History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Futility of using cosmology for the ‘god’ debate (theology is not better)

August 6th, 2011 · 1 Comment


The obsession to use science to promote atheism has finally taken over Hawking. It is important to stand back and not get hyped here. The ‘god’ question is the fastest way to undermine clear thinking, unless, of course, theology has injected elements of confused reasoning.

I am not an accomodationist, so my criticism is that this approach is the wrong way to challenge religion. Trying to use cosmology to promote atheism, unfortunately, might succeed in the propaganda sense: the Darwin lie required nothing more than media clout and repetition. This same could happen with cosmology. The result is that we must start to mistrust physicists in the same way we mistrust Darwinists (throw in theologians, if you like).

I think, to backflip for a moment, that a dialectical moment for discussing god and cosmology may be appropriate at this point, but that is only dialectic, and we should be wary of the obsession to fix public opinion with a new set of lies.
I am not a theist, but the question, not of ‘god’, but of the natural equivalent of what some will call ‘god’, won’t go away, and the delusion that cosmologists can answer the reality question here using only cosmology, given the arrogant complacency of current science.

It you wish to stand beyond the useless god/no-god question and see the ‘natural equivalent of what some will call ‘god’ ‘, check out the eonic effect, which is not about ‘god’, but about the real complexity of nature, something that physicists will never discover.

Don’t be intimidated by this discussion: highly trained physicists are as dumb as they get outside of their limited field.

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

Leave a Comment