Season 5 Podcast 47, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 36, “Determinism vs Free Will.”
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking wrote,
“Since people live in the universe and interact with the other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well.”
That is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. The assumption in Mr. Hawking’s assertion, of course, is that there is no intelligent design, and no master creator of the universe.
It is ironic that science uses law to give evidence against the law giver. To say that we don’t need God because we have law is like saying we don’t need the creator because we already have the creation.
The implications of Mr. Hawking’s assertion are huge. It implies that we do not live in a moral universe. There is no God, no good or evil, and no accountability for our behavior. We are like planets stuck in our orbits. Mr. Hawking continues.
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.”
The conclusion is that man is a machine without freewill. Mr. Hawking doesn’t answer the question of consciousness. The level of consciousness determines freewill. The assumption is that since planets are not conscious neither is man conscious. Of course, that begs the question. How does man know that earth, for example, is not conscious. I would argue that it is. Another assumption is that because planets are not responsible for their behavior, Man, who is like a planet; is not responsible for his behavior.
The false analogy continues. How can you hold a planet responsible for its behavior governed as it is by gravity? You cannot punish a planet for wrongdoing. So it is for people if they are no more than planets in their orbit. For example, murder, rape, blackmail, robbery, lying, cheating, stealing, terrorizing may all be ethically inadvisable and socially reprehensible, but in a real sense, they are not morally wrong for like a planet in its orbit, no one is responsible for his actions. There can be no perversion in a world where everything is determined by law.
The problem is that thousands of years of human experience argue against the theory of determinism vs freewill. Atheism is just a theory, nothing more. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science is inherently atheistic. Science does not even consider the existence of God as a possibility; therefore, they must account for human behavior by some other means.
Notice how glibly Mr. Hawking, speaking for science, assumes that evolution is our creator.
“If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop?”
Can you see the inherent assumption that Mr. Hawking is making? He is asserting that evolution is our creator, that we are creatures determined by evolution—or by law—and have never had freewill. If, for example, you answer his question, you have already admitted to his premise that freewill does not exist and our behavior is predetermined by evolution. It is a loaded question; thus, it is a false question.
Mr. Hawking, as does the scientific world, assumes that all theories regarding evolution are facts, that they are all scientifically proven, that they are all irrefutable laws. Whereas theories of evolution proliferate and fly like feathers in a windstorm, the science of evolution only occupies a very narrow field limited to species. There is wide opinion of scientists but no proof that a lower species evolves into a higher species; and as Mr. Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, claims, evolution is a one-way street to improvement. That is without evidence. Man is still unique and unaccounted for.
Season 5 Podcast 47, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 36, “Determinism vs Free Will.”
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking wrote,
“Since people live in the universe and interact with the other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well.”
That is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. The assumption in Mr. Hawking’s assertion, of course, is that there is no intelligent design, and no master creator of the universe.
It is ironic that science uses law to give evidence against the law giver. To say that we don’t need God because we have law is like saying we don’t need the creator because we already have the creation.
The implications of Mr. Hawking’s assertion are huge. It implies that we do not live in a moral universe. There is no God, no good or evil, and no accountability for our behavior. We are like planets stuck in our orbits. Mr. Hawking continues.
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.”
The conclusion is that man is a machine without freewill. Mr. Hawking doesn’t answer the question of consciousness. The level of consciousness determines freewill. The assumption is that since planets are not conscious neither is man conscious. Of course, that begs the question. How does man know that earth, for example, is not conscious. I would argue that it is. Another assumption is that because planets are not responsible for their behavior, Man, who is like a planet; is not responsible for his behavior.
The false analogy continues. How can you hold a planet responsible for its behavior governed as it is by gravity? You cannot punish a planet for wrongdoing. So it is for people if they are no more than planets in their orbit. For example, murder, rape, blackmail, robbery, lying, cheating, stealing, terrorizing may all be ethically inadvisable and socially reprehensible, but in a real sense, they are not morally wrong for like a planet in its orbit, no one is responsible for his actions. There can be no perversion in a world where everything is determined by law.
The problem is that thousands of years of human experience argue against the theory of determinism vs freewill. Atheism is just a theory, nothing more. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science is inherently atheistic. Science does not even consider the existence of God as a possibility; therefore, they must account for human behavior by some other means.
Notice how glibly Mr. Hawking, speaking for science, assumes that evolution is our creator.
“If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop?”
Can you see the inherent assumption that Mr. Hawking is making? He is asserting that evolution is our creator, that we are creatures determined by evolution—or by law—and have never had freewill. If, for example, you answer his question, you have already admitted to his premise that freewill does not exist and our behavior is predetermined by evolution. It is a loaded question; thus, it is a false question.
Mr. Hawking, as does the scientific world, assumes that all theories regarding evolution are facts, that they are all scientifically proven, that they are all irrefutable laws. Whereas theories of evolution proliferate and fly like feathers in a windstorm, the science of evolution only occupies a very narrow field limited to species. There is wide opinion of scientists but no proof that a lower species evolves into a higher species; and as Mr. Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, claims, evolution is a one-way street to improvement. That is without evidence. Man is still unique and unaccounted for.