Posts Tagged ‘Hawking’
Periodically on this blog I make note of theoretical physics and its implications for theism (better, it’s support for theism). In that light, I want to draw your attention to two recent posts responding to a recent case made for how current views of cosmology purportedly rule out a need for a creator-God. The most recent example was that of Stephen Hawking, critiques of which (by physicists and mathematicians) I’ve posted here before. Today, though, I want to highlight some responses to a 2006 piece that is apparently getting new attention on the web.
The 2006 essay was by Keith Parsons, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston-Clear-Lake. Parsons outlined his reasons for rejecting the case for a Divine Creator in an essay entitled, No Creator Need Apply: A Reply to Roy Abraham Varghese. The essay was rebutted recently by Paul Herrick in his piece, Job Opening: Creator of the Universe – A Reply to Keith Parsons (2009). Even more recently, two posts over at Uncommon Descent caught my interest. You can read them here and here.
This discussion over cosmology and theism illustrates why arguments for and against ET life are *not* the same as arguments for and against God. Apples and oranges. That’s something I’ll come back to.
Okay, I know this is kind of easy if one cares about logic. But I read this today and thought it was a good piece.
A segment of the debunking appears below. It’s an interview about Hawking’s denial of an actual beginning of the universe by Alister McGrath and Roger Penrose. For those not familiar with either, McGrath has earned doctorates in both molecular biophysics and theology. Penrose is a mathematical physicist and former Oxford faculty colleague of Hawking’s. McGrath is a Christian; Penrose subscribes to no religious view. The full program interview is available here.
Because the wish of ET life out there moved to religious trajectory a long time ago.
Pardon me for being a curmudgeon, but all this well-circulated story amounts to is a very bright physicist warning us about beings that, with respect to hard scientific evidence, don’t exist. Why not caution us against contact with leprechauns, Stephen? Must be time for more SETI funding.
Oh, yes, he cites the “numbers” in his favor. Ah, yes, it’s about the math. By “numbers,” I hope he’s come up with something other than the blessed Drake equation, which is nothing more than imagination and wishful thinking. I’ll file this in my “things many people will take as evidence for alien life that is no such thing” folder.