Stephen Hawking just doesn't get it (asserting the superiority of science over religion)

American Thinker ^ | 06/08/2010 | Ralph Alter

[SeekAndFind]

Somewhere along the way, the man who last held the Lucasian chair in mathematics at Cambridge once held by Sir Isaac Newton has forgotten how to construct a scientific hypothesis.  To the delight of his interviewer, Diane Sawyer of ABC News, Stephen Hawking asserted the superiority of science over religion:

When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

Ironically enough, Hawking would have us accept this assertion based upon his noetic authority.  It seems, rather, that religion is based upon faith, supported by observation and reason.  The miracles performed by Jesus and the Buddha or the power of the good will embodied by Ghandi or Martin Luther King were certainly observed and can be factored into one's consideration of faith.  The scientific community's infatuation with global warming, on the other hand, seems to have been based upon something other than observation and reason:  precisely the intellectual authority claimed by the fraudsters and self-interested warmists looking to enrich themselves by imposing their preposterous schemes on the engine of capitalism.

While Hawking has certainly earned the right to strut his cerebral hubris, his pronouncements regarding religion and God are riddled with assumptions that completely undermine the validity of his off-the-cuff hypotheses.  Take a look at this paragraph filled with dead-ended assertions of the primacy of the scientific method:

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."  (ibid ABC)

For starters, why is it more likely that God is the embodiment of nature, when it seems every bit as logical that the laws of nature are the embodiment of God?  While my own belief seems quite close to Hawking's potential Godhead along the lines of Deepak Chopra's concept of "the infinite organizing power of the universe," what is to prevent a human from enjoying a personal relationship with that God?   One can understand that a personal relationship with God might be impossible for Hawking.  Mores the pity.

Perhaps most striking is Hawking's denigration of the"(insignificance of ) an accidental human life" in our vast universe.  I believe Mr. Hawking's expertise lies in the area of physics, from whence he is wandering off the reservation and into metaphysics.  The question of the significance of human life is an ethical question, certainly not the branch of philosophy from which we want to entertain Stephen Hawking's skeptical direction.

Perhaps if one is a detached intellectual pondering the vastness and emptiness of space,  one can lose track of the significance of human life.   Those of us who share a faith in a higher power, whatever one might conceive it to be, are infused by our faith with the miracle of each day and recognize and honor the significance of humans like George Washington, Mother Teresa, St. Augustine and countless others who labored to improve the lot of humanity and continue to enrich it despite the nay-saying of the nattering nabobs of nihilism who just don't get it.

Ralph Alter blogs at Right on Target 

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Why would He?

God doesn't force Himself on people who want nothing to do with Him.

[Melas]

Completely untrue. His theories on singularities become more verifiable with every advance in observation we make. We may yet find that Hawking Radiation is an imperfect model, but he’s certainly put us on the right path. To dismiss his work as flights of theoretical fancy is disingenuous.

[reasonisfaith]

“within me are morals”

With respect and humility, I must point out that Kant had this part wrong.

Morals are within me in the sense that the stars are above me, only if the nature of morals is to be relative.

But they are not relative, they are absolute—commanded by God. So morals exist external to the individual, as the stars above.

[Ayn And Milton]

That is a tough one.

I’d reply: morals have to be internalized. So in that sense, you’re right. They start as external entities, absolute guidelines. But if one lets a child grow up in the wilderness, unreared, it is unlikely that it will develop morals. They have to be ‘injected’.

I think that Kant did not mean to say: they were inside of me from the beginning onwards. His parents had to teach morals to him.

Knowing that Kant was a humble man, he’d never claim that he simply ‘was born with them inside of him’. He’d regarded this as vanity.

But at any rate: thank you for your thoughtful contribution.

[reasonisfaith]

Thanks for the clarification of what Kant meant.

I would tend to think, however, regarding the child growing up in the wilderness, that this notion mirrors a proposition once described to me by a philosophy professor as coming from Hegel.

And although I don’t want to be overly contentious here, I must at least qualify my original comment by saying I believe without question that God writes moral law into our hearts. So a more thorough explanation is to say that although morals are internal to man, their origin is of God.

[SunkenCiv]

Additional:

• Stephen Hawking's latest book fails to disprove God
• The Grand Design:
  Hawking on Gravity and Creation, and William Lane Craig on More.
• Is Intelligence By Association Possible?
• Stephen Hawking vs. God
• Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over God for Big Bang

some totally irrelevant sidebars:

• Stephen Hawking: How to build a time machine
• Hawking Wrong Again, Researcher Tells Mars Conference (re: wormhole time machine model.

[ROTB]

Stephen Hawking’s Universe Implodes

http://xwalk.ca/y3nf.html

Only the God of the Bible tells the future with accuracy and specificity.

[djf]

He’s wrong, of course. He should read “The Domain of Physical Science” by A/ S/ Eddington, which gives a very elaborate and detailed description of the differences.

Science deals with measurements - that’s it! Pointer readings. How many volts? How much does it weigh?
Because science is based on these readings, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with any moral or ethical reasoning based on those readings. It simply is what it is - no wrong or right or value.

Religion and ethics, otoh, are based on patterns. Life itself is a pattern. Just like the seasons. And we are able, with perception and experience to see what works in life and what doesn’t. NO MEASUREMENT OF SOME METER COULD TELL US THAT!

So they are different things entirely. And Hawking ought to be smart enough to see he is talking about apples and oranges.

The Domain of Physical Science, A. S. Eddington pp 187

Science, Religion and Reality
ed. Jos. Needham
The Macmillan Company, 1928