Covering the bulk of Hawking's book, The Grand Design.
Reality vs. Fantasy
Hawking delves into philosophy again, but without warning. In chapter 3, Hawking propounds that there is no objective reality. All reality, he claims, is dependent upon the model through which you filter the Universe. And, in chapter 1, Hawking tells us that we are free to choose whichever model is most convenient. But, the question remains, how do we determine what is convenient? (The answer is of course, subjective.)
So, where does this philosophical muddle leave us? If there is no objective reality to compare a theory against, then there is no objective way to determine the validity of a theory. Theories can then only be evaluated subjectively. But, does this line up with what the Bible teaches? (Remember, we are dealing with philosophy here, not science.) Firstly, the Bible teaches that God's view is predominant. He created all that is, and He is the ultimate authority. He determines what reality is; He can cause or prevent whatever He desires. Second, we are responsible for our actions and sins. The judgment that we will face will not be subjective, but will be based objectively upon God's decrees.
Already, we have a huge discrepancy between the philosophy that Hawking is propounding and the teaching of the Bible. And we haven't even gotten to the science yet!
Further, the denial of objective reality seems to shake the very philosophical foundations of science. Science, as we know it, came into being based upon the belief that the Universe is rational. The proponents for this emerging science came the Western world, with its underlying beliefs in the God of Creation. It was assumed that the order established by God was consistent and explorable. Ironically, many of these early scientists also believed in the supernatural and miracles. They believed in an objective reality, established by God. It was this objective reality against which their theories were to be tested.
The model dependent reality propounded by Hawking stands in opposition to the roots of science. If there is no objective reality, there is no basis for rational thought; but rational thought is the basis for scientific theories. We have a new philosophy that Hawking and many other scientists are espousing that undermines the basis for rational thought.
Should we believe a philosophy, supposedly based on rational thought, that ultimately denies the existence of rational thought? Such a philosophy is nonsense. Yet, this is what is being proposed as the necessary undergirding for science. Ultimately, this is where all naturalistic/materialistic philosophies and theories must lead, a destruction of their very basis.
For thought to be rational, it must be based in more than materialistic/naturalistic determinism. If physical interactions are all that exist, then thought itself is based upon the random movement of particles. Thus, thought itself becomes irrational. But the theories proposing this are supposedly rational. What a contradiction! Many holding to these theories accuse Christians of being irrational for believing in the supernatural, the very thing that allows for rational thought!
Why, you may ask, would scientists choose to propose such a dangerous philosophy? In part, as mentioned before, it is because of a denial of the existence of God. True, not all of these scientists are atheists or agnostics, but they do science as if they were. Second, Quantum Mechanics treats the world probabilistically. At the subatomic level, the very act of observation changes results and the results of an event cannot be predicted beforehand. Only probabilities for the various outcomes can be given. At this level, the world appears irrational and subjective. If this theory truly reflects reality, then it must hold at all distance scales, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond. This would make the Universe itself irrational, at its base.
While Quantum Mechanics is a useful too, it does not mean that it is the ultimate reality. Newtonian physics was once thought to reflect ultimate reality, but in the beginning of the 20th century, this was found to not be true. Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed to answer questions that could not be answered by Newton's theories. Given this, it should sound a warning that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible. Despite M theory, which Hawking mentions as early as Chapter 1 in the book, this incompatibility still remains to be resolved. In point of fact, it was in an attempt to resolve this conflict that the superstring theories at the root of M theory were developed. It has still not borne the promised fruit. In fact, there is not one theory, but rather 10^500 theories. (That is, 1 with 500 zeroes behind it, an incredibly huge number.) Instead of resolving the problem, the water has been muddied beyond measure.
Why do they search so hard for a theory to explain everything? In part, it is still an attempt to do away with the need for God. In this muddle, with so many theories to choose from, they try to bring hope by proclaiming that all of the theories are valid. Supposedly, each corresponds to its own Universe! But now, instead of answering how our Universe came into being, they have again propounded the problem, in a way that cannot even be explored by science. How would one go about verifying that this multitude of additional universes even exists? By definition, they should be unreachable.
Many scientists want to redefine what science is and how it is done. But if we remove the requirement of testability, then we are going back to the quasi-science of the ancient Greeks. This would not be progress, but regress.
What Hawking and so many scientists today are suggesting is not a flight to reality, but a flight into fantasy. Many disdainfully reject the teachings of Christianity, only to propose a reality that requires even more faith. For every hurdle that they overcome, a multitude more arise. Why? Because they have rejected objective reality and the ultimate Truth. In the "reality" they propose, Absolute Truth does not exist. All becomes subjective and ultimately irrational.
Now, I am not saying that science has become useless. There is still a vast abundance of good science being done. What I am saying is that the very foundations of science are being destroyed, leaving the entire edifice in danger of toppling over.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete