Stephen Hawking: God did not create

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

A response from British author Pat Regan

Ok Stephen – first define what you call “God”!

I have a sneaking feeling that Stephen Hawking seems to miss the important fact that everything has its own form of intelligence, its own essential essence.

A man, a tree even a pebble on the shore – all things possess their own unique quintessence that is conjoined with all other things in the Cosmos at one point.

The insightful ancients realised this and gave everything and every action a tutelary deity. Life forces that impinge on any given being or object shape it into what it ultimately becomes.

Sadly like many materialistic experts in their given fields, Hawking is blinded by his restrictive scientific limitations therefore he apparently misses out on a lot of what is right in front of him.

I have a strong sensation that, one day in the far off future, humanity will start to peel away the layers of misunderstanding. We shall then realise that the intelligences residing in all things are not simply physical interactions between opposing forces but the footprints of the gods.

Our scientists look at creation – but how much do the truly ‘see’?

Our current provisional intellect may be comparable to say an ant looking at a car wheel.

The ant sees a large object yet does not realise the technological complexity behind it. The wheel was crafted by a species that has far greater abilities than the insect. The ant does not understand what is behind this object that it faces.

We are in a similar position when we seek to understand the marvel of creation. It is there in front of us yet we can only see a diminutive part of the entire situation.

So what about an ‘alternative’ way of seeing things, which has largely been forgotten by modern man?

Our Pagan ancestors gave each mountain, stone, tree, lake, hill and river its own tutelary spirit or deity. This spiritual concept is of course not only peculiar to the Gaelic or Brythonic (British) Celts, other Pagan races too viewed the world in a similarly parallel manner.

Moreover, the Romans believed that everything and its action contained a spiritual entity (the Genius-Loci/the spirit within.) The genius of a man possessed two aspects, one positive whilst the other being negative. When these existed in harmony balance was achieved. If however the genius was discontented then mental attrition was forthcoming.

Incidentally, existing psychology would seem to validate this ancient wisdom when we look at illnesses like schizophrenia and various other forms of derangement, which stem from the unbalanced mind. The conscious and sub-conscious must work in unison for complete Physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing.

Today, this personal deity conception has been somewhat adulterated by fashionable New Age-ism into what has come to be called the Higher-Self/Consciousness.

The nearest monotheistic adherents can get to it is known as the ‘Guardian Angel,’ a protective sentinel watching over one’s welfare.

Temples to each deity were commonly erected by the Roman peoples who fully realised the advantageous necessity of connecting with these vital aspects of divinity.

Today, the old gods/goddesses and spirits given as patrons of natural things have largely been demoted by the all-conquering Church into lesser aspects such as saints, fairies, heroes or demons. The essential male/female spiritual balance has been eroded into an allegedly all powerful (and of course male – oriented) being, commonly known as “God”!

Yes Stephen– things are not always as they at first appear, especially when the concept of “God” is added to any suitable equation.

Our pre-Christian ancestors were not restricted by today’s scientific intransigence either. They were able to act on their intuitive inner feelings, much like animals do in the wild.

Our forbears had sharper instincts – essential for survival – that related to the natural environment they inhabited and their ‘spiritual’ conception of their place in the Universe was consequently superior to ours. They literally ‘felt’ the seasonal cycles and adapted to them accordingly, whereas today in our scientifically-controlled environments we rely on gauges, switches and monitors to tell us how to live our lives.

And concerning the top scientific brains, I feel that rather than them making asinine comments about what, or what not, the creative process really is they would do better to actually admit in the first instance that they are restricted by their own limited intellect and comfortable contemporary life styles.

This way we have a fresh starting point and can keep an open mind about their public deliberations on “God” and creation etc.

With regards to the accurate designation of what the vast majority, including Stephen Hawking, call “God” – well that opens up a whole new ball game.

Hawking first needs to address this matter carefully so that others know what he defines as “God”. Stephen – are you listening to this?

Alternatively, if Professor Hawking is being critical of the world’s mind-controlling, monotheistic faith systems then I can appreciate this fully and salute his efforts.

For far too long established orthodoxy has successfully indoctrinated the masses on an immense global scale.

Not too long ago dissenters acting against the ecclesiastically – accepted religious doctrine could be arrested, imprisoned, tortured and ultimately murdered by the very same orthodoxies that still promote the ‘One True God’ fundamentalist hypothesis in society today.

Therefore if Professor Hawking is wishing to be taken seriously about the Big Bang, Creation etc then he must primarily tackle the concept of what “God” is supposed to be!

Is he perhaps speaking of an alleged omnipotent being that has an adversary called Satan? Is he speaking of ambiguous lines, that have been rewritten numerous times throughout history, from the pages of the Bible? If he is then this throws even more perplexity into the blending pot.

Traditionally the Christian ethos has always given humanity the meagre choice between God and the Devil.

In fact this is NO choice at all and just the typical mind-control gambit utilised by crafty clerics since the earliest conception of the Jesus Myth; a myth itself cleverly crafted from much earlier heathen legends relating to resurrection/salvation characters like Adonis, Attis, Osiris etc.

Hawkins is therefore amazingly giving us an equivalent sparely constructed choice of God or Science. Can you perhaps see the similarity, which is possibly further evidence of the good professor’s limited capacity in this instance?

Politicians, Scientists and the ruling Priesthoods have always been quick to give us their own tainted versions of the so-called Truth with their inherently limited choices, and this situation seems to fit the bill very well indeed.

Hawking’s latest prose appears to be pampering to the subconsciously- indoctrinated masses about the acknowledged (largely without question) monotheistic Godhead; yet his remarks avoid the essential nucleus of this momentous debate, which is – What exactly is “God”.

The old Evolution v Creation controversy will rage on with irate religious fundamentalists banging their heads against the wall with the scientists along side, kicking back.

But Hawking must explain to us what he is referring to with additional clarity, as to ignore this crucial point is undoubtedly nothing but a shrewd little cop out!

I believe that until we clear this matter up properly we cannot take the professor’s views that seriously.

I subsequently question an agenda, based on dubious choices, that appears to be flawed from the onset.

Pat Regan

Pat Regan is the author of the following works:

UFO: the Search for Truth