Anglican Samizdat

John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, has written an excellent article explaining why Stephen Hawking has it wrong: you can’t explain the universe without God. The comments by atheists at the end of the article are also interesting in that they reveal the extraordinary shallowness of the average atheist’s thought process.

Here is the article in full:

As a scientist I’m certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can’t explain the universe without God.

There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle’s view of the ‘eternal universe’ without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

When I was young and didn’t want to eat, my grandmother used chide me with the reproach that “children in India are starving”. Being a smartass even then, I suggested she send my parsnips to them. I remain unconvinced that stuffing myself with food I don’t want will be the solution to the problem of world hunger.

Like my grandmother, Anglicans in the Diocese of Toronto – led by the doughty Bishop Colin Johnson – probably mean well, even if their endeavours suffer from the same ignorance of cause and effect as my grandmother’s. They have come up with what appears to be the obverse of my grandmother’s scheme: help hungry people by making yourself hungry too. It’s a bit like throwing yourself in the water next to a drowning man, pretending to drown with him for a while and then getting out and drying yourself off while he sinks. Why simply help someone when you can embark on a noble campaign of Social Justice and Advocacy instead?

From here:

A woman flees an abusive situation and is left with nothing, not even a can opener. A disabled couple cannot work, have trouble getting around, and can barely afford to pay their bills. A boy comes to school hungry, because his father cannot afford to give him breakfast.

These are the people Ted Glover, a member of the diocese’s Social Justice and Advocacy Committee and a parishioner at St. George Memorial in Oshawa, will have in mind in October, when he lives for three days on food that would typically be handed out in a food bank hamper. They are all people he has met through his extensive volunteer work with social service organizations and his job as a teacher. The three-day diet is part of the Do the Math Challenge, a campaign that will see Anglicans, along with community leaders and other concerned citizens, calling on the government to bring about an immediate increase of $100 a month in social assistance rates, and in the longer term, revise social assistance rates based on actual local living costs….

Archbishop Colin Johnson, area bishops, and Evangelical Lutheran bishop Michael Pryse will also participate in the poverty diet.

The Moscva:

St. Basil’s Cathedral:

St. Sergio’s Monastery:

Red Square:

More here.

Stephen Hawking meanders into questions of philosophy and tries to answer them with answers from science. Brilliant though he undoubtedly is, he uses as his starting point the assumption that “God does not exist” and proceeds to tautologically demonstrate his assumption “scientifically” – a prime example of scientism.

The BBC has a good article refuting Hawking’s “necessity” argument:

The Stephen Hawking story is front page news today, with radio shows and news programmes also carrying it. But what is the story? If you trust some press coverage, Hawking claims that modern science forces the conclusion that “God did not create the Universe“. If you read other press coverage, he has concluded that “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” These are two very different claims. The first claim is as difficult to prove (some would say as impossible to defend) as the claim that God did create the Universe; I suspect Hawking is actually arguing for the latter claim. But notice that the former claim is not logically entailed by the latter.

Let’s consider the claim that God’s existence is not “necessary” to explain the existence of the Universe. Even if Hawking is right — and it is evidentially too soon to say — that M-theory can explain the “spontaneous creation” of the Universe, without any assistance from a divine being, it does not follow from that claim that God’s existence is “unnecessary”. All one could argue is that one can offer a coherent causal explanation for the Universe which does not make reference to God’s existence. But God’s existence may still be considered “necesary” for non-scientific reasons. I’m not suggesting that God’s existence is neccessary even at the level; merely that some could mount a coherent case for the necessity of God as a “personal” or “teleological” explanation regardless of the causal implications of M-theory.

Take what Hawking says about M-theory. He writes: “According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law.”

Set aside the question of why a multiple-universes-ex-nihilo explanation would be more acceptable than a single-universe-created-ex-nihilo explanation. Instead, focus on the physical law that spontaneously gave rise, according to Hawking, to multiple universes. Why those laws rather than some others? Who or what determined that our universe is “governed” by these physical laws rather than some others? This, perhaps, is a variant of the classic philosophical question: Why is there something rather than nothing in the universe? Hawking’s answer appears to be a variant of the classic agnostic response: There just is. But people of faith are quite within their epistemic rights in regarding that answer as insufficient. The physical laws which gave rise to the universe (whether a single universe or a muliplicity of universes) are themselves in need of a full and final explanation. Hawking has given no reason at this stage to rule out a religious explanation. That’s not to say that a religious explanation is the best possible explanation for the physical laws at work in the universe, but it does mean that these are still open questions. In an excerpt from his book published in The Times today, Hawking confidently dismisses the entire discipline of philosophy as “dead”. He might usefully reconsider that brash allegation.

One of the problems of multiverses and M-theory is that they are scientifically unverifiable, a fact that makes them rather useless as a scientific theory.

A second problem is that they defy the principle of Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely one to be true.

Thirdly, a theory that predicts a probable infinite number of universes in an attempt to escape the necessity of God’s creating this one, has the following flaw:

• In an infinite number of universes there are an infinite number of possibilities; therefore, at least one universe must have been created by God – a being, whose attributes cannot be exceeded by any other being.
• Since a God that created all multiverses would be greater than a God that created only one, then God must have created all.
• God created our universe.

From here:

“Politicians need to act and prevent this human tragedy,” WCC general secretary, the Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, told ENInews after a visit to Palestinian families who have been evicted by Israelis from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheik Jarrah.

On the fourth day of his six-day visit to the Holy Land, Tveit noted that meeting with the family members from about 12 families evicted from their homes in the past two years greatly affected his understanding of infringements of Palestinian rights which are taking place.

Notable by its absence is Rev. Tveit’s meeting with Jewish families whose rights have been “infringed’ by the 16000 rockets fired into Israel from Palestinian occupied territories. Perhaps that would have “greatly affected his understanding”, too, although I suspect not since, as all good WCC members know, everything from 9/11 to my next door neighbour’s ingrown toenail is Israel’s fault.

I wonder how many rockets fired into the WCC headquarters in Geneva it would take to “greatly affect” Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit’s understanding?

Meanwhile Tviet has “condemned” the murder of four Israeli civilians while surreptitiously shifting the blame on to them:

The head of the World Council of Churches, who is on a visit to the Middle East, has condemned the killings of four Israelis near Hebron in the West Bank.

“At a time when Palestinian and Israeli leaders are beginning negotiations, the extremists who encourage and legitimize violence must not be allowed to succeed,” said WCC general secretary the Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit in a Sept. 1 statement issued from the church grouping’s Geneva headquarters.

“To bring security to both Israelis and Palestinians, the negotiations must stop the occupation and all the injustices that ordinary Palestinians experience each day,” said Tveit in the statement that said he rejected any use of violence to gain peace for this region.

The four Israelis, who were reportedly settlers living on occupied land and included a pregnant woman, were killed on Aug. 31 by gunmen believed to be Palestinians. Tveit had visited Hebron as part of his Aug. 28 to Sept. 2 visit to the region.

Naturally, Hamas, who are entirely blameless, are dancing in the streets with their children to celebrate. All a bit of harmless fun as far as Tviet is concerned:

It tears at the heartstrings.
From the BBC:

Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.

“If someone is responsible, it’s me,” he said.

In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to “re-education camps”.

….

‘At the time we were being sabotaged systematically, there were armed attacks against us, we had too many problems,” said the 84-year-old Communist leader.

“Keeping one step ahead of the CIA, which was paying so many traitors, was not easy.”

I knew about the exploding cigar, but this is the first I’ve heard about the CIA paying people in Cuba to be homosexual. It must be the same in the Anglican Church: there are so many homosexual priests because of a CIA plot to bring down Anglicanism.

From here:

It’s 13 years since the start of the weirdest episode in recent British history: the mass hysteria that followed the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, on August 31, 1997.

The Princess’s death was a tragedy, as were those of her lover and driver, but it was a tragedy for her sons and other loved ones. For the assembled mass of mawkish weirdoes who cried empty tears for this stranger, her death was nothing more than an excuse for an orgy of sentimentality.

I remember at the time feeling like a complete alien in my own country, almost as if an invading army had spiked the water supply and everyone had gone bonkers overnight.

Co-incidentally, Mother Teresa died around the same time as Diana; predictably most of the tears – then as now – were shed for the spoiled brat.

Perhaps the most fitting Diana tribute is the one by a Chinese underwear company showing a Diana look-alike in a bra and knickers. An apposite blend of the tawdry and sentimental – made in China.

On August 31^st, 1955 the Church of England in Canada changed its name to Anglican Church of Canada.

50 years later it didn’t change it to the Marxist Anglican Denomination, but it should have.

Just when you thought you’d heard everything from the CofE:

The Rev Rachel Mann claims that the much-maligned form of music [heavy metal] demonstrates the “liberative theology of darkness”, allowing its tattooed and pierced fans to be more “relaxed and fun” by acknowledging the worst in human nature.

She says that by contrast, churchgoers can appear too sincere and take themselves too seriously.

The priest admits that many will be “concerned” about metal lyrics praising Satan and mocking Christianity, but insists it is just a form of “play-acting”.

Miss Mann, priest-in-charge of St Nicholas’s, Burnage, writes in this week’s Church Times: “Since Black Sabbath effectively created it in 1969 by using the dissonant sound of the medieval ‘Devil’s chord’, heavy metal has been cast as dumb, crass, and on, occasions satanic; music hardly fit for intelligent debate, led alone theological reflection.

For more information on the “Devil’s Interval” take a look here. And here it is as a diminished 5^th in a distinctly non-devilish snippet (the dissonance in the 2^nd and 4^th bars):

Sad to say, Rev Mann can’t seem to make the distinction between the silly demonization of a musical interval and integrating Satan, darkness, violence, destruction and death into one’s Christian life. I suppose it’s just the next step in inclusion:

Miss Mann says that heavy metal songs, characterized by distorted guitar sounds, “intense” beats and “muscular” vocals, are “unafraid to deal with death, violence and destruction”.

Its “predominantly male and white” fans “generally like tattoos and piercings” but are “graceful, welcoming and gentle”.

“The music’s willingness to deal with nihilistic and, on occasion, extremely unpleasant subjects seems to offer its fans a space to accept others in a way that shames many Christians.

“Metal’s refusal to repress the bleak and violent truths of human nature liberates its fans to be more relaxed and fun people”.

She goes on to claim that “metal has no fear of human darkness” and while some Christians are similarly unafraid, “many are yet to discover its potential as a place of integration”.

The Diocese of New Westminster, having thrust itself on St. Matthew’s Abbotsford, managed to attract 6 original parishioners and 24 imports. So what exactly were they worshipping? As the the diocese rather comically intimates in its headline: the Anglican Church of Canada:

Anglican Church of Canada Worship Returns to Abbotsford
Diocesan-led worship begins at St. Matthew’s

Anglican Church of Canada worship at St. Matthew’s Abbotsford began again on Sunday, August 29th at 8am. The diocesan-led service was a said eucharist from the Book of Alternative Services. Rev. David Price was the celebrant and the Ven. Stephen Rowe, Archdeacon of Fraser was also present to greet worshippers and hand-out the order of service.