Newton’s magic vs. Hawking’s science

Stephen Hawking is back in the news making a fool out of himself. In an interview with a Spanish newspaper, Hawking is quoted as saying, “The laws of science are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. It is not necessary to invoke God.”

Hawking could only be referring to the multiverse as this explanation, as there are no other “scientific” explanations for the origin of the universe. The problem is, as eminent physicist George F. R. Ellis puts it, the multiverse is just “scientifically based philosophical speculation.” Or, as I like to say, the multiverse isn’t science, it’s merely science flavored.

Surak dismantled Hawking’s specious argument the last time he claimed science had usurped God, so I won’t rehash that. What I want to do, is take this opportunity to contrast the modern, secular scientism so evident in Hawking’s claim with the classical, Newtonian view of science. Consider the following, written by John Maynard Keynes in his essay, “Newton, the Man”:

Because he [Isaac Newton] looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements … but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty—just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

In his biography of Newton, Mitch Stokes commented further:

Most modern scientists pride themselves on having purged themselves of thoughts of mystery and magic, while unwittingly using theories that are as mystical as they are “scientific.” Newton, believing that the world is full of magic, found that it *is* full of magic. He, in turn, revealed some of his discoveries to us.

If you take the particular atheistic view of the universe that there is no God and that only science can reveal the true nature of the universe, then it is one of the great ironies of the world that a classical mystic who thought he was working magic ended up being the greatest practitioner of science who ever lived, while a modern secular hero of science who thinks he’s practicing science is really just working magic.

7 thoughts on “Newton’s magic vs. Hawking’s science

  1. “science flavored”

    “a classical mystic who thought he was working magic ended up being the greatest practitioner of science who ever lived, while a modern secular hero of science who thinks he’s practicing science is really just working magic.”

    Brilliant one-two combo KO.

  2. Thanks for this, Sarah.

    As I was watching the Astrobiology hearings in DC on CSPAN this morning, listening to the implications of how spending billions to discover evidence of life somewhere other than Earth was practically a moral imperative, my thoughts kept coming back to “Why?”. Sure, it’s very interesting, but the over the top effusiveness at the prospect seemed motivated by something beyond pure scientific curiosity. They were never asked nor did they offer a satisfactory explanation of what the implications of such a monumental discovery would mean or what benefits to mankind would follow from it.

  3. If you’re going to spend that kind of time and money on a mission, you’d better be able to articulate why it’s so important. My suspicion is, a lot of these people think it’s practically a moral imperative, because they believe finding other life out there will be a nail in the coffin for the Christian worldview.

    Personally, I think it’s important, because whether we discover life out there—and what kind of life that is—or find no other life at all will tell us something about the nature of the universe’s Creator and how we fit into the Big Plan.

Comments are closed.