Stephen Hawking, world-renowned astrophysicist, said God's intervention is unnecessary to explain the creation of the universe, due to a mechanism of 'spontaneous creation' following the law of gravity. Pending the full publication of the book (those are just so far out of advances) that contains this statement and which I have not seen the necessary skills, I can make some considerations 'incidental' personal, of another kind, but not less important.
The debate between creationists (now infiltrated everywhere, even in the most unlikely ) and evolutionists, since the discoveries in astrophysics have begun to grow at an exponential rate has moved from the planet Earth to the universe (universes ), but without change of nature and harshness of contrasts, and every time you move suddenly in the field of philosophical speculation, obviously more to contrast their theories to arrive, along with maybe a Theory of Everything finally demonstrated and shared. Eventuality, however, on which I would keep all my skepticism, even if it were possible, given the uncompromising nature of religious absolutism.
can understand the angry reactions rained down on the statements of Hawking, argue that because God is not necessary to create means to undermine and tear down the whole system of religious dogmatism, millennia of indoctrination passed off as granite certainties and all Fortunately these have led to an elite caste of priests around the world. As someone cleverly or stupidly melee plans, confusing philosophical theory and scientific observation (the mode of creation with the reason why it happened), then doing so perfidious insinuations about Hawking as to suggest the existence not a god-love such as that sold as good everywhere, but to evil gods that make the man, some men-particularly cruel, dishonest speculation about his physical condition (Hawking is dependent on a motorized chair to move from one machine and to speak because its progressive muscular atrophy).
To the question that arises before us (what good is a god?) The believer has a canned reply in his religion, which blocks the bud any attempt to further reasoning, and is so happy. We
(unbelievers), but we cut it short, give reason to astrophysics English and admit that yes, any god is essentially useless (but his followers very dangerous, as history teaches us), because the physics will give us sooner or then the answers we seek, or other applications with which to continue scientific research, but without the hassle of having to give ourselves an answer on the reason of all that exists and happens, which is a distinct philosophical speculation from scientific observation. Or we might conclude, if there is some kind of 'upper body', that it is following the 'creation', rather than a consequence of this cause.
But the non-believer, a fact that there is no old man with a beard and a white triangle on his head on any little cloud in front of him was a sea of \u200b\u200bmore opportunities to see the issue, leaving all to a different question not enough to observe and wonder at the terrible majesty of nature without trying to give it a name, a reassuring explanation, a familiar face, a mark that certifies the origin and an instruction manual? Why not just
to introduce the element of 'poetry' rather than wanting to put all costs throughout a foolish religious dogmatism (it takes a good dose of insanity to go by the philosophy and theology requirements to obtuse as not eating pork or cover their heads in church and other amenities that!) that not only does not explain anything in an objectively provable, but in fact trying to prevent even the explanations and evidence under the threat of eternal fire for the crime of 'lese-majeste divine'?
to introduce the element of 'poetry' rather than wanting to put all costs throughout a foolish religious dogmatism (it takes a good dose of insanity to go by the philosophy and theology requirements to obtuse as not eating pork or cover their heads in church and other amenities that!) that not only does not explain anything in an objectively provable, but in fact trying to prevent even the explanations and evidence under the threat of eternal fire for the crime of 'lese-majeste divine'?
Here's an example: the theories on the origins of complex life forms on Earth are moving ever more decisively toward the hypothesis that life-it-was brought here from another part of the system Sun 'on board' of an asteroid containing water in solid form (ice) and basic organic molecules dissolved in the water on the surface of our planet would then evolved over the course of geological time to the form we know, until recently -theory is not yet completely abandoned-it was thought as a vehicle instead of a comet. Now, applying a poetic vision (certainly not applicable on a scientific level) to a natural phenomenon well-explained, we could see that the shape of a comet in orbit close to the Sun is similar to that of a sperm, and the shape of a planet like the Earth to that of an egg. With the conclusion that the meteorite bombardment of Earth and Cometal in the ages will be felt in the eyes of a hypothetical observer a giant alien insemination in space, which in effect brought the conditions for life was born. E 'image' poetic 'is a natural phenomenon, lawful and not inconsistent with the scientific method as long as you keep in mind that in reality it is biology, physics and chemistry.
I stop here, without pulling out tons of theological ruminations rigid and obtuse, to which generations of creationists have clung, and still do.
is: what if creationism (to return to a cosmic plan and the success of Hawking) was finally declassified in vision 'poetry' of the 'theory of everything'? Because it a religion with all its consequent dogmatism and fanaticism? Why spoil it? In the name of an alleged truth revealed? But what's the point?
0 comments:
Post a Comment