CREATION, THE GRAND DESIGN - OR THE GRAND FAILURE

The latest offering by Hawking is unfortunately another example of

the modern tendency of scientific writers to make money out of
God. But, underlying this, just what is Hawking (and his twin God
detractor,
Dawkins) so much in fear of, that they have to stray across the
boundaries of material science into the area of belief to make their
point, when no one, with even a fraction of material insight,
believes that a conscious godlike entity was responsible for
creation.

They are material scientists and however complete and exclusive

the scientific view of reality is, as represented by this book: The
Grand Design, it surely misses the point, that there are six billion
reasons why we should fear for the future and each one of these is
a subjective human entity. By attacking the sources of belief, one
presumes that the writer's hope is for wholesale change in the
orientation of the masses and particularly those susceptible to
religious radicalism. Unfortunately, in doing so, they are completely
overlooking the social sciences, that informs of their impossible task
and that social programming, as practiced by Mao and other
powerful totalitarian leaders, demonstrates much greater
effect for changing large populations of humans. The fact that
Western
State mechanisms have turned away from science as a mantra for
control, in an uncertain environmental future, in favour of fear and
somnambulant material programming, demonstrates the panic that
has set in over the prospect of social meltdown. In the face of such
uncertainty, it has always been the case that people will turn to
faith. The fact that Christianity is now growing in China at a
remarkable rate, for whatever other reasons, simply demonstrates
how humans are willing to exchange a material philosophy for a
faith
based religion. There is no contradiction between the alternatives,
they both offer the prospect of a kind and loving father, whereas
science simply offers, cold hard facts.
It is therefore understandable, that these latest offerings on the
completeness of science, is delivered with a dogmatic tone. One
suspects that the twin pillars, of what might be a new religion of the
sciences, are in fear of being swept away by a rise, in what they
see as their antithesis — blind unquestioning faith in an unseen,
non material phenomenon, i.e God. My suspicions are however,
that there is a real threat to the scientific orientation of mind, that
comes, not from conventional religion and God, but from a
completely new order of being. This new order is as rational as the
scientific mind, but also incorporates communication with a system
of reality, based upon an orientation towards the phenomenology
and teleology of deity and inclusive of Hawking it is to be found
in the unconscious of every one of the six billion subjective
humans on this planet.

If the resources of science, had once cared to treat belief as a

reality, which it undoubtedly is — despite what appears to be an
irrational basis, science might have begun to make progress in the
right direction, which is towards a more embracing view of reality.
Science veers away from religion, because it regards a religious
orientation and its objects as being untestable by the scientific
method. It is true, that certain researchers have worked with
subjects professing belief and other obscure subjective states,
through the application of neural science, but their approach is to
try to understand the process in relation to the brain. The idea that
there might be an actual, phenomenological entity of mind, seems
somehow never to have crossed their minds. This ignorance is
unforgivable, because it obviates the very science that was
designed
to deal with the phenomena, namely depth psychology.

But even in psychology, a blanket of silence has descended, which

I believe comes from a quite natural fear of its proponents towards
ridicule by the general community of science for dealing with the
irrational.
We should show sympathy, for in the main, these are, after all,
just men and women who have a life to lead, like other
scientists do. But, the quite natural fear, and numinous seduction
of
the objects of the unconscious, demand far more than a nine to five
orientation. It is ironic, that a freak like Hawking, should not have
been the preoccupation of psychological analysis. It would certainly
have been the case if Freud and Jung were alive — they feared no
hallowed ground and political correctness. The one sided approach
of science, in clinging on to a material philosophy and explanation
of reality, seems to me to be wrapped up in the symbol of the
illness
and being of the poor unfortunate Hawking. One cannot, but be
overwhelmed with sympathy and pity for this man, who has had his
prospects for a normal life, based upon our evolution from primates,
almost completely thwarted and as a result, or as a synchronicity,
he has turned his seemingly unfettered mind outwards, to wrestle
with the complexity of cosmology and the origins of material
creation.

It is however, my shocking understanding, that any approach

towards a further evolution in the species that Hawking appears to
be appealing to in his work as a scientist and popular writer, will
involve a similar, though perhaps not so extreme degree of
deprivation to that which Hawking himself suffers. It should be
obvious to any psychologist reading this piece, that any real
involvement with the objects of the unconscious, will take a heavy
toll
on the natural instincts and human subjectivity. It is my anticipation,
that the teleological function of the central archetype
of the unconscious, is towards the development of a specialised
form of expanded human consciousness, that will involve a very
extensive erosion of the primary instincts. This will almost certainly
mean a necessary evolution of morphology towards a more
cerebral
based entity, the final object of which, will have an optimised body,
that runs on minimal resources and a phenomenal mind, that will
incorporate a much deeper interaction with the complexities and
extent of the universe it occupies.
RC
8.9.2010