Another Toe-Stubbing Post on Hawking

Congratulations everyone! Ray has finally given context to the Stephen Hawking quote in his header with his latest post. Or... has he? Here is what he gives us:

"In the hot big bang model described above, there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere in order to account for the fact that the microwave back-ground has the same temperature in every direction we look. The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127.

Yes, that is what is written at the end of a paragraph on page 127 in chapter eight. Referring to the book which I own, it is the concluding paragraph of a four page discussion of what the anthropic principle is The chapter is concerning the origin and fate of the universe. Since it is concerning the origin of the universe, he naturally brings up the perceived role of God, as he does elsewhere in the book. What Ray neglects to mention is that the chapter ends on page 141.

What happens between pages 127 and 141? What happens is the context he does not give you. He sets up the rhetorical proposition on page 127 and after explaining more of the origin of the universe and how it started, he revisits it briefly on page 136:

If Euclidean space-time stretches back to infinite imaginary time, or else starts at a singularity in imaginary time, we have the same problem as in the classical theory of specifying the initial state of the universe: God may know how the universe began, but we cannot give any particular reason for thinking it began one way rather than another. On the other hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed, It would just BE.

It was at the conference in the Vatican mentioned earlier that I first put forward the suggestion that maybe time and space together formed a surface that was finite in size but did not have any boundary or edge. My paper was rather mathematical, however, so its implications for the role of God in the creation of the universe were not generally recognized at the time (just as well for me). At the time of the Vatican conference, I did not know how to use the "no boundary" idea to make predictions about the universe. [...] (emphasis added on parts about God)

After a little more explaining about the implications of his proposal, discussion of evidence, discussion of the nature of time, he concludes by weighing in on the rhetorical proposition which he set up on page 127 by concluding the chapter with:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (emphasis added on parts about God, which happens to be all of it)

Ray's extraction of one or two sentences or even an entire paragraph is the essence of quote mining:

Quote mining is the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech.

Again, we (theists and atheists knowledgeable in the writings of these great men) do not protest because we wish to have these great men on "our side" (which especially isn't the case for protesting theists); we simply want these men's beliefs accurately portrayed and not mangled by the likes of Ray Comfort. To the point, one of the greatest men, if not the greatest man (at least in science), to have ever lived was Isaac Newton. We do not protest when Ray trots his name out as Newton was a devout Christian and wrote at lengths on it. Using Newton as an argument for theism, or Hawking and Einstein as an argument for atheism is ridiculous, though, as it is a fallacious appeal to authority.


As a final thought, I think it's interesting the nature of the rhetorical proposition Stephen Hawking made. He makes the statement that it seems that there must have been a Creator, based on the origins of the universe. There's a famous quote mining example from Darwin wherein he makes a similar rhetorical proposition that there seems there must have been a Creator, based on the complexity of the eye. In fact, Ray also does quote mining on Darwin with this very passage. The embolden part is the part which is quote mined from it:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Ray was being deliberately dishonest in this latest post by making it appear he's giving it context. In fact, he's not giving you anymore context; rather, he's just taking more out of context. Given the context of the rest of the chapter, it clearly shows he is using it as a rhetorical statement.

Does this matter to Ray? Of course not. He is disinterested in the truth or sound arguments, as it seems.

Stepping on a Comforting Quote Mine

The header has a new quote from Ray Comfort! The first quote of the image used to respond to the Einstein one Comfort has in his header to suggest that Einstein believed in the type of God Ray does. My quote used to be:

I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

This has been replaced by a quote of Ray Comfort regarding Einstein:

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb.

He made this in a comment to Quote-mining From an Atheist Site. Let me play Ray Comfort towards the above quote. Ahem: "As you can clearly see, Ray concedes that Einstein was an atheist. He admits he wasn't a Christian and did not believe in a personal God, so therefore he believes in no form of a God whatsoever. And as you can see from the concluding sentence, Ray also concedes that anyone who is a Christian, believes in Jesus, or believes in a personal God is dumb. These are not my words, they are his. Read them for yourself!"

Of course, just like Ray does with Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, and countless others, I have performed a minor form of quote mining wherein I took it out of context (it isn't exactly quote mining, though, because it isn't taken from a large volume of text). I have been dishonest and compromised my intellectual integrity, just as Ray does every time he does the same. I have lied to my readers by deliberately misleading them, just as Ray consistently lies. By analyzing his quote out of context, I am dishonest. By analyzing others' quotes out of context, Ray is dishonest.

To redeem myself somewhat, I will do what Ray never does. I will give you the context I have excerpted this quote from:

"Benjamin Franklin said... seriously, Ray, I think that it is disingenuous of you to have that quote from Einstein at the header of your website.Einstein was not a Christian, and he did not believe in Jesus, nor did he beleive in a personal God.You should remove that quote and replace it with some bible verse."

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb. He knew there was a Creator, because creation couldn't have created itself. Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person. (emphasis added)

While I have provided you the context for Ray's quote, it is shameful, utterly shameful, that he does not do the same for his readers when he sullies the good names of great men like Einstein and Hawking to distort their words to conform to his own warped ideas.

Einstein MUST Have Believed in a Creator

One of the many things I genuinely appreciate about Ray Comfort (and there are many) is that he actually reads and replies to some of the comments in his blog. He does not ignore them, nor does he only reply to those praising him. As such, I was going back through his recent posts since he posted that despicable post about Einstein believing that the Bible is the "Word of God." In a comment to the post Quote-mining From an Atheist Site, one individual writes:

Seriously, Ray, I think that it is disingenuous of you to have that quote from Einstein at the header of your website.

Einstein was not a Christian, and he did not believe in Jesus, nor did he beleive [sic] in a personal God.

You should remove that quote and replace it with some bible verse.

To this, Ray had the following to say:

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb. He knew there was a Creator, because creation couldn't have created itself. Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person. (emphasis added)

Firstly, from this I have a new quote I can mine to put in my header, namely:

I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb.

But secondly, I think this comment really sheds light on why he uses these mined quotes and also how he could so mangle a quote by reading his own view into it as to argue that Einstein believed the Bible was the "Word of God." It is because Ray's argument is that Einstein must have believed in God. He says that Einstein knew there was a Creator and then tacks on his argument about creation couldn't have created itself. Where has Einstein ever said this? Where has he ever said there was a Creator? He lived a little before the time of Hawking's developments, but I am sure he wouldn't play a god of the gaps type argument.

Nonetheless, this post shows why Ray interprets the quotes the way he does. He doesn't understand how someone could not believe the same as He. As such, he reads his own arguments, understanding, and definitions into the writings of great men. To his oft-repeated argument:

Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person.

Then, as a "thinking" person, Ray, you must also concede that the Creator must have at a Creator-creating Creator. After all, the Creator "can't create itself... because it didn't exist."

I know what he's thinking: "But ah! JT! That only applies to things that didn't exist; God, however, always existed." That's Ray's false premise. "Something that didn't exist." Absolutely, something that didn't exist could not create itself. But that argument for God only works if you assume that everything at one point didn't exist and that God always existed. That is called the fallacy of begging the question and an arbitrary false premise.

As anyone who has read Stephen Hawking's many books and articles knows, which you must have seeing as how you quote him in your header. The quote Ray has mined from Stephen Hawking comes from Chapter 8: The Origin and Fate of the Universe from his bestselling book A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (it may have also come from A Briefer History of Time, but I am still in the middle of that book). The quote comes from roughly the middle of it when he is discussing the governance of the universe and some people's view of the role of God. In the same fashion as Ray, I will also quote from the same Chapter 8, with context, by leaving you the concluding paragraph of that chapter:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Today's Theist Memory Verse

Ray occasionally posts short blurbs called "Today's Atheist Memory Verse." In it, he quotes the Bible regarding atheists or something that may cause atheists to reconsider their non-position. I've chosen to do the same. My memory verses are for theists. I will pull them from the "holy" books I have (Koran, Hadith, Bible, Book of Mormon, Gnostic Gospels) and are intended for theists, mainly Christians.

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (Koran 98:1-8)

People of the Book refers to any holy scriptures revealed to man from God before his final revelation to the prophet Muhammad. It is especially used for Christians and Jews. The moral of this verse is that you Christians are going to "burn for ever in the fire of Hell" for believing in the divinity of Jesus and the integrity of the Holy Bible.

If this does at all not bother you or give you pause, then maybe you see why when you say we atheists will burn in hell forever neither bothers us. The only reason you think it should cause us concern is because you believe it to be true. The reason it doesn't cause us concern is because we do not believe the Bible is the "Word of God." Similarly, Muslims believe the above to be true about you; the reason it shouldn't give you pause is because you don't believe that the Koran is the "Word of God."

Expelled's Quote Mining

Ray Comfort posted a singing praise about the Expelled movie. The review itself really exposes how frail Ray's mind is if he can succumb so greatly to a propaganda fluff piece. This post isn't a review about Expelled, as many (many, many, many) have already done so and pointed out its flaws. There's two things I wanted to note about it, though. Firstly, Ray fell right through the trap door of it linking "Dawinism" (whatever that is) to the Holocaust. That he can believe that the cause of the Holocaust and the cause of Action T4 was the scientific theory of evolution speaks monuments about his intellectual dignity. It shows he is blithely ignorant of history and the fact that eugenics actually had support of Christians in America.

Nevertheless, I had always thought something special of Ray for using the correct term instead of "Darwinism" until this review. It showed that he could be taken in by simple propaganda slogans. Why do they call it Darwinism? So that they can do the following spiel: "Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism which leads to Nazism which leads to the Holocaust." Nevermind the fact that actual Darwinism or even the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Social Darwinism.

Just as the Nazis had their 100 scientists dissenting from Einstein, the Discovery Institute (the thinktank for the Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism propaganda) had their 100 scientists dissenting from Darwin. Too bad modern dissenters from Einstein (notably the Christian geocentrists who think the Sun orbits the Earth) don't have the strategists from the Discovery Institute or they could have made a fluff piece like Expelled by calling the theory of relativity "Relativism." Then, they could come up with the slogan "relativism leads to moral relativism leads to Nazism leads to the Holocaust."

But I digress. The second point of this post goes to the issue covered in the last two posts: quote mining. The Expelled creators, just like anti-science Christians like Ray, like to mine quote. Just as Ray takes quotes completely out of context and mangles them, as did the propaganda piece Expelled. To show that Darwin was racist and a proponent of forced euthanasia, they mine the following from his masterful Origin of Species:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

It's easy to see why an uneducated mind, such as Ray's, which has never been exposed to a reading of Origin of Species could fall for such a mined quote. The actual quote, in full context, with the omitted parts in bold, is:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Yeah, that Darwin! He was an evil man indeed.

You can effectively measure how much a person's mind has been compromised by the anti-science propaganda against the scientific theory of evolution with the following five questions:

1. Do they refer to evolutionary theory as Darwinism?
2. Do they refer to defenders of evolutionary theory as evolutionists?
3. Do they state that evolutionary theory teaches that humans evolved from monkeys?
4. Do they state that evolutionary theory teaches that life just happened or came about from "lightning striking a mud puddle"?
5. Do they link evolutionary theory with atheism?

If, on the above five accounts, you have answers of "Yes," then you are dealing with an uneducated person who has been taken in by propaganda. Ray Comfort, like Ben Stein, fail on all five accounts. It's difficult to judge from his blog, but I wonder if Ray shares Ben's sentiments that "science leads you to killing people"?