Hawking Ideal for Anti-God, Market-Dominated Academic Order

0
407

Dr. Javed Jamil | Caravan Daily

THE death of perhaps no other scientist in recent [past has attracted the world attention as that of Stephen Hawking. He was truly the most known theoretical physicists not only of the present times but one of the biggest theoretical physicists of all times perhaps only after Newton and Einstein. He carried Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity and tried to develop a Theory oif Everything. In the 1960s and 1970s, he worked on ground-breaking theorems regarding singularities within the framework of general relativity, and made the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation (known today as Hawking radiation). He became particularly known in the area of black holes and singularities.

Hawking’s views on the existence of God have been the subject of much debate, especially since his 1988 “A Brief History of Time”. He went on to theorise that the universe could be created without any intervention of God.He went ahead of Einstein denying God any role in the creation of the universe. Einstein believed in the initial Switch On by God, which started Big Bang. Hawking tried to prove that even that was not required. This was in line with the policy of the dominant ideologies of the last two centuries, which were primarily anti-God and anti-religion because the concept of God and religious morality were huge obstacles in their designs of political and economic hegemony. Though I value him as the most known physicist of the current times and for his achievement despite his Motor Neuron Disease, I have critically analysed his concept in my book, “Rediscovering the Universe” as well as in several papers.

The two leading economic theories of the recent times, Capitalism and Socialism and their variants have all been primarily anti-God and anti-religion, though in varying degrees, and their virtual control over all the international institutions including scientific philosophy has led to the predetermined positioning of a “scientific” philosophy regarding God and Creation, which has in fact absolutely nothing scientific about it.  As Hawking suited their plans, he became a hero for them.

Heisenberg confirms the predetermined position  when he says:

“The mechanics of Newton and all the other parts of the classical physics constructed after its model started from the assumption that one can describe the world without speaking about God or ourselves. This possibility soon seemed almost a necessary condition for natural sciences to grow.”

I would like to reproduce here a few paragraphs from the opening chapter of my forthcoming book, “How Unscientific the “Scientific” Philosophy of God”:

“Why should natural sciences start on “the assumption that one can describe the world without speaking about God” if there was no urgency to disprove God? Speaking about “ourselves” might have rightly been an impediment because it would make things more subjective rather than objective.

Moreover, “we” made an appearance only recently in the long long long history of the universe. But why deny God? Had God’s existence been accepted, what harm could it have done to sciences? Still, sciences could have tried to understand “God’s mind” and His creation and the laws that governed the universe. The only plausible reason behind this position may be that this would have weakened the position of the economic fundamentalists against religion, which (with the exception of only a few religions like Buddhism and Jainism that appear to be agnostic if not atheistic) had belief in God as the foundation on which it rested. Religion posed huge risks to the advance of the economic designs of the forces of economic fundamentalism.

Religion promoted morality, abstinence from certain practices like alcohol, gambling, extramarital sex, homosexuality and simplicity in life. All these positions were seen as the foes of “development”, and religion therefore was not acceptable. Faith in God and His punishment to the evildoers would greatly reduce the speed of the “growth”.

“It is said that Sciences do not accept anything unless it is experimentally proved. This in itself is an unscientific principle because the existence of anything, material, law or anything else, is not dependent on its proof by experiments. Experiments continue to grow in quality and quantity and what was beyond the experimental reasoning three centuries ago is within its reach now. This process will go on. If a few centuries back, we had no idea of supernova, quasars or planets outside Solar system, it did not prove that they do not exist. If even today there are no experimental proofs of a highly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, it does not prove that they are not there. The truth is that we are still in a very early stage of exploring, and depending on experiments alone is highly irrational. Even greater is the truth that we are limited by certain other factors which do not allow us to see the present status of the phenomena and objects particularly in the distant world. Experimentally, there is no way we can prove what was exactly there in the

“The two most sought out and most debated theories – Creation of the Universe and Organic Evolution are nothing but a predetermined, motivated and preposterous attempt to prove that the universe and the life evolved on their own. This is another matter that this was clearly the violation of the Cause and Effect the humans understand from very early times and is a universally accepted law of Physics today. But as the forces ruling the world would not like to see the Creation and Evolution guided by some God or Supernatural Being, they immediately jumped to popularise these theories as the biggest revolutions in the field of Sciences. Darwin and Einstein became gods of science as their theories (even if they were not atheists themselves) created a room for a self-evolved universe.

“In spite of the general antipathy in the scientific community towards religion and God, sciences could never get free of God altogether. Top scientists couldn’t keep away from talking of God. Einstein and Bohr had constant debates about the role of God in the formation and functioning of the universe. In response to the idea of uncertainty that Quantum Mechanics advanced, Einstein, in the now famous duel with Bohr, remarked, God does not play dice”. To this Bohr retorted, Don’t try to tell God what to do!” The creation of the universe automatically warranted such discussion. Still, every attempt was made to prove that there was no need of God in the creation of the universe and evolution of living beings.

“Scientists have always wondered at the beauty of the universe, especially how it has led to the creation or evolution of intelligent beings like us. There is a certain beauty in the underlying plan. John Polkinghorne says:

“…the universe, in its rationale, beauty and transparency, looks like a world shot through with signs of mind, and maybe, it’s the “capital M” Mind of God we are seeing……..there is some deep-seated relationship between the reason within (the rationality of our minds – in this case mathematics) and the reason without (the rational order and structure of the physical world around us). The two fit together like a glove.”….

Hawking says, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”  (A Brief History of Time, p 138) Isn’t this strikingly intriguing in itself that on the one hand Hawking talks of “striking coincidences” and on the other of “the remarkable fact…. that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”? Hawking further says, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million millions, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

“The truth is that the “striking coincidences” and “fine adjustments” cannot go together and are opposite to one another. This is like saying that some people, not knowing one another, randomly threw thousands of stones and all of them fell in a way that a fine straight road got formed.  And mind it, the living being is a much more developed and complicated structure than a road.

Hawking describes the extraordinary combination of coincidences as follows:

“… For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been very slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn Hydrogen and Helium or else would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of star like the Sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flying back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively less ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choices of the laws of science or as support of the strong Anthropic principle.”

“But even the arguments of strong and weak Anthropic principle have been dismissed by those who do not want to see any Designer behind all this design. They try to explain this on the basis of random selections. For example, the same website (“St John in Wilderness: Physics and Faith”) counters this on the basis of Execution Parable. L:

“A perspective on the explanations of “many universes” or “many domains” (Weak Anthropic Principle) versus a Designer (Strong Anthropic Principle) is offered by the Execution Parable of philosopher John Leslie….. You are blindfolded and about to be executed by ten expert marksmen aiming at your chest. The officer gives the order to fire the shots ring out, and you find you are still alive, unscathed! What is the rational explanation for your survival? Leslie suggests there are only two rational explanations: there were an enormous number of executions that day. Occasionally even the most expert marksman will miss, and you happened to be in the one execution where all the marksmen missed, (and second that) your survival was intended and the marksmen missed by design.”….

“Again, this is difficult to understand why there is insistence on finding a solution without God when a solution with God deals problems much more easily. For example, scientists try to argue that as a result of coincidences and accidents, random selections can occur repeatedly in a way that it can lead to evolution of a better and more intelligent life. But they are not ready to accept that more than the probability of finding innumerable number of such coincidences in a way that they lead to what is desirable, the more probable is the presence of a Being who is designing this.This is like assuming numerous coincidences that led to the making of car rather than accepting that it has been designed and manufactured by a company.

“It is also entirely incomprehensible why Occam’s Razor is also disregarded while discussing the role of God. According to the well known scientific principle, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”. This means the number of entities required for explaining anything must be kept at minimum. If there are many ways to explain something, the easiest and straightest one should be preferred. If there are many roads to reach a specific point, the straightest one should be used. This principle was described by a mediaeval philosopher, Occam of Razor, and is still regarded a strong principle in all sciences. Why then is this principle forgotten when we find that the easiest way to describe the creation and evolution of the universe and intelligent life within it is to accept the presence of an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Wise God.

“If the current theories of the creation of the universe are believed, this is what happened: Immediately after Big Bang, some laws of nature all of a sudden came into force without the presence of any legal expert knowing in advance their subtleness and the implications of their enforcement and without any executive capable of implementing them. These laws initiated the creation of a physical world without any Physicist knowing what was happening and to monitor the progress. There was a very complicated and precise mathematics involved with no mathematician around. Then the chemistry started evolving from Physics with many kinds of molecules forming without any expert of Chemistry.

“Then after millions and millions of years, Biology started coming into existence as the result of chemical reactions, without any Biologist (Zoologist or Botanist) overseeing the complex system of animal and plant kingdom, their mutual dependence and their dependence on their surroundings. There was huge genetics involved with no one there to even know what Genetics was all about. After around 15 billion years, the first one who would have the intelligence to understand and describe what was going around made his first appearance. Before him, there was nothing in the universe that had any elements capable of thinking, analyzing, planning and enforcing.

“Man, the First Intelligent Being within the Universe, could do nothing but to learn how to survive for next millions of years till about ten thousand years back when he started developing philosophical and sociological principles. And within last 200 years, that intelligent being developed some instruments which could see the universe in significant details. That intelligent being is still crippled in many ways. There are some handicaps, which can become lesser and lesser cumbersome with time to come.

“There are others, which are more permanent. That intelligent being is totally dependent on the provisions of the universe to understand it and cannot create any one of its own. He has to depend on light, which runs with a tiny speed of 300000 kms per second, a speed with which he cannot even see the Sun till at least 8 minutes have passed. He cannot see any present, whatever he sees is past, even if it is a tiny fraction of a second past. It can see only the near past of the nearby objects and distant past of distant objects. Now, this intelligent being, which got intelligence to try to understand the subtleties of a hugely complex universe, claims of becoming legal expert, physicist, biologist and sociologist who can tell everything about what happened and what is happening in the universe. Poor little chap!

“What is more intriguing is the fact that if the Einstein’s Light-speed barrier is accepted, it means that the whole creation and the evolution of the universe leading to the evolution of intelligent beings in one or few places of the universe occurred without any effective, fast enough communication between the distant components of the universe, as no communication can be faster than light, and light-speed can be called nothing more than a crawl in the background of the vastness of the universe. This will be discussed in detail later.

“In conclusion, we are part of a universe, which requires huge intelligence (of intelligent beings) and highly advanced tools to be understood but required no intelligence (or Being) and tool to be created. What a wonderful conclusion!”

The world is justified in paying tributes to the great physicist. But it should not forget that the theories of most great scientists face the probability of extinction in the coming future.

________________________________________________________________

Author’s papers on the subject can be read at:

  1. Nature and Science, 4(2), 2006, Singh, Philosophical implications of Universal Theory of Relativity http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0402/05-0141-jamiljaved.pdf
  2. Functional implications of Universal Theory of relativity: www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/0202/19-0157-jamil.doc
  3. http://www.sciencepub.net/academia/aa0210/11_3754aa0210_72_79.pdf
  4. https://kendoggett.weebly.com/blog/rediscovering-the-universe-by-dr-javed-jamil-book-review
  5. https://www.academia.edu/35158735/How_Unscientific_the_Scientific_Philosophy_of_God_

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here