Rationality Breeds Atheism (01):
Part One: An Examination of Steven Hawking. (Updated from 27th September 2015) You will find that most knowledgeable people are rationalists, people we listened to with high standards. On the other hand, physicists, Scientists, and Philosophers speak in ways that seem intelligent; they can formulate fancy math and formulas that sound 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. However, not all of them are like that. Some know the truth through their experiences and dramatically change their viewpoint. This reversal of ideology gives them more merit; thinkers who changed their point of view are worth listening to even more than their opposite counterparts. Whether they’re aware of it, their counterparts are pushing for another plan that has been around for centuries.
Hawking is part of a group that redefined what we know to be Matter as something entirely different; before this, the assumption was materialistic in its explanation; this line of thinking then morphs into something more elucidated. Soon, the reinterpretation of points of Matter spread through time, and the notion of location began to give way to probabilities. The new view of Matter had a mentalist interpretation; it was no longer about transfixed calculations and variable energies but more about possibility. This started one of the first 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. This recent emergence 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 intelligent system, which gives no credence to spirit. Therefore, any validation we give ourselves is derided when it’s the effect of that conditioning. Hawking would take the new interpretation of probabilities to his own and apply it to astrophysics (non-science), resulting in a mixed bag of fiction and non-fiction equations.
Most Physicists are still approaching their viewpoint in the Newtonian era of thinking (the mechanical, 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 worldview, much like ideologies, it can change – a developmental issue can start to occur; throughout history, we can determine this, but history itself is not subject to change except when it becomes a myth. Science has always been about evolving to change within paradigms. Thomas Coon, a sociologist, suggests that science develops through revolutions; an example is by examining the followers of Aristotle (Aristotelianism) that within their environment made good sense. The idea is that Matter is intrinsic to earth, with fire and water. And how objects move, that those objects move in perfect circles, and that God had made the universe in a particular way. All these things made rational sense with our understanding of the universe at the time. But with any worldview, seeds of change are often planted, with Newton coming along and changing the normal perception that soon began the Newtonian perspective.
This allowed people to have a more comprehensive understanding of the universe and how this can occur by being aware of things that cannot be explained. For example, in the Aristotelian worldview, the problem was the planets’ retrograde motion, whereby the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. All the planets and the sun revolved around the Earth in perfect circles; you could calculate how they move across the sky throughout the year, but certain planets went backward in a retrograde motion. This made no sense within the worldview, so the Aristotelian scientist devised an epicycle notion; these were complex mathematical structures to keep alive the paradigm that matched their false truth about how the universe worked.
Copernicus and other individuals suggested that changing our worldview and recognizing that Earth revolved around the Sun and Mercury and Venus were closer to the Sun could immediately explain retrograde motion. Then Newton came along and explained Gravity; however, our understanding of Gravity differs from what Newton was trying to convey. All this resulted in a new/current worldview; two and half centuries later, it would bring about the Quantum revolution made famous by Max Plank.
There is still this undeniable fact that within any worldview comes this underlying problem of how the Universe functions in totality. In doing so, the scientific community must get over one huge problem. This problem was suggested in 1994 by (David Chalmers) a young Australian Physicist and Philosopher; he indicated that there is no explanation for how inanimate Matter and Atoms of Electricity within the brain can create consciousness because consciousness is different from physical processes.
So, this is the current modernity; this is where science and spirituality are slowly becoming related, where once believing in spirituality or God became boxed into categories, and in this case, the superstitious box; this separation held us back for more than half a 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 and ‘anti-Hawking’). Newton came up with the notion of Gravity while sitting underneath an apple tree, and the apple fell on his head, giving him a moment of clarity for Gravity to emerge (there is meaningful symbolism in this story). Unfortunately, Gravity seems to be a loaded argument among Flat Earthers. And they claim it doesn’t exist in a sense that applies to the hyperreal-space notion. Suggesting a redefinition of Gravity and only using it for density and dimensions gives it more credibility. 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 in nothing when you know the illusion no longer exists.
Newton was wiser 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 with his decoding method of deciphering anagrams. Mathematician John Nash would report similar findings, though his process may differ.
On being an Atheist 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. In contrast, being an agnostic does not have any certainty of ideological belief systems, which gives 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 that you have to be agnostic to be gnostic. Only because 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 the truth when you’re simultaneously demoralized. Agnostics’ central assertion is that God or divine reality is unknowable, a reduction and seemingly untrue. They want to believe and to be shown the truth but aren’t inherently open to it, but on their surface, they are. And this is the state of mind in which the Scientism groups are.
Steven Hawking says, “M theory doesn’t disprove God, but it makes him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created by nothing, without needing a creator.” There are a few things with this quote that raise questions. First, let’s put an underline under the word theory, meaning it’s incomplete, and science is about seeking truth in its purest form. But because they can make mathematical equations about this subject, we pass it off as truth. Second, how can something come into being without creation? There has to be something to be nothing; in other words, if nothing is all, then it’s oblivion, but because the theory is the ‘big bang,’ there had to be something for nothing to be created. So, in actuality, it makes God very necessary.
Mike Adams from divinitynews.com outlines Steven Hawkins’s 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 philosophy’s success can only be measured by the degree to which it keeps up with physics. Only physics alone can best understand everything; the grand design will become apparent if we can solve the math. Studying sub-atomic particles is how to understand the mystery of being, those tiny moments and fractions that unfurl moments before the Big Bang. To kill philosophy is to kill off 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 study particles because everybody knows when observing such things, it moves away. So, instead, they study probability waves left behind by the particles. What they have discovered during these studies is the notion of consciousness, that consciousness collapses waves of probability into seemingly fundamental 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 considering consciousness. (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 a puppet agent who functions like a robot). Hawking does not believe in consciousness or free will. He firmly believes we are deterministic machines that behave like biological puppets, driven by predictable mechanistic bio-mechanical impulses. He states: “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 our physical brain following the known laws of science determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws.”
Francis Crick, the 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 no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” In his book, ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis,’ both these authors firmly believe that we are just mindless robots with no souls. One can only ask who then wrote their books if the ‘Grand Design’ was 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 on the human brain shows that certain parts of the brain can be determined when electrically stimulated, which would make certain body parts move and even make the lips move and talk. So, with this evidence, he would suggest that we have no free will. And 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 conscious intentions translated through the body and to the brain. Hawking proves that by artificially inducing electrical stimuli in the brain, there is a biological component to our existence, not that the biological component is in its entirety. (Mike Adams, n.d)
Hawking’s deterministic and reductionist views are dangerous, especially describing humanity as mindless robots. Determinism defines the state of affairs, including every human decision and action; it is the inevitable and necessary consequence of the antecedent state of affairs. So, by definition, it can absolve anyone from any responsibility they choose to take on, even criminal acts, because they were working through bio-mechanical impulses through no fault of their own. And so this idea is stretched so far as to be used to foreshadow any ethics. And then it can be a seed to commit outrageous crimes such 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 upon closer inspection, it is physics that hasn’t kept up with ethics. (Mike Adams, n.d)
There are waves of these rational 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.
When asked any prudent theistic question, they all have a predictable, calculated explanation of 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 listen to any of his lectures, and it’s like listening to the character the “Architect” from The Matrix. They do this because the question is far more profound than any high calculation or vocabulary; it asks you to look within, like, “Who are you”?
These are knowledgeable, well-read and eloquent in their field, but that does not mean we should take their word for the truth. Much of what they say is true but tends to miss out on many literary facts, predominately religious history and spiritual and philosophical myths. They disdain the mysterious dogma so much 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 the early mystery of Christian-religion institutions, which were the subject of infiltration from highly funded secret groups, which would then push their agenda. Not all sacred institutions are accessible from this malicious group; the Muslim countries are the last institutions holding up a fight.
One must wonder if the Atheist groups are pushing for this Globalized/NWO agenda. Recent evidence promotes this to be the case. You’d only have to look at their chosen logo for this nihilistic group; it is two lines from the pentagram symbol, which warns of evil spirits.
Such high intelligence makes you overthink, and by that, you lose touch with 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 awakening. To be awakened, you have to be open, but not in the way that views an inverted look at agnosticism, but in a more spiritual gnostic sense, hence “god is within.”
Peter Russell worked with Steve Hawking when Hawking’s condition started to manifest physically. He is a mathematician and is an excellent example of a rational, pragmatic scientist taking a U-turn from conventional science and delving into meta-physic science. He combines the study of spirituality with science, which 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, determinism, and consciousness. His approach to meditation, spirituality and questioning existence is relevant.
Many people think Hawking’s life is a charade when he is a puppet and that early in his career, he found something that could change our perspectives of 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 from that backward technological voice box is not his own. The notion delves into the conspiracy realm; nevertheless, some conspiracy theories are true.
And this is just speculation on Hawking’s story and would also perpetuate a false dichotomy about a hyperreal space, nonetheless. 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 and un-airing accuracy and 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).
Reference:
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
