Hawking V Hawking.

Just dumping some links.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553805371?ie=UTF8&tag=fidelitas-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0553805371

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/09/daily_view_stephen_hawkings_un.html


http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/henry-f-schafer-assesses-stephen-hawkings-no-boundary-proposal/


http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/07/no-need-for-god-stephen-hawking-defies-divine-creation/


http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god



Excerpt, Walter Percy, Lost in the Cosmos.

AH! Here's one passage -- fairly lengthy -- where the last point has the phrase. Percy's "Lost in the Cosmos," by the way, really does read in part like a self-help book, though it is subversive in that regard as it also is in many others. ...So below reads as a self-help question w/ multiple-choice answers... hope you enjoy it:


Question: Why does it make scientists uneasy that it appears to be the case that Homo sapiens sapiens, a conscious languaged creature, appeared suddenly and lately-- when scientists profess to be interested in what is the case, that is, the evidence?

1. Because scientists are understandably repelled by the theory of the special creation of man by God, in Biblical time, say 6004 B.C. at 11 a.m. on a Wednesday morning.

2. Because scientists find it natural to deal with matter in interaction and with energy exchanges and don't know what to make of such things as consciousness, self, symbols and even sometimes deny that there are such things, even though they, the scientists, act for all the world as if they were conscious selves and spend their lives transacting with symbols.

3. Because scientists are uneasy with discontinuities, even when there is evidence of such discontinuity in the appearance of man in all his contrarieties. Revealed religion has its dogmas, e.g., thou shalt not kill. But so does science: thou shalt not tolerate discontinuities. The question is which is the more entitled.

4. Because scientists in the practice of the scientific method, a non-radical [radical = `to the root'] knowledge of matter in interaction, often are not content with the non-radicalness of the scientific method and hence find themselves located in a posture of covert transcendence of their data, which is by the same motion assigned to the sphere of immanence. Hence, scientists operate in the very sphere of transcendence with is not provided for in science. Given such a posture, it is not merely an offense if a discontinuity turns up in the sphere of immanence, the data, but especially if the discontinuity seems to allow for the intervention of God. A god is already present. A scientist is god to his data. And if there is anything more offensive to him that the suggestion of the existence of God, it is the existence of two gods.

(CHECK ONE)