Preparing for the Miraculous

138 eleven talksnothing’ courtesy of the force of gravity, and the laws ofnature are an accident of the particular slice of universe wehappen to inhabit. ‘God may exist’, Hawking told LarryKing, adding, ‘but science can explain the universe withoutthe need for a creator.’”Paul Davies has put it all together: “There is a sizeablegroup of scientists who ... wish to diminish or even besmirchhuman significance, and with it the significance of humanqualities such as intelligence and understanding. For thesescientists any suggestion of a teleological trend or progressiveevolution towards consciousness, or even towards greatercomplexity, is anathema. Their arguments, however, alsocarry barely concealed overtones of an ideological agenda[Scientism]. In this respect they are little different from thosewho have decided in advance on this or that religious interpretationof nature, and then shoehorn the scientific facts tofit their preconceived beliefs. Meanwhile, it has to be admitted,most scientists stick with something like position A [theabsurd universe] and get on with their work, leaving the bigquestions to philosophers and priests.” 23Two notes in the marginIn conclusion of this section, the following notes maythrow a special light on its contents.What was the real centre of the universe?In his classic work The Great Chain of Being, ArthurLovejoy has the following remark: “The geocentric cosmographyserved rather for man’s humiliation than for hisexaltation, and Copernicanism was opposed partly on theground that it assigned too dignified and lofty a position23 Paul Davies: The Goldilocks Enigma, p. 303.