You Go Stephen!
Hoo boy .... has Stephen Hawking ever annoyed the faithful. Seems the sheeple are OK with science when it gives them cooler technology, better health and longer lives, but they get really hacked off when the same scientific principles and methodology are applied to their favorite magic man in the sky.
Turns out that in Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, he has the audacity to further apply science to all those mystical areas that religions like to claim for themselves. It will surprise no one who knows me or reads this blog that I'm thrilled that he decided to take this step. But the outrage of the British religious leaders quoted in the CNN story is just so irrational, that I can't help but comment on them. It's not only fun, it's also rather therapeutic for me .... so here we go.
First up we have the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose cassock is obviously chafing him something fierce. He says:
"Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."
Of course, he offers no evidence to support his claim that an intelligent, living agent exists, nor does he betray even a fleeting acquaintance with the scientific evidence to the contrary -- but hey, he's an archbishop. And he's got a cool purple shirt to prove it.
Next up, we have a Chief Rabbi who's trying to dodge the issue of objective truth by sidestepping Hawking's claims while still objecting to them:
"Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."
Except, of course, that the book of Genesis makes specific claims about how the universe came into being, as well as how life came to exist upon earth. These claims are powerfully contradicted by any number of sciences, including (but not limited to) physics, astronomy, biology, zoology, genetics, geology and anthropology. But let's just sweep all of that under the rug .... after all, this is "interpretation" we're talking about. Facts just get in the way.
Just to prove that they're being politically correct, we can't have a discussion of such issues in Britain today without including the opinion of the Imam and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, who is unwilling to be outdone in the broad statement, zero evidence department:
"If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror."
For anyone who missed it, this is the old "blind watchmaker" argument from Richard Paley's Natural Theology (written in 1809). Of course, Hawking has lots of evidence on his side to support his contention that as long as there's gravity, everything can create itself out of nothing, but evidence isn't important to the Imam either. (Note to the "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd: if your magic man in the sky is an "almighty conqueror", this indicates that he resorts to force and coercion to get his way. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me).
But my favorite comment comes last, from a guy who is described as "an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science":
"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."
Hang on a minute here: "reasonable" and "credible". HOW??? Reasonableness is determined (at least in most pursuits) by evidence, rationality, and logic. A group of people just deciding that something is "reasonable" doesn't make it so. Lots of folks used to think that bloodletting was a "reasonable" medical treatment. Their agreement didn't make it any less dangerous and deadly than it was. And then there's "credible". The creator "god" myth is only credible (i.e. believable) if you ignore -- either deliberately or conveniently -- the fact that absolutely no objective evidence exists to confirm any of the 5000-plus deities humanity has dreamed up during its existence. Plus, we have 150-plus years of scientific evidence that the universe itself, along with life, evolved without some outside force directing it. Reasonable and credible my ass!
Of course, this is to be expected. It's no different than when you tell a small child that their invisible friend isn't real, or that Santa Claus isn't real. Denial isn't an unexpected response. The same goes for schizophrenics who really see the people and hear the voices in their heads. The nature of belief is well documented, and the human capacity for self-delusion is almost limitless.
But the real kicker here is that religious leaders are taken seriously. I'm not saying they should be censored or repressed or anything like that, but they're never even put on the spot and asked to back up their claims with anything other than the power of their belief. Despite the fact that they have no substantive, evidence-based arguments and they keep repeating the same old, thoroughly debunked logical fallacies and illogical beliefs, they get this giant pass from the majority of people and most of the media. If a car manufacturer advertised that their new vehicle could go from 0-1000 in the blink of an eye and get 150 miles per gallon while doing it, they'd be nailed for false and misleading advertising. But get somebody on TV, affiliate them with some religious belief that's popular, and they can claim anything without any fear of even having to justify their claims. Plus, when some whackjob takes them seriously and injures or kills people in the name of some "god", we get the old "our religion isn't at fault, this person just misunderstood our claims" argument.
To have carte blanche to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, practice deceptive advertising, bear no responsibility for the damage you do (directly or indirectly) and claim that you should be respected and/or venerated is absurd. The only thing that's more absurd is how many people are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement.
Take it away George .....
Turns out that in Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, he has the audacity to further apply science to all those mystical areas that religions like to claim for themselves. It will surprise no one who knows me or reads this blog that I'm thrilled that he decided to take this step. But the outrage of the British religious leaders quoted in the CNN story is just so irrational, that I can't help but comment on them. It's not only fun, it's also rather therapeutic for me .... so here we go.
First up we have the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose cassock is obviously chafing him something fierce. He says:
"Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."
Of course, he offers no evidence to support his claim that an intelligent, living agent exists, nor does he betray even a fleeting acquaintance with the scientific evidence to the contrary -- but hey, he's an archbishop. And he's got a cool purple shirt to prove it.
Next up, we have a Chief Rabbi who's trying to dodge the issue of objective truth by sidestepping Hawking's claims while still objecting to them:
"Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."
Except, of course, that the book of Genesis makes specific claims about how the universe came into being, as well as how life came to exist upon earth. These claims are powerfully contradicted by any number of sciences, including (but not limited to) physics, astronomy, biology, zoology, genetics, geology and anthropology. But let's just sweep all of that under the rug .... after all, this is "interpretation" we're talking about. Facts just get in the way.
Just to prove that they're being politically correct, we can't have a discussion of such issues in Britain today without including the opinion of the Imam and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, who is unwilling to be outdone in the broad statement, zero evidence department:
"If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror."
For anyone who missed it, this is the old "blind watchmaker" argument from Richard Paley's Natural Theology (written in 1809). Of course, Hawking has lots of evidence on his side to support his contention that as long as there's gravity, everything can create itself out of nothing, but evidence isn't important to the Imam either. (Note to the "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd: if your magic man in the sky is an "almighty conqueror", this indicates that he resorts to force and coercion to get his way. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me).
But my favorite comment comes last, from a guy who is described as "an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science":
"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."
Hang on a minute here: "reasonable" and "credible". HOW??? Reasonableness is determined (at least in most pursuits) by evidence, rationality, and logic. A group of people just deciding that something is "reasonable" doesn't make it so. Lots of folks used to think that bloodletting was a "reasonable" medical treatment. Their agreement didn't make it any less dangerous and deadly than it was. And then there's "credible". The creator "god" myth is only credible (i.e. believable) if you ignore -- either deliberately or conveniently -- the fact that absolutely no objective evidence exists to confirm any of the 5000-plus deities humanity has dreamed up during its existence. Plus, we have 150-plus years of scientific evidence that the universe itself, along with life, evolved without some outside force directing it. Reasonable and credible my ass!
Of course, this is to be expected. It's no different than when you tell a small child that their invisible friend isn't real, or that Santa Claus isn't real. Denial isn't an unexpected response. The same goes for schizophrenics who really see the people and hear the voices in their heads. The nature of belief is well documented, and the human capacity for self-delusion is almost limitless.
But the real kicker here is that religious leaders are taken seriously. I'm not saying they should be censored or repressed or anything like that, but they're never even put on the spot and asked to back up their claims with anything other than the power of their belief. Despite the fact that they have no substantive, evidence-based arguments and they keep repeating the same old, thoroughly debunked logical fallacies and illogical beliefs, they get this giant pass from the majority of people and most of the media. If a car manufacturer advertised that their new vehicle could go from 0-1000 in the blink of an eye and get 150 miles per gallon while doing it, they'd be nailed for false and misleading advertising. But get somebody on TV, affiliate them with some religious belief that's popular, and they can claim anything without any fear of even having to justify their claims. Plus, when some whackjob takes them seriously and injures or kills people in the name of some "god", we get the old "our religion isn't at fault, this person just misunderstood our claims" argument.
To have carte blanche to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, practice deceptive advertising, bear no responsibility for the damage you do (directly or indirectly) and claim that you should be respected and/or venerated is absurd. The only thing that's more absurd is how many people are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement.
Take it away George .....
posted by DrJDG @ 23:07
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home