The Hermeneutics of Stephen Hawking

In their recently co-authored book ('The Grand Design'), Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow inform the world that they have rendered The Creator "not necessary" -- it's 'Science!' don't you know. (See this minor review in USA Today: "Hawking book explains creation of universe minus God")

Now, the 'Science!' worshippers (who, in fact, tend to hate the real thing) can be counted upon to believe, or at least to assert -- for they do so with monotonous regularity every time 'Science!' does away with God -- that we "religious" people (you know, Jews and Christians, for those are the only “religions” (*) anyone cares about getting rid of) are sure to be fearful and enraged, or at the very least nonplussed, by this newest (ha!) pronouncement of 'Science!'

Already, I’ve read several non-fearful and non-enraged and very much plussed reactions to and/or analyses of the claims of these Speakers For 'Science!.' One of the best I’ve encountered is the following -- Michael Flynn (‘The Ofloinn’): The Hermeneutics of Stephen Hawking

Mr Flynn’s conclusion is most amusing.


(*) When westerners speak of some generic, and thus non-existent, "religion," especially when they mean to denigrate "religion," they generally mean specifically Christianity, or if they are of Jewish origin, Judaism. Such denigrators will sometimes, either explicitly or by implication (or even merely insinuation) use "religion" to also include Islam ... when the mean to elide the differences between Biblical religion and Koranic religion, and attribute to Christianity (or Judaism) the aspects of Islam which horrify westerners.


Edit (2010/09/26):
Here is a YouTube "video" (on Glenn People's blog) of William Lane Craig discussing some of the public claims about the content/argument of the book (at the time of the talk, not yet released).

This also relates to Crude's comment -- "To put a different spin on what Flynn argued, this is a lot like saying that God isn't necessary to explain the universe, because Pure Act will do that job. And to someone who doesn't know much philosophy, that may actually sound correct. To someone who does, they're going to remember that for Aquinas and others, "Pure Act" was another word for God."

The distinction to which Crude alludes is that between 'actuality' and 'potentiality.' An entity which is "pure act" has no potentiality to it: it is what it is (which just happens to be similar to God's self-revealed name in Exodus 3:14 "I am who/what I am"). An entity which is "pure act," as it has no potentiality to it, cannot be other than it is ... and it cannot change, for to be able to change is to possess potentiality.

Edit (2010/09/27):
Keep in mind a point Mike Flynn made in his analysis of these supposedly new "theories" -- that the word 'universe' is being used equivocally. He didn't explicitly use that word, but that what shakes out when one thinks about it:

... At one time the term "world" meant the universe. Then "world" was restricted to "planet" and the universe was called the "universe." Now Hawking [and others] is not talking about the universe, that is, the collection of all things that exist. He is talking about

a single, self-contained physical structure, comprising a “spacetime manifold” and particles and other things moving around in that spacetime.

IOW, the term "universe" is now being restricted to a "space-time continuum" within a structure of many such manifolds. Call the larger structure "a system of universes." ...

Thus, These "new" "theories" are really just another way of advancing the age-old atheistic claim that "the 'universe' is eternal and uncaused."