
Here ya go - I believe God exists and from what I continue to read, science
has not disproved God, and there ARE respected scientists who believe the
same. I am curious about respected scientists that do believe in a divine
power. Considering that there ARE in fact scientists who believe as I do,
That's is too presumptuous. You cannot assume that they believe as
you do. When it comes to the subject of a creator there are about as
many beliefes as there are people, and all are different.
There may indeed be a "God", whatever that means. I fail to see
how it makes much difference either way.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. O. Damocles" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 04:30:29 PM |
|
|
Kingfish wrote:
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:cq6v7s$ha6$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <6J8xd.5328$SX.1722@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III
.......
Why did you post this lengthy work in its entirety?
Do *you* have some comment on it?
have you read the rest of the thread or the related threads?
Here ya go - I believe God exists
Well, you've show yourself to be a blithering ignoramus
over the years, so it's no surprise you "believe" is such
a pathetic perversion.
and from what I continue to read,
science has not disproved God,
Don't have to disprove what doesn't exist moron.
The onus is on you to show ANY scientific
shred of evidence to the existence of your pathetic,
grotesque, perverted child-raping christian god
of the Holey Babble.
and there ARE respected scientists who
believe the same.
Nope, not a single one.
Your perverting their (faulty) admission that
a "creator/designer" *might* have existed with
your filthy scumbaggy shitsucking xtian superstition.
I am curious about respected scientists that do
believe in a divine power.
Nope, not a one believes in that grotesque scumbag
of a gaaawd that your perverted Holey Babble fiction
is based upon.
Considering that there ARE in fact
scientists who believe as I do,
WRONG! Not a single scientist believe what YOU do,
you child molesting shiteating scumbag.
I have been curious about the ideas
of creation and ID.
No you haven't. You're just sucking up more ***** in a
pathetic attempt to conflate what some scientists
may philosophize or hypothecate about into
some bogus support for your condemnable
abjectly repugnant superstition.
Whether it is from a philosophic standpoint or a
scientific standpoint (again a hazy line, IMO)
Only hazy when shiteaters like you deliberately conflate
the two quite distinct endeavors.
- very intelligent
scientists
You ain't one, and never will be.
still manage to believe.
Nope. Not a single one believes in that lowlife
child-raping shiteating gaaawd of your Holey Babble.
From what I've been reading about
cosmology - it seems to me that all of the guesses pertaining to
origins of the universe are philosophy by your standards.
You have no fucking idea what "science" really is, do you
shiteater?
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
2 Kings, 18:27:
Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may
eat their own dung, and drink their own ***** with you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 05:28:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:29 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
Here ya go - I believe God exists
Well, you've show yourself to be a blithering ignoramus
over the years, so it's no surprise you "believe" is such
a pathetic perversion.
Well, what do you have to cause you to believe that God doesn't exist?.
Now that's pathetic.
Don't have to disprove what doesn't exist moron.
And we don't have to prove to you he does. It's your funeral.
The onus is on you to show ANY scientific
shred of evidence to the existence of your pathetic,
Nope.
and there ARE respected scientists who
believe the same.
Nope, not a single one.
You're just making stupid statements now.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 07:02:26 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h8chs092r932ud8drs6mjet6l2qg70k8su@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:29 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
Here ya go - I believe God exists
Well, you've show yourself to be a blithering ignoramus
over the years, so it's no surprise you "believe" is such
a pathetic perversion.
Well, what do you have to cause you to believe that God doesn't exist?.
Everything that I can see, from the size of the universe to the size of the
earth to the condition of the earth and its inhabitants. You can start with
these Puke.
Now that's pathetic.
That's what I thought so I became an atheist.
Don't have to disprove what doesn't exist moron.
And we don't have to prove to you he does. It's your funeral.
His funeral :-)??? This wouldn't be the old "Christian threat", would it?
For those of you without the reasoning power of a billy goat, this was a
ruse to being the sheep in to be fleeced.
The onus is on you to show ANY scientific
shred of evidence to the existence of your pathetic,
Nope.
We know you can't Puke but hew just wanted to mention it.
and there ARE respected scientists who
believe the same.
Nope, not a single one.
You're just making stupid statements now.
Of course he is and you're buying it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 06:06:52 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:h8chs092r932ud8drs6mjet6l2qg70k8su@4ax.com:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:29 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Here ya go - I believe God exists
Well, you've show yourself to be a blithering ignoramus
over the years, so it's no surprise you "believe" is such
a pathetic perversion.
Well, what do you have to cause you to believe that God doesn't
exist?.
The evidence of my eyes and ears, the evidence of every man, woman and
child since writing was invented. That no compelling, irrefutable proof
of an all-powerful god has ever been presented is enough for me. Yes,
even you, Dook, are a small piece of my evidence against god. You would
present anything you had, if you had anything. Yet your god utterly
fails to demonstrate himself in an unambiguous manner, he fails to give
you a way to show us unbelievers that he exists.
Now that's pathetic.
Ain't it the truth.
Don't have to disprove what doesn't exist moron.
And we don't have to prove to you he does. It's your funeral.
Yes, it is. Why don't you let us live until we die, unmolested by your
unwanted, unwelcome bleating.
The onus is on you to show ANY scientific
shred of evidence to the existence of your pathetic,
Nope.
Yep, if you expect to convince the unconvinced.
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. O. Damocles" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:30:29 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Here ya go - I believe God exists
Well, you've show yourself to be a blithering ignoramus
over the years, so it's no surprise you "believe" is such
a pathetic perversion.
Well, what do you have to cause you to believe that God doesn't
exist?.
That not one single person, of any of the 6+ Billion on
the planet today, or any of the Billions who have lived before,
has ever posed a SINGLE shred of scientific evidence to
support the existance of a/any "gaaawd(s)" ...
Now that's pathetic.
Yes, the Holey Babble thumpers' perverted beliefs are ...
quite pathetic.
Don't have to disprove what doesn't exist moron.
And we don't have to prove to you he does. It's your funeral.
Bwahahahhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The onus is on you to show ANY scientific
shred of evidence to the existence of your pathetic,
Nope.
Yep.
and there ARE respected scientists who
believe the same.
Nope, not a single one.
You're just making stupid statements now.
So you'll easily be able to disprove them, eh?
We're waiting...
"Imagine the people who believe such things
and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally,
all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written.
And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated,
the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us,
who would make themselves the guides and leaders of
us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs
on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and
homes. I personally resent it bitterly..."
-- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 05:21:36 PM |
|
|
S. O. Damocles wrote:
2 Kings, 18:27:
Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may
eat their own dung, and drink their own ***** with you?
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/kings.htm
The Books of Kings give a detailed account of Solomon's wisdom and
wealth and the building of the Temple at Jerusalem. They also narrate
the decline that began during his reign and culminated in the exile.
These books conclude the Deuteronomistic History, the name given to the
books from Deuteronomy to Kings, all of which appear to have been
compiled on the same principle. The hand of the Deuteronomistic editor
or editors is evident in the stereotyped evaluation of each king by the
often anachronistic standards of the Deuteronomic law; the editor(s)
also composed the greater part of Solomon's Temple dedication prayer, as
well as the long explanation for the fall of Israel.
http://www.biblecentre.org/commentaries/commentaries_lmg_12_2_kings.htm#2%20KINGS%2018
The three servants of Hezekiah asked the Rabshakeh to speak in the
Aramean language, rather than expose the common people to his words in
Hebrew (v.26). They should have realised their request would be futile,
and indeed it only encouraged the Rabshakeh to speak more loudly to all
the people on the wall, urging them to hear the words of the great king
of Assyria (v 28). If he could not persuade the leaders of the people,
he would do his utmost to weaken the people themselves. Did he think he
would persuade them not to trust in the Lord?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and the myth of "god" |
21 Dec 2004 05:19:41 PM |
|
|
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol22/htm/viii.v.htm
Now, therefore, we see that the Jews are at length drawn to judgment,
because they had not been so touched with the slaughter of their
brethren as to repent, but, in the meantime, the wrath of God was
conspicuous against the ten tribes, because among the Gentiles those
miserable exiles were compelled to eat their bread polluted. We know
that cakes are made of the finest flour, for the purer the flour the
more delicate is the bread, but the Prophet is ordered to make cakes of
barley, and then to cook them in dung, for that uncleanness was
forbidden by the law. (Leviticus 5:3; Leviticus 7:21.) Therefore God
signifies, that the Israelites were so rejected that they differed in
nothing from polluted nations; for the Lord had separated them as we
know from the rest of the world: but from the time of their mingling
themselves with the filth of the impious, at length, after long
forbearance, they were altogether rejected as it is here said. For under
this figure a universal pollution is signified, as if he had said,
nothing is any longer holy or sacred in Israel, because they are mixed
up with the pollutions of all nations: finally, the impure bread
embraces within itself all kinds of impiety. Now when he says among the
Gentiles, it means, that they would be such inhabitants of the lands
among which they were driven, that they should be not only exiles but
banished from the land of Canaan, which was their inheritance. In fine,
a disinheriting is here marked, when the Jews are said to be driven
about hither and thither, so as not to, dwell in the promised land. It
follows --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
