Perspective is everything, for everyone…even Stephen Hawking, and God

Perspective is everything, for everyone…even Stephen Hawking, and God
space

The newspaper headline reads, “God did not create Universe: Hawking.”

Hawking is not immune to being a respected error-maker and now I may add him in second place to my all-time favourite: Descartes, who declared “I think, therefore I am.”

“I am..” comes before the thought “I am a thinker.” There must be Knowing before thinking. As a result of this mistaken identity of being a thinker, many people have, in essence, come to worship the thinking mind, and their thoughts as truth.

It would be closer to the truth to say “I am, therefore I think.” Oh well, to err is human, and other brilliant thinkers once concluded the earth was flat. Perspective is everything.

What Hawking does not say is what’s pre-supposed in his theory, like that God is a separate being, that he (Hawking) is a separate being, and that the universe is separate from God, and him, and everyone and everything else.

I wonder if Hawking ever wondered if God *IS* the universe–but that would require a different starting perspective. (Of course, if God *IS* the universe, then God did not make the universe, and that would make Hawking right!)

For a few years now, since beginning to release my firm grip on the legless ideas which society handed-down, my perspective shifted. I no longer see from the same, separated, limited perspective. Just look around; if you look long and close enough (with brutal honesty and direct purity, and without beliefs to fog your view) at the world you move through, you can’t help but see the proof everywhere, right before your eyes. And your ears. And your tongue. And your skin. And your lungs. There is nothing that is separate from you. Everything directly “touches” everything else: the air, the light, the sound waves, the water, the gravity. You don’t need anything to connect you; you don’t even need a “unifying field,” because nothing is disconnected.

You are either seeing, or experiencing, and knowing from a separated viewpoint—or from a seamless one. The scientific method itself is founded on the original, most fundamental error made even before man created time (another separation): the idea of separation itself.

The scientific method has served its purpose, but if human-kind is to make what many are calling a necessary, radical, and rapid evolutionary leap, this viewpoint must change. The article says, “Hawking argued earlier this year that mankind’s only chance of long-term survival lies in colonizing space, as humans drain Earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats.”

How ironic that today friends took me to see “Hubble 3D” in the IMAX theater. While I enjoyed the perceived experience of flying through space and a glimpse of the scope of endless space and stars, I was not overly impressed with the state of space science, and I wonder if space travel is helping or hindering human-kind. We go to great effort and risk, and invest massive amounts of money—and all we can do is take pictures. While we have the earth and people on earth needing our attention and resources, we are out floating in space above the earth, taking pictures. And it does not seem that space travel is evolving fast enough to save the human race anyway, if it needs saving.

The article continues, “God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics…” Hahaha!…Sorry, I find this statement ridiculous, or pompous. Have we lost track of what is theory and what is reality? Scientific conclusions are always changing, but that does not mean that reality changes.

According to Hawking, the article says, these new “developments” are the discoveries of, “…a planet orbiting a star outside our own solar system.” This is presented as proof, “…as a turning point against Isaac Newton’s belief that the Universe could not have arisen out of chaos.”

So I guess the conceited idea was that if our solar system was one-of-a-kind, amongst innumerable solar systems, that we could not have been an “accident.” I fail to see how, out of innumerable solar systems, how we could even believe ours is the only one—and how would being the only one (or not) mean there is/is not a causal intelligence? All of this sounds highly unscientific. (Not that I have ultimate faith in the scientific method.)

While I have seen many science documentaries exploring the natures of experience and self-recognition also form conclusions from the same separated perspective, this article I could just not let go. Why? –Perhaps because of the often blind trust and faith that society puts into our revered scientists and doctors and the serious impact this can have.

A number of years ago I had to have foot surgery, and I did my research to find the best surgeon. Everyone said she was the best, and I waited over a year to get to see her, only to be told that even if I have surgery, I will never run again. It was not the “news” that shocked me (I did not believe it for a moment), but that an intelligent person would hold such a limiting belief, and expect or want me to buy it. There have been stories of people who were diagnosed with a terminal illness and given three months to live as part of the diagnosis, who actually died three-months-to-the day of the diagnosis! Was the doctor that good? No, but people tend to believe them, even to their deaths. Beliefs are not science, but they are powerful. Ethically, scientists, especially high-profile ones, should not be dropping their personal beliefs upon others. Scientifically, to make space for knowing beyond what we think we know, human arrogance must be replaced by the purity of innocent curiosity.

Just yesterday I saw a story of a newborn child which doctors announced dead after attempts to save it. They gave the body to the parents to grieve over, and the mother brought the babe to her skin and spoke to it, to connect in any way they could in those last precious moments. The baby’s body moved but doctors left, saying it was just bodily reactions and the child was dead. Minutes later the child opened its eyes and began to suckle. The parents requested the doctor’s return but he refused, believing the parents were imagining things. Finally they sent the message that they had accepted the baby’s death, and the doctor returned, to be shocked to see the live infant. Scientists and the public would do well to remember that that which we know is irrelevant compared to that which is unknown.

After several meetings, I realized that my surgeon was trying to dissuade me from even wanting to run again, for fear of the surgery being deemed a “failure” or worse, resulting in a lawsuit. With that discovery I was able to move forward with the surgery, recognizing that she did not have to believe I would run again—only I did. She just needed to be the best surgeon. And she was. Four months after my surgery I was running again, and now I am back to running 5km a couple times a week.

I know what my doctor’s purpose or motive was in downloading her unsubstantiated beliefs (we can only speculate what Hawking’s is). Most people don’t have a motive; they just have inherited unquestioned beliefs, which can seem better than nothing. However these, if investigated into, just trigger more unanswered questions.

As the article further quotes, Hawking speaks from a point of separation, from a belief that the universe is separate from God, and required “creating” by something, and if not by God, then he indicates gravity, “‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,’ he writes in ‘The Grand Design,’ which is being serialized by The Times newspaper.”

True to the structure of a legless belief—just a few last questions, please. Why is there a law such as gravity? What or who created that? Gravity is not nothing, is it? If God were some thing, then what created God? And…could God be that “nothing” you speak of  from which all things sprang? Oh my…I digress to questions from my childhood, the greatest, most innocent, purest, not-knowing space from which all possibilities lay and spring from. Just like nothing.

Perspective is everything for everyone, even Stephen Hawking, and God

The newspaper headline read, “God did not create Universe: Hawking.”

Oh well, to err is human, and other brilliant thinkers once concluded the earth was flat. Perspective is everything. What Hawking does not say is what’s pre-supposed in his theory, like that God is a separate being, that he (Hawking) is a separate being, and that the universe is separate from God, and him, and everyone and everything else.

For a few years now, since beginning to release my firm grip on the legless ideas which society handed-down, my perspective shifted. I no longer see from the same, separated, limited perspective. If you look around long enough and close enough at the world that you move through with brutal honesty and direct purity, and without beliefs to fog your view, you can’t help but see the proof everywhere, right before your eyes. And your ears. And your tongue. And your skin. And your lungs. There is nothing that is separate from you. Everything “touches” everything else: the air, the light, the sound waves, the water, the gravity. You don’t need anything to connect you; you don’t even need a “unifying field,” because nothing is disconnected.

You are either seeing, or experiencing, or knowing from a separated viewpoint—or from a seamless one. The scientific method itself is founded on the original, most fundamental error of separation made since before man created time (another separation): the idea of separation itself.

The scientific method has served its purpose, but if human kind is to make what many are calling a necessary, radical, and rapid evolutionary leap, this viewpoint must change.

The article notes: “Hawking argued earlier this year that mankind’s only chance of long-term survival lies in colonizing space, as humans drain Earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats.”

How ironic that today friends took me to see “Hubble 3D” in the IMAX theater. While I enjoyed the perceived experience of flying through space, and a glimpse of the scope of endless space and stars, I was not overly impressed with the state of space science and I wonder if space travel helping or hindering. We go to great effort and risk, and invest massive amounts of money—and all we can do is take pictures. While we have the earth and people on earth needing our attention and resources, we are out floating in space above the earth. It does not seem that space travel is evolving fast enough to save the human race, if it needs saving.

The other astounding thing is that we are out there, trying to figure just what “out there” is, from our tiny, separated perspective, and we do not even know who or what we are. A short-cut to the answer to the universe would seem to be to know the observer of it.

The article continues, “God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics…” Hahaha!…Sorry…Science’s conclusions are always changing, but that does not mean that reality changes.

According to Hawking, the article says, these new “developments” are the discoveries of, “a planet orbiting a star outside our own solar system.” This is presented as proof, “…asa turning point against Isaac Newton’s belief that the Universe could not have arisen out of chaos.”

So I guess the conceited idea was that if we were one-of-a-kind, amongst innumerable solar systems, that we could not have been an “accident.” I fail to see, out of innumerable solar systems, how we could possibly believe we could have the only such system—and how would being the only one (or not) mean there is/is not a causal intelligence? All of this sounds highly unscientific. (Not that I have ultimate faith in the scientific method.)

While I have seen many science documentaries exploring the natures of experience and self-recognition also form conclusions from the same separated perspective, this article I could just not let go. Why? –Perhaps because of the often blind trust and faith that society puts into our revered scientists and the impact this can have. A number of years ago I had to have foot surgery, and I did my research to find the best surgeon. Everyone said she was the best, and I waited over a year to get to see her, only to be told that even if I have surgery, that I will never run again. It was not the news that shocked me (I did not believe it for a moment), but that an intelligent person would hold such a limiting belief, and want me to buy it. There have been stories of people who were diagnosed with a terminal illness and given 3 months to live as part of the diagnosis, who actually died three-months-to-the day of the diagnosis! Was the doctor that good? No, but people tend to believe them, even to their deaths. Beliefs are not science, but they are powerful. Scientists, especially high-profile ones, should not be expounding their beliefs.

Just yesterday I saw a story of a newborn child which doctors announced dead after attempts to save it. They gave the body to the parents to grieve over, and the mother brought the babe to her skin and spoke to it. The baby’s body moved but doctors left, saying it was just bodily reactions and the child was dead. Minutes later the child opened its eyes and began to suckle. The parents requested the doctor’s return but he refused, believing the parents were imagining things. Finally they sent the message that they had accepted the baby’s death, and the doctor returned, to be shocked to see the live infant. Scientists and the public would do well to remember that that which we know is irrelevant compared to that which is unknown.

After several meetings, I realized that my surgeon was trying to dissuade me from even wanting to run again, for fear of the surgery being deemed a “failure” or worse, resulting in a lawsuit. With that discovery I was able to move forward with the surgery, recognizing that she did not have to believe I would run again—only I did. She just needed to be the best surgeon. And she was. Four months after my surgery I was running again, and now I am back to running 5km a couple times a week.

I know what my doctor’s purpose or motive was in downloading her unsubstantiated beliefs. Most people don’t have a motive; they just have inherited unquestioned beliefs, which can seem better than nothing. However these, if investigated into, just trigger more unanswered questions.

As the article further quotes, Hawking speaks from a point of separation, from a belief that the universe is separate from God, and required “creating” by something, and if not by God, then he indicates gravity, “‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,’ he writes in ‘The Grand Design,’ which is being serialized by The Times newspaper.”

True to the structure of a legless belief—just a few last questions, please. Why is there a law such as gravity? What or who created that? Gravity is not nothing, is it? If God were some thing, then what created God? And…could God be that “nothing” you speak of from which all things sprang? Oh my…I digress to questions from my childhood, the greatest, most innocent, purest, not-knowing space from which all possibilities lay and spring from. Just like nothing.

(Just as the brilliance of a telescope matters not if it is pointed in the wrong direction, the brilliance of a mind matters not if it is pointed in the wrong direction. We are out there, trying to figure just what “out there” is, from our tiny, separated perspective, and we do not even know who or what we are. A short-cut to the answer to the universe would seem to be to know the observer of it, first.)

“Know thyself.” -Ancient Greek aphorism

Cindy Teevens is the author of The Alchemy of Love and Joy™. In May of 2009, the practice came through her own suffering and later discovery of joy, and it emerged and took form in words, to help someone else.  Her life has become happy and often ecstatic with the most simple things. She is excited to continue this adventure and wonders just how good it can become as she practices allowing more and more joy. She encourages the world toSeek Joy!

Comments 11

  1. Hugh Chatfield

    There is merit in what you say. For example, you might look out in front of you and you say you see a red chair there. But what is really there? Photons bounce off the chair and enter your eyes They strike your retina which causes an electrical signal to be generated which goes to the back of your brain, and your brain interprets the signal to be a red chair just in front of you. Exactly how it does this is unknown. Whether both you and I “see” the same thing – we don’t know. We have however learned to call whatever we might “see” – a red chair. Make no mistake though – the entire concept of “red chair” exists inside your brain – i.e. a thought.

    Wheeler has gone further. He has introduced a concept called “It from Bit”. There is some evidence in quantum physics that the act of observation causes the thing observed to come into existence. This is of course on the very small scale. He has some very nice thought experiments that illustrate this. Again – what is an observation? It is “seeing” something – ah – back to a thought again.

    However, I think Hawking is merely observing that the laws of our existence permit a universe – or even multiple universes to jump into existence. Before anything has a chance to “think” the universe has already been around for a couple of billion years.

  2. Brian

    yes there was a time we believed the earth was flat

    there was also a time i would have believed the above statement

    but now all thoughts seem to be just that, just thoughts

    today, most people believe their thoughts about who they are

    tomorrow, they may realize these are just thoughts also

    they may see the creation of the universe as just another thought

  3. Hugh Chatfield

    Just finished reading Hawking’s book (pretty much in one sitting).

    Nowhere does he deny the existence of God as various people have suggested.

    We used to believe our world was flat, at the centre of the universe, and all the reality we observed was due to a “God” doing things. The Sun was not a giant fusion engine at the centre of our solar system – it was a god driving his fiery chariot across our sky for example.

    Since 1948, the Casimir effect experiment (google it) has demonstrated that the creation of something out of nothing is a fundamental characteristic of our Universe. Now we know enough that we can say that the creation of universes seem to be a fundamental characteristic of nature as well. We also find that given the properties of the Universe we live in – life is inevitable.

    But – as you point out – there is still very much more to learn. Buckminister Fuller saw our purpose in the overall universe was to function as “information gatherers” – and mankind certainly seems to be engaged in this activity at an exponential rate.

    In my mind, the more science discovers about the Universe we live in, the more I am left with a Creator that is closer to what I think such a Creator should be.

    I heard a lady on TV answer the question about whether or not she believed in a God – ” I believe in a God, but not in a God with a score card”.

    BTW – so glad you got back to running – there is so much more to learn about the powers of the human mind.

    Oh yes – you asked “Why is there a law such as gravity?”. Gravity exists because there is mass. Einstein showed that the force of gravity really is due to a distortion of space-time by that mass. The famous experiment during an eclipse to see if light bent around the sun showed he was right. Why is there mass? It is natural end game once a universe is created.

    Cheers..Hugh

  4. Marie Benard

    Great article, thanks for taking the time to write what so many of us have been thinking since reading what Hawking’s opinions about God.

    I agree, Hawking seems to be using the religious definition of some entity that is separate from us, who waved a magic wand and “created” the heavens and the earth.

    I suspect the statement “God did not create Universe: Hawking.” is more for publicity than based on his actual beliefs, because if you read the article, there are points Hawking makes that seem to contradict the headline, at least from the perspective of what I believe God is (all of us, interconnected, everything, not separate). The article achieved it’s goal: to get people talking and promoting Hawking’s work:)

    1. Post
      Author
      Cindy

      Very well put Marie, re: the “entity”. You know, if he did mean God as “not a separate being,” then I could buy into it, however I do not see the points that contradict the headline or support that.

      His main suggestion is that there is no intelligence behind the universe (which would leave room for some form of intelligence beyond the human body), and that it was just all random chaos.

      One heck of a fluke, eh?

      Certainly, the headline was the newspaper’s summary, in their own words. However if Hawking disagreed with something so monumental, then we should have heard a corrective statement from him, and so far that has not happened in spite of papers around the world essentially saying the same thing.

      And yes, we are talking/thinking Hawking…though maybe believing him a little less now. (Although I hold no beliefs at all, and no dis-beliefs :-).

      Thanks for dropping in!

    1. Post
      Author
  5. Brian

    Hi Cindy,

    Loved the article, saw the truth in it.

    The truth being that without this aware space we call the present moment, which I am, which you are, which we all are, there would not be thoughts or appearances of any kind.

    But my question is, which came first?

    The chicken or the egg?

    Heh, heh.

    Just kidding. lol :)

    1. Post
      Author
  6. John.G.Verboon

    Thanks Cindy for your article.
    Indeed What is seeing?
    One needs Light, and light are photons also called Quanta of Action.
    If one ‘sees’ God as the Quanta of Any and All Action you will understand the ‘light’ in every person as well as all creation. Period.!!!!
    Please try to read Arthur Zajonc’s book called “Catching the Light”.
    Or Deepak Chopra’s book called “How to know God’ and specially pages 204-226.
    Or Peter Russell’s book called “From Science to God”.
    The last one I’ll send you a transcript if you like.
    Keep ‘seeing’ in Joy!

    1. Post
      Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Login with Facebook


− five = 0