Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
^
Except that "cyclical time" is not really what Hawkings seems to be alluding to, and I don't think that Thor's explanation of eternity conforms to that either. For those surviving religions that do subscribe to cyclical time, you are right: this will certainly not mean much, but this is given that Eastern religious systems where cyclical models still persist are generally uninterested in the validation of "science".
For virtually every monotheistic religion in the Western world, this most certainly makes an impact, as for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, the idea of progression and purpose toward a future goal is central to their religious tenants. The idea that the universe is the result of necessary natural causes is problematic for most who belong to one of these.
|
Possibly for followers but it doesn't seem to me a big deal theologically and philosophically. The Gods discussed by Kant, Aquinas, and Maimonides are more concerned with metaphysics and human morality than the material world.
I don't think that anything Hawkings is saying is very new by the standards of the Enlightenment. Even Galileo was basically saying the same thing in regards to the cosmology of his day; the Universe doesn't seem to be created for human beings.
As well, I'd ask this question honestly and humbly; where do the constant laws come from? Like if all we needed is the Law of Gravity to ensure the constant collapse and renewal of the Universe, why puts that in place? This is coming from someone pretty naive and uninterested in physics.