- See this post from James Anderson.
- See this article from Edgar Andrews.
- See this post from Stephen Barr.
- See this article from William Lane Craig. Scroll down to Craig's critique of Quantum Gravity models of the universe. It was written years before The Grand Design, but much of it is still relevant.
- See this Q&A from William Lane Craig.
- See this Q&A from William Lane Craig as well.
- See this article from Paul Davies.
- See this article from Bruce L. Gordon.
- See this post and this post too from Steve Hays.
- See this article (PDF) from Paul Helm, which isn't about Hawking's latest book but what he says is relevant.
- See this video and this article from John Lennox.
- See this clip from Alister McGrath and Roger Penrose.
- See this post from J.P. Moreland.
- See this article from Roger Penrose.
- See this video from David Robertson. HT: Peter Pike.
- See this article from Michael Turner.
- See this post from scientist David Tyler.
- See this post from Bill Vallicella.
- See this post from Peter Woit.
- Finally, although out of alphabetical order, see this comment from the Universe.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Not-so Grand Design roundup
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's The Grand Design has been receiving some serious criticism. Here's a list which recaps what we've posted or referenced here, I think. Please feel free to add any I've missed in the combox.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this together.
Why should we care about Craig's opinions on Quantum-Gravity or any other advanced physics topic and actually take him more seriously than Stephen Hawking? He is a theologian and a philosopher. He is no physicist. Why dont you post articles only by physicists here?
ReplyDeleteAnd then about the articles by physicists... Did you even read the articles you give links to here? For instance Paul Davies says:
"According to folklore the French physicist Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical account of the universe, replied: "I had no need of that hypothesis." Although cosmology has advanced enormously since the time of Laplace, the situation remains the same: there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off."
How is this helping your anti-atheist case? Don't you realize that you post atheistic people's opinions to refute Hawking's atheistic book? Is this making sense?
Will you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".
Mehmet said:
ReplyDeleteWhy should we care about Craig's opinions on Quantum-Gravity or any other advanced physics topic and actually take him more seriously than Stephen Hawking? He is a theologian and a philosopher. He is no physicist. Why dont you post articles only by physicists here?
1. Of course, Hawking doesn't only talk about physics in his book. He talks about philosophy as well. So Craig is more than qualified to comment on this score.
2. Your argument, if valid, cuts the other way too: Hawking likewise shouldn't be talking about philosophy or theology. He should just stick to physics.
3. But even if Hawking only restricted himself to physics in the book, it wouldn't necessarily mean a non-physicist couldn't comment. For one thing, Hawking wrote the book for laypeople. It's a popular book aimed at a popular audience. As such, Hawking intends to communicate to laypeople who don't necessarily understand physics let alone physics at an advanced level. So this book doesn't assume a background in physics. Why should criticisms of this book require a background in physics when the book itself doesn't?
4. Why don't you deal with Craig's arguments rather than attempt to disqualify his arguments in advance on the basis that you don't happen to think he has the right credentials?
5. Actually, I have posted articles by physicists above. Including articles by physicists who are atheists.
How is this helping your anti-atheist case? Don't you realize that you post atheistic people's opinions to refute Hawking's atheistic book? Is this making sense?
1. First off, this post isn't against atheism. It's a post against Hawking and Mladinow's claims in the book.
2. Since the "atheistic people" weren't primarily disagreeing with Hawking's atheism but with his physics, your point is irrelevant.
3. It's possible to disagree with one person's position on topic A and simultaneously agree with the same person's position on topic B. For instance, I obviously disagree with Christopher Hitchens on his militant atheism. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything Hitchens says. In fact, I happen to think a lot of what Hitchens says about politics is quite correct. Likewise it's possible to disagree with Hawking's physics while agreeing with his atheism - which is what some of the "atheistic" physicists I cited do.
4. By your logic, a Muslim can't "refute" anything in Islam because he is a Muslim. Or a Democrat can't "refute" anything the Democratic Party supports because he is a Democrat. Is this making sense?
Mehmet said:
ReplyDeleteWill you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".
1. I see. According to you, someone should give up if he's outnumbered. I guess the Battle of Tours shouldn't have been fought.
2. Do you also think truth is something that's best decided by numerical superiority?
3. By the way, it's intriguing to me how you're citing scientific studies like Wikipedia to backup your claims.
Mehmet writes:
ReplyDeleteWill you stop fighting the ateism of scientists when it is obvious it is a war you cannot win? Numbers are clear: Only 7.5% of National Academy physicists believe in God. The number is only 5% for the NA biologists. Source: Wikipedia on "demographics of atheism".
How did the survey define "God"? For example, the Larson and Witham survey had in mind a definite and precise (and rather conservative) definition of "God." Not everyone who gave a negative response to that survey could be classified as an atheist.
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism."
ReplyDelete-Stephen Jay Gould, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge", Scientific American 267, no. 1 (1992)