Letter: Of unsearching scientists

Publication YearIssue Date 

Editor, the Gauntlet,

Recently, the prominent scientist Stephen Hawking warned humanity that, "We're acting with reckless indifference to our future on planet earth. It will be difficult to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million." Some time earlier he said that the "Doomsday Clock advanced to five minutes to midnight." David Suzuki echoes the same words: "We're sleepwalking into the future."

Why is humanity hell-bent on destroying the world? Hawking admonishes us that "If we are the only intelligent beings in the galaxy, we should make sure to survive and continue." Otherwise who will be left to discover what gravity is and if the Eleven Dimensional String Theory is true? He admits he doesn't know how life on Earth first appeared. Yet Hawking states, that "the universe has no creator," but then again he says "the universe created itself spontaneously out of nothing." Wow!

Is the belief in a God any less fantastic? Not the mean and jealous creature in "sacred" literature, who was invented by our unaware and superstitious ancestors, who didn't know any better, but a Creative Intelligence way beyond human comprehension, which we can appreciate, but may never understand in our "material" life on Earth.

Is it too much of a conjecture to presume that the Big Bang was designed, just like any seed, with the Anthropic Principle and the process of Crea-volution, to produce, in time, exactly what exists today?

I've never heard any scientist ask or explain this fantastic phenomenon: where is the battery or dynamo or the source, that makes the electron orbit the nucleus with some hundred-million-billion circuits every second and makes matter real to us Time-Space-Creatures, without which nothing would exist?

Max Plank, Nobel-Prize-winning father of the Quantum Theory said this: "There is no matter as such. All matter exists by virtue of force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

I'm astonished that a brilliant man like Hawking, who wrestled with complex scientific-mathematical problems all his life, can say, "the universe has no creator."

The same kind of thinking is promoted by Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion [which] may have disputed some credulous beliefs, but has thrown out "the baby with the bathwater."

Regardless of what anybody believes, here is the challenge we face: when will we humans use our evolutionary or designed intelligence to create a compassionate society in which there is no room for war, poverty and a host of related miseries? One human being killed, for whatever reason, or starved to death, is one too many. Instead of getting upset over a puck or ball from thousands of miles away, we should learn to care for each other, and the planet, the sustainer of life, the big ball we're living on.





Most scientists don't try to explain things we don't know the answer to. That is why most avoid the idea of a god. The big bang "creating itself from nothing" which is an oversimplification of the idea anyway, still seems more plausible than a being as complex and powerful as god simply always having existed. But what is important is that scientists have theories about the beggining of the universe, which they will use until new information comes out to support or disprove these theories. They do not consider themselves to be correct no matter what, like many people who believe in god, or intelligent design.

A lack of comprehension does not mean some sort of Divine power.

Just because what preceded the Big Bang has not yet been satisfactorily explained, does not mean we will never be able to explain what has happened in the Universe's pre-birth.

Take the weather for instance - one of my favourite examples to use in these discussions: It used to be that our ancestors believed they were the work of some supernatural force, intelligently controlling when to douse us with precipitation, or when to let the sun shine down upon the land. And why not? Aside from trade winds and the predictability of seasons, there seemed to be very little accuracy in predicting where, when, and to what extent the forces of weather will do in any given day.

We now know of course that the weather requires no divine intervention to do what it does. Instead, its chaotic nature is a result of many factors present in our atmosphere, oceans, the lay of the land, and of course, solar and stellar influence.

If anything, now that we have filled in many blanks with advanced observational equipment and data from decades of collection, we now have a somewhat predictable picture of the weather.

Yes there still are many blanks to be filled in, but we now know better than to ascribe it to some divine force.

Now, I wasn't telling you what I believe in, nor was I trying to tell you your beliefs are wrong.

All I was trying to do is challenge the line of reasoning you have presented here.