Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

















































































« What does a teacher want... | Main | "The emerging elite consensus in favor of same-sex marriage has an element of self-delusion about it. ..." »

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7c369e20133f3f1d31f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New York Times pans Hawking's new book: "tinny and inelegant":

Comments

Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Maximus: The Jacksonian Institute

Hawking has grown increasingly unhinged in recent years. Who can explain it?

Ron Krumpos

In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Howard

I'm afraid I have to agree with Fernando.

It's a fairly common delusion for a Ph.D. to believe that his thesis is one of the crowning achievements of Western Civilization. (Of course, *mine* really is! :-) ) Hawking takes this a bit far, though; he seems to believe that his thesis, or at least the subject he has concentrated on, actually created the universe.

By the way, Mr. Garner should use Dr. Hawking's correct title.

Teo Matteo

OK, i'm going to really catch an appropriate amount of flak for this... but here goes. I think that Hawking's attention is sorta like Vincent Van Gogh. I've always thought that Van Gogh recieved his fame not with his paintings but cuz he cut off his ear in his madness and then did a self portrait of it and then committed suicide which is as dramatic as an artist can get. If one just judged him simply by his painting (especially his portraits of others) he'd be really average. Now, you see where i'm going with Hawking? If he was a perfectly healthy scientist and wrote these things we probably wouldn't be yakking about his metaphysics or the lack thereof...I'm SURE he is very good at science.
OK, let me have it!!!

M. Love

Lawrence Krauss (who has an upcoming book titled A Universe From Nothing) supports Hawking in today's WSJ: http://bit.ly/cAvGuh

Truly an eye-opening read. Apparently snowflakes and rainbows are somehow evidence against God, though I regret to point out that the crucial issue of whiskers on kittens remains unaddressed. Also, the fact that the universe may contain zero net energy also buttresses the atheist case. How? Because that's exactly what we'd expect if the universe had arisen from nothing. QED, dulls.

Truly, these are heady and hilarious days to be a Christian. The Lord, in His infinite wisdom, has delivered the goofiest of all conceivable enemies into our hands.

Sanity Inspector

"By the way, Mr. Garner should use Dr. Hawking's correct title."

I think that that is a stylistic rule at the Times: everyone is Mr. or Ms.

Charles

Even as science claims to one-up religion, Hawking's claim can be reconciled with the Church's teaching. While, of course, Hawking has not observed, does not reason an existence or otherwise acknowledge a Creator, his claim that universes come about somewhat without reason is actually what the Church has taught for millenia. God created everything from nothing, not for any known, observable, easily discernible reason such as to give himself friends, to prove his power or anything to benefit Himself, but for reasons largely left unexplained by both faith and science.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad