And another thing

13 December 2008

A simple explanation for the origins of the universe — and us too

I was taught, by Popper, that if new evidence turns up, it is quite wrong to modify the hypothesis to accommodate it. The hypothesis should be scrapped and a new one formulated. Popper instanced Marx’s theory of political economics as an example of a bad hypothesis made worse by being allowed to accommodate new historical facts as they occurred. And he gave Freud’s theories as an even worse example of this fundamental weakness. Those who stick to an inanimate explanation of the universe are equally guilty of breaking Popper’s Law. All they have produced so far, and they have been at it for a century now, is constant change and fiddling, and the present state of the theory or theories is immensely complicated, almost impossible to understand, and impermanent.

By contrast, the view that God created the universe is simple, easily understood by a child, and absolutely unchanging. Swinburne’s paper, to which my summary does not do justice, came like a clear stream of cold water into a fevered mental muddle, not to speak of an overheated lecture-room. These lectures continue in January and February. They are given at 5.45 p.m. in the Chadwick Lecture Theatre, off the main UCL campus in Gower Street, on Fridays. They are free, open to the public and without reservations. If they are all as sharp as Professor Swinburne’s, they will be vaut le voyage.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

More articles from: Paul Johnson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip

December 11th, 2008 3:54pm Report this comment

Oh, well, Galileo must have been wrong, I suppose.

Cogito Ergosum

December 11th, 2008 10:31pm Report this comment

Simplicity is a secondary attribute of any hypothesis. The primary test is whether it explains: really explains, with numbers rather than words.

To judge a hypothesis by its simplicity is like judging a car by its appearance, not by how it goes.

Ben

December 11th, 2008 11:39pm Report this comment

The scientific acceptance of the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory of the origin of the universe is a boost for theism. For science now asserts that there was a creation.

Scientific theories are getting better as time advances. It is wrong to dismiss string theory and such as mere fads of fashion. They are just mathematically difficult, and it will take more time to get them right.

Equally it is wrong to dismiss Freud on Popperian grounds. Because he was a pioneer, Freud made errors. But his scientific discoveries are immense. He discovered the unconscious, displacement, projection, suppression and complexes. All solid scientific achievements.

Geoffrey Transom

December 14th, 2008 12:15am Report this comment

Epicurus was right - if God is willing [to prevent the existence of evil] but unable, then why call him God?

An omniscient God knows the entire timeline of his creation BEFORE he even sets it in motion - he knows a priori which fork each of us will choose, and he has known since before the Creation. Whence derives free will when God already KNOWS what decision will be made?

If there are 'gaps' in God's knowledge - that is, if there are parts of the timeline of the universe of which he is unaware, and possible decision-tree elements therein (in Rumsfeld-speak, "unknown unknowns")... again - why call him God?

Sorry Mr Johnson, you can't have an omniscient omnipotent God in a universe containing vile parasitic scum like Phoney Blair, George Brokeback Bush and Gordo McBrooon.

Cheers

Felipe Ordo�ez de Rivera

December 18th, 2008 3:00pm Report this comment

What tosh. Mr Johnson's argument is ludicrous, as well as being at odds with the conditions laid down by his hero Popper. What Mr Johnson overlooks is that he has said that the explanation must be verifiable. And just how does he propose one verifies the existence of the mega-sky-fairy he calls his God? Alas, typical Christian self-delusion, and certainly not a "simple explanation" of the origin of the Universe. Simple, yes, but in the Spanish sense of "simple", i.e. mentally impaired.