Can there really even be many atheists?
The well-known physicist Michio Kaku in his new book, "The Future of Humanity", suggests the idea that there is a "Star Maker" who is responsible for the universe, a "God-like figure". At first , this seems like while at the same time Kaku mildly disparages religion as unneeded, and at the very least edges on atheism in his viewpoints. His definition of God:
Why should nomenclature matter? Well, I think it's because many secular humanists believe we can match the idea of God, by becoming like God. A god who can be matched, who can be reached by man's power alone is not supreme in the sense of the Christian God, but is rather a sort of "self-god", a "controllable" god, and atheists, moral relativists, and the like, would be fine with a controllable power as it does not require obedience.
Kaku in his book Physics of the Future, thinks we can reach and match God in this sense, even becoming gods, "By 2100, our destiny is to become like the gods we once worshiped and feared."
Back in The Future of Humanity, he explains this saying:
Kaku's opinions can be discussed in numerous ways, but its an interesting contrast between atheism and God. Michio Kaku is not alone among scientists in this "halfway" viewpoint, but it brings up an interesting question. If prominent scientists like Kaku who are nominally atheistic, still believe in design and order in the world in a sense, are there really many atheists? Whence and why do Kaku and others believe in a "creator" but not directly God. What are they afraid of?
The only seeming variance in meaning is that God requires obedience and implies moral authority while the idea of a "star maker", although pretty much equal to God in theory, is to secularists, again a god of "themselves", a god they can themselves worship and become.
In a sense, although I don't know Kaku's full thinking (there are many ambiguities such as this interesting but false report) and he acknowledges "God" in quotations as beauty in mathematics and science, but his thinking , if extrapolated and connected, is but a rippling of man's desire at the Fall, to be like God. Mankind, in Kaku's view can play God, controlling reality, creating being, and determining morality.
Is that not the goal of the modern world and secular science? Many want to modify and determine morality, that is "know (by ourselves) what is good and evil" (Genesis 3....right?), control the natural world and all other men by power over life and death and eventually some even want to become God by creating life, and by somehow making man immortal.
Is this not the act of the Fall in Genesis 3?
Is this not like the goal of the Tower of Babel, reaching heaven or God without Him?
I propose then that atheism is not always just unbelief in God or opposition to belief in God, but instead can often be a competitive desire, "I know God, but will not serve. I can best you" thinking. In a sense this is just a new version of ancient thinking, of the desire to become perfect, to become immortal, to be remembered. This time, however, its more dangerous, because rather than being wrapped in a facade of worshiping God (paganism), this new ambition for man is packaged as "science" and progress. I don't mean to disparage Kaku, I like some of his technological ideas and plans for space exploration, but it must be pointed out that there are deep dangers to the path of thinking in his way.
The well-known physicist Michio Kaku in his new book, "The Future of Humanity", suggests the idea that there is a "Star Maker" who is responsible for the universe, a "God-like figure". At first , this seems like while at the same time Kaku mildly disparages religion as unneeded, and at the very least edges on atheism in his viewpoints. His definition of God:
"We actually have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God."Kaku is not the most strident atheist either, but at least edges upon what is commonly thought of as atheism as he says in his book Hyperspace:
"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. ...The God of Miracles intervenes in our affairs, performs miracles, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, drowns the Pharaoh's troops, and avenges the pure and noble. ...This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science."It's a bit hard to understand Kaku's position, but other atheists (in the common sense of the term), similarly pronounce that the author is fine with a "creator" of some sort, be it a "grand simulator", alien race, or something else, but not God as such. Kaku sees order in the universe, a beauty and design in physics, but he prefers the answer to this design being something not-called God.
Why should nomenclature matter? Well, I think it's because many secular humanists believe we can match the idea of God, by becoming like God. A god who can be matched, who can be reached by man's power alone is not supreme in the sense of the Christian God, but is rather a sort of "self-god", a "controllable" god, and atheists, moral relativists, and the like, would be fine with a controllable power as it does not require obedience.
Kaku in his book Physics of the Future, thinks we can reach and match God in this sense, even becoming gods, "By 2100, our destiny is to become like the gods we once worshiped and feared."
Back in The Future of Humanity, he explains this saying:
Maybe someday we can become like the Star Maker and from our vantage point in hyperspace look down and see our universe, coexisting with other universes in the multiverse, each containing billions of galaxies. Analyzing the landscape of possible universes, we may choose a new universe that is still young, that can provide a new home. We would choose a universe that has stable matter, like atoms, and is young enough that stars can create new solar systems to spawn new forms of life.The "star-maker" is not exactly Kaku's own concept, it actually originating from the 1937 science-fiction novel of that title by a man named Olaf Stapledon, but Kaku takes the idea to reality, using it as his concept of God.
Kaku's opinions can be discussed in numerous ways, but its an interesting contrast between atheism and God. Michio Kaku is not alone among scientists in this "halfway" viewpoint, but it brings up an interesting question. If prominent scientists like Kaku who are nominally atheistic, still believe in design and order in the world in a sense, are there really many atheists? Whence and why do Kaku and others believe in a "creator" but not directly God. What are they afraid of?
The only seeming variance in meaning is that God requires obedience and implies moral authority while the idea of a "star maker", although pretty much equal to God in theory, is to secularists, again a god of "themselves", a god they can themselves worship and become.
In a sense, although I don't know Kaku's full thinking (there are many ambiguities such as this interesting but false report) and he acknowledges "God" in quotations as beauty in mathematics and science, but his thinking , if extrapolated and connected, is but a rippling of man's desire at the Fall, to be like God. Mankind, in Kaku's view can play God, controlling reality, creating being, and determining morality.
Is that not the goal of the modern world and secular science? Many want to modify and determine morality, that is "know (by ourselves) what is good and evil" (Genesis 3....right?), control the natural world and all other men by power over life and death and eventually some even want to become God by creating life, and by somehow making man immortal.
Is this not the act of the Fall in Genesis 3?
Is this not like the goal of the Tower of Babel, reaching heaven or God without Him?
I propose then that atheism is not always just unbelief in God or opposition to belief in God, but instead can often be a competitive desire, "I know God, but will not serve. I can best you" thinking. In a sense this is just a new version of ancient thinking, of the desire to become perfect, to become immortal, to be remembered. This time, however, its more dangerous, because rather than being wrapped in a facade of worshiping God (paganism), this new ambition for man is packaged as "science" and progress. I don't mean to disparage Kaku, I like some of his technological ideas and plans for space exploration, but it must be pointed out that there are deep dangers to the path of thinking in his way.
Comments
Post a Comment