Part One: Rationality Breeds Atheism, an Examination of Steven Hawking. (Updated from 27th September 2015)
You will find that most highly intellectual people are rationalists, people we listened to with high standard. Physicists, Scientists, and Philosophers, they speak in ways that seem intelligent, they can formulate fancy math and formulas, which sounds very convincing.
We value what they are saying, and we see them as our leaders, but at the same time you will find that most of these rationalist thinkers invoke a type of Atheism. Although not all of them, there are some who know the truth through their own experiences and have dramatically changed their viewpoint. Within this reversal of ideology, it gives them more merit; thinkers who changed their point of view is worth listening too more so, than there opposite counterparts. Their counterparts whether their aware of it or not are pushing for another agenda that has been around for centuries.
Hawking is part of group that re-defined what we know to be Matter as something else entirely, prior to this it was known to be materialistic in its explanation, this line of thinking then started to morph into something else, something more elucidated. Soon re-interpretation of points of Matter was something that spread through time, and the notion of location started to give way to probabilities. The new view of Matter had a mentalist state of interpretation; it was no longer about transfixed calculations and variable energies, and more about probability. This started one of the first new wave of groups to describe Matter as something that can tie in with spirit, this new paradigm shift is a u-turn from the intellectual universe that would halter such thinking, and with this new emergence it would Link Matter with emotions.
We go about our days not realizing we move in the realm of spirit, this unintentional awareness is due to years of conditioning, the slow persuasion of an intellectual system, which gives no credence to spirit. Therefore, any validation that we give ourselves is derided, when it’s actually the effect of that conditioning. Hawking’s would take the new interpretation of probabilities to his own and apply it to astro-physics (which is a non-science) resulting in a mix bag of fiction and non-fiction equations.
You will find most Physicists are still approaching their viewpoint in the Newtonian era of thinking, (the mechanistic linear way of thinking) it collects high-level math, but dismisses what it means. They will push aside any notion of consciousness, free will, and the connection of all things. If they did, they would have to question or at least add to their calculation God, and that’s unacceptable to them.
But with any world view much like ideologies it can change – a developmental issue can start to occur; throughout the subject of history we can determine this, but history itself is not subject to change except when it becomes myth. Science has always about evolving to change within paradigms, Thomas Coon a sociologist suggests that science develop by revolutions, an example of this is by examining followers of Aristotle (Aristotelianism) that within their own environment made good sense – the idea that Matter was made out of earth, fire and water – how objects move, that those objects moved in perfect circles, and that God had made the universe in particular way. All these things made rationale sense with the understanding of the universe we had at the time. But with any world view seeds of change are always often planted, with Newton coming along and changing the normal perception that soon began the Newtonian perspective.
This allowed people to have a wider understanding of the universe, how this can occur is by being aware of things that cannot be explained. In the Aristotelian world view the problem that arose was the retrograde motion of the planets, whereby if the Earth was at the center of the solar system and all the planets and the sun revolved around the Earth in perfect circles – you’d be able to calculate how they move across the sky throughout the year, but certain planets went backwards in a retrograde motion. This made no sense within the world view, so the Aristotelian scientist came up with a notion called epicycle; these were complex mathematical structures to keep alive the paradigm that matches their false-truth about how the universe worked.
Copernicus came along with other individuals and suggested that by changing our world view and recognizing that Earth revolved around the Sun and Mercury and Venus were closer to the Sun, this could immediately explain retrograde motion. Then Newton came along and explained Gravity; however our understanding of Gravity is different to what Newton was trying to get across. All this resulted in a new/current world view; two in half centuries later would bring about the Quantum revolution made famous by Max Plank.
There is still this undeniable fact that within any world view comes this underlying problem – of how the Universe function in totality, and in doing so, the scientific community must get over one huge problem. This problem was suggested in 1994 by (David Chalmers) young Australian Physicist and Philosopher, he suggested – that there is no explanation on how inanimate Matter and Atoms and Electricity within in the brain can create consciousness because consciousness is a different thing to physical processes.
So, this is the current modernity; this is where science and spirituality are slowly becoming related – where once believing in spirituality or believing in God became boxed into categories, and in this case the superstitious box, this separation held us back for more than half century.
Unlike Hawking; Newton was a wiser man than he was, (I say ‘was’ as past tense, because I believe the real Hawking died, and what we have instead is a puppet an ‘anti-Hawking’). Newton came up with notion of Gravity upon sitting underneath an apple tree, and the apple having had fallen on his head gave him a moment of clarity for gravity to emerge (there is meaningful symbolism in this story). Gravity seems to be a loaded argument among Flat Earthers; they would claim it doesn’t exist – it doesn’t exist in a sense that applies to hyperreal-space notion, suggesting a re-definition of gravity and only applying it to density and dimensions is more credible. This is similar to what Hawking has done, he appropriated and applied hyperreal-space notions to probabilities; applying an illusion to probabilities that would result to nothing, when you know the illusion no longer exists.
Newton was wiser man because he spent his remaining years decoding the universe, his surroundings and the goings on that surrounded him. He viewed himself as a prophet of God. He wrote under numerous pseudonyms that coincided within his decoding method, this method is understood as deciphering anagrams. Mathematician John Nash would report similar findings though his process may be different.
On being an Atheists or Agnostic: An Agnostic is just an Atheist free from blame, who would view the universe or the world as an automatic machine without a creator. While you can describe that being an agnostic is about not having any certainty of ideological belief systems, which seems to give it credibility. That’s because the heart of agnosticism is about opening up the interior space in which to “know” (to be gnostic) one must be ruthlessly honest with oneself about what one doesn’t know. I don’t believe in this notion that you have to be agnostic to be gnostic, only to the fact that a person I’ve known for about 30 years described himself as an agnostic, but would call me an ‘idiot’ for not believing in the moon landings, there is no openness to truth when your simultaneously demoralized. Agnostics main assertion is that God or divine reality is unknowable, which is a reduction and seemingly untrue. It would seem they want to believe and to be shown the truth, but aren’t inherently open to it, but on their surface, they are. This is the state of mind in which the Scientism groups are in.
Steven Hawking says that “M theory doesn’t disprove god, but it makes him unnecessary it predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created by nothing, without the need for a creator.” There are a few things with this quote that raises questions. First, let’s put an underline under the word theory meaning it’s incomplete, and science is about seeking truth in its purist form. But because they can make mathematical equations pertaining to this subject, we just pass it off as truth. Second, how can something come into being without creation, there has to be something in order to be nothing, in other words if nothing is all, then its oblivion, but because the theory is the ‘big bang,’ there had to be something for the nothing to be created in. In actuality it makes God very necessary.
Mike Adams from divinitynews.com outlines Steven Hawkins views – on page one of Hawkins’s book, the Grand Design, it has a quote in which he says: “philosophy is dead; philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.” This arrogant statement infers that philosophies success can only be measured by the degree in which it keeps up with physics. Only physics alone can best understand everything, the grand design will come apparent if we can work out the math. The study of sub-atomic particles is the way to understand the mystery of being, those tiny moments and fractions that unfurl moments before the big bang. To kill of philosophy is to kill of questions only philosophy can answer, questions like; what is consciousness? Is there a God? What happens after death? How do we know what we know? What does it mean to exist? Can love be measured? How does consciousness interact with matter and energy? And why are we here? (Mike Adams, n.d)
The God particle isn’t a particle: particle physicists who study particles don’t really study particles because everybody knows when observing such things, it moves away. So instead they study probability waves left behind from the particles. What they have discovered during these studies is the notion of consciousness, that consciousness collapses waves of probability into seemingly real particles – into our seemingly real world. Without consciousness and the observer, there is nothing to translate the apparent laws of physics to observable and testable events in the first place. Physics cannot be fully explained without taking consciousness into consideration. (Mike Adams, n.d)
Some of Hawking’s main contentions in his book emphasize that, “we are all robots,” (this is funny considering the high probability that he is puppet agent who functions like robot himself). Hawking does not believe in consciousness or free will. He firmly believes that we are just deterministic machines that behave like biological puppets, driven by predictable mechanistic bio-mechanical impulses. This is described in his book, he says; “though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.” “Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view – that it is our physical brain following the known laws of science that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws.” Francis Crick, co-discoverer of D.N.A conveys that awareness is no more than a feeling generated in the brain. He says, “You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” From his book, ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis,’ both these authors firmly believing that we are all just mindless robots, with no souls. One can only ask – who then wrote their books, was the ‘Grand Design’ merely a spontaneous regurgitation of neurological ricochets cascading through his head without any intention behind them. Within this logic his book is a mindless account of physics. (Mike Adams, n.d)
Hawking would also convey that recent research in the human brain can be determine by certain parts of the brain when electrically stimulated, it would make certain body parts move, and it could even make the lips move and talk. So, with this evidence he would suggest that we have no free will. This is a reductionist notion to convey; you can tie a string in my hand and move it like a puppet it doesn’t mean I can’t choose to move it on my own – with conscience intentions – translated through the body and to the brain. Hawking only proves that by artificially inducing electrical stimuli in the brain that there is a biological component to our existence, not that the biological component is its entirety. (Mike Adams, n.d)
Hawking’s deterministic and reductionist views are dangerous especially describing humanity as mindless robots. Determinism’s definition is the state of affairs including every human decision and action; it is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent state of affairs. So, by definition it can absolve anyone, from any responsibility they choose to act on, even criminal acts – because they were just acting through bio-mechanical impulses through no fault of their own. This view then can be stretched so far as to be used to foreshadow any ethics, and then can be a seed to commit outrageous crimes as genocide or some de-population agendas, all in the name of a baseless scientific concept – this concept of a mindless, soulless, bio-mechanical machine. Steven Hawkins states; “Ethics hasn’t kept up with physics,” but at a closer inspection it is physics who hasn’t kept up with ethics. (Mike Adams, n.d)
There are waves of these rationale thinkers that think similarly in this way, invoking that a belief in God is irrational. People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hicks, Lord Martin Rees, Sam Harris, Richard Feynman, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Fry, Leonard Susskind, Bertrand Russell, Richard Carrier, Sir David Attenborough, Neil Degrasse and VS Ramachandran. I can’t go in to detail for all of these people because the main contention for this thesis is Hawkins, that’s not say they are free from analysis or examination on their teachings and preaching’s, that’s for another article down the line.
When asked any prudent theistic question, they all have a predictable calculated explanation to their doctrines, they use a sense of magic in their vocabulary to trick or more precisely deflate the question. A perfect example of this is Christopher Hicks, you listened to any of his lectures and it’s like listening to the character – the “Architect” from the Matrix movie, they do this because the question itself is far more profound than any high calculation or vocabulary, the question asks for you to look within, a question like, “Who are you”?
These are brilliant people, and highly intelligent people well read and eloquent in their field, does not mean we should take their word for truth. Much of what they say is truth, but tends to miss out a lot of literary facts predominately religious history and spiritual and philosophical myths. They have such a disdain for mysterious dogma that their science mutates towards scientism, which in turn becomes their dogma. They will always mention the religious atrocities that have happened in the past, while leaving out important information regarding that the early mystery Christian-religion institutions were the subject of infiltration from highly funded secret groups – insidious in their nature would then push their agenda. Not all sacred institutions are free from this malicious group; the last institutions holding up a fight are the Muslim Countries.
One must wonder if the Atheist groups are pushing for this Globalized/NWO agenda as-well, recent evidence promotes this to be the case. You’d only have to look at their chosen logo for this nihilistic group, two lines away from Antichrist symbol, the Antichrist symbol itself was used to warn of bad spirits in the ages of Salem. Knowing only too well an insidious shadow institution backed by trillions of dollars would adopt that arcane symbols for themselves, then they would flip it, invert it and change it somehow. Then the symbol would take on new meaning, and then it perpetuates a fear in the minds of the collective subconscious.
It could be said that such high intelligence makes you think too much and by that you lose touch of what is real. Ultimately a belief in God is so simple to understand and easy to reach if one is initiated, Christ says “God is within,” the truth is, if you seek truth you’re simultaneously seeking God. It comes easy to people who are spiritually awaken. In order to be awakened you have to be open, but not in the way that views an inverted look at agnosticism, but to be open in a more spiritual gnostic sense, hence “god is within.”
Peter Russell who worked with Steve Hawking during the time when Hawking’s condition started to manifest physically. He is a mathematician, and is a great example of a rationale pragmatic scientist taking a u-turn from conventional science and delving into meta-physic science. He combines the study of spirituality with science that results in some comparative and interesting viewpoints. He travelled to the east and learnt the myth of Indian theology. His books “Waking Up in Time” and “From Science to God” can better illustrate subjects like free will and determinism and consciousness. His approach to meditation, spirituality and questioning existence …is relevant.
There are lot people who think, Hawking is being used like a puppet, and that early in his carrier he found something that could change the perspectives of how we view the world. Maybe so poignant that those views of conventional physics could change the mindset of the rationale community, but before he could deploy the changing paradigm, he was stopped. The voice you hear is not his own, the context that comes out of that backward technological voice box is not his own. The notion delves into the conspiracy realm; never the less, some conspiracy turns out to be true.
This is just a speculation on Hawking’s story, and would also perpetuate a false dichotomy about a hyperreal-space, never the less. …Before the guys in black suits came for him. Could it be that what he found was in fact – from the words of Jed McKenna; “That the universe isn’t expanding forward, but expanding backwards, all the seemingly infinite particles and fragments coming together following an incalculable precise trajectory back to wholeness. Fitting themselves together with miraculous an un-airing accuracy, and by observing the perfection of any part, we know the perfection of the whole. The universe isn’t flying apart, but flying together.” (Jed McKenna, n.d).
Adams.M n.d., The God Within, YouTube Video Thesis, DivinityNow.com viewed 27 September
McKenna. J n.d., Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, All will arrive, YouTube Video Thesis, viewed 27 September