An unnecessary being?

Have a look at this brief interview of Leonard Mlodinow – the co-author with Stephen Hawking of the just published book The Grand Design

The extreme media reaction to this book was based on the simple sentence:  “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” Apparently some theologians were so bent out of shape by the “audacity” of the claim they just had to attack a number of straw men, and assist the book up the best seller list in the process*. You would think they would be used to this by now. As far back as 1878 George Romanes, a biologist and lapsed catholic, wrote  “There can no longer be any doubt that the existence of God is wholly unnecessary to explain any of the phenomena of the universe.”

In this interview Mlodinow expands a little on the extract and helps bring some sense into the discussion.

YouTube – Leonard Mlodinow: God Is Unnecessary.

* One of the worst comments I read was by Mike Bara (see Hawking’s Latest Absurdity Spells the Death Knell for Scientific Materialism). He called Hawking “arrogant and ignorant”, a “self-appointed academic elite”, “deluded”, “a broken, ill and crippled man”, “narcissist” and a victim of “the Darwinian delusion”. He added, for good measure, that “science is an empty path bereft of meaning” and “the scientific materialists day is over, and Hawking, their champion, deserves not our wrath, but our pity.”

Move over Dawkins – we have another demon to stick pins in.

Enhanced by Zemanta

5 responses to “An unnecessary being?

  1. Charles Stevens

    The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don’t know up from down (and these are the vast majority), “god” is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel .
    (See discussion on “Is it possible that black holes do not exist? ” on Physics Forums
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=421491 for relevant citations.)
    In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus. See Percy Byssh Shelley’s Mask of Anarchy for a pertinent depiction of the Duke of Clarence, the face behind Castlereagh. A simple google search for “(“magnetic union” OR “Magnetischer Verein”) AND (“Göttingen Seven” OR “Göttinger Sieben”) gauss weber” shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice.
    We must assume therefore that the concurrent and congruent Augustin-Louis Cauchy scientific method of theft, assassination, plagiarize at leisure remains hegemonic. Chuck Stevens 571-252-0451 stevens_c@yahoo.com

    Like

  2. Wow.
    Talk about a target-rich environment.
    (All it needs is allcaps.)
    🙂

    Like

  3. @Charles- this ISN’T a documentary….

    Like

  4. Is it just me or does Charles’ comment have almost nothing to do with the blog post besides the trivial mention of Hawking at the start….

    On a note relevant to the post, I am really interested in reading Hawking’s new book, even if just to see what all the fuss is about. Religious people tried to crucify Dawkins when he wrote The God Delusion, and for the most part used ad-hominem attacks instead of addressing the arguments contained within the book. I read reviews of TGD before I read the book, and I distinctly remember many religious critics calling him things like: unsophisticated, ignorant, crude, uneducated, out of his depth and so on. Not a single review pointed to a specific example where any of these labels could be applied, nor did they attempt to address anything of note.

    I imagine it will be much the same with Hawking’s book, most, if not all of it will be eloquent, and well-reasoned, yet the butthurt theists are trying to crucify the man.

    Like

  5. Not a single review pointed to a specific example where any of these labels could be applied, nor did they attempt to address anything of note.
    Educate yourself man! There was a slew of articles and books in response to Dawkins’ delusional diatribe.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s