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 

[greatplains]

That would be worth paying to see. I think CS Lewis would have the stronger argument, since he came from the spritual emptiness where Hawking lives.

[allmendream]

LOL! Why not?

And while I posit that science is far more likely to, some day, be able to cure his physical malady; no science knowledge could ever heal his soul.

[tgusa]

Sure. And science is FAR more likely to, some day, succeed in wiping us off the face of the planet. Either that, or create unicorns that crap skittles. That said, I agree that science will never be able to heal his soul. But of course he doesn’t believe that he has a soul. Now, my lunch break is over, gotta go.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I try really hard not to dislike this man but I find he disingenuous to a fault. I can barely stand to watch him spew his rubbish. Well God will have the final say, He is the final authority.

[allmendream]

Oh, and because scientific knowledge has increased our destructive capacity such that we can destroy ourselves it is somehow not a worthwhile pursuit?

Seems that it is better to have that knowledge and not need it than to need that knowledge and not have it; and using it sure seemed to end WWII in a hurry.

But maybe if we all got together and PRAYED that Imperial Japan would surrender, that would be more efficacious?

LOL!

[MollyKuehl]

He is definitely mediocre and over rated. History will prove him to be so, especially with the ongoing advancement of science which will prove all his theories good enough for sci-fi material.

[TXnMA]

There is nothing about science that should cause anyone to reject a belief in God.

But I can well understand why a scientist would reject a belief in a God who says, "Pay no attention to the evidence I've left all over the universe as to how I brought it into being. Set that all aside and adhere to the chronology in this book I've written for you instead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

This scientist agrees -- BUT...

You cannot show where the Book you cite -- or its Author --says any such thing.

You can point to plentiful instances where small-minded, egotistical, self-centered humans have insisted on a misinterpretation of that Book that would so constrain the Creator into limitations of their own feeble imagining.

But you cannot provide factual evidence to attribute anything in your statement to the Creator of the universe and Author of that Book, Himself.

Put the blame on small-minded Man -- where it belongs. Do not lie about God and His Book.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Man is not the measure of God.

[TXnMA]

I posted my #67 before I read your #28 & #50 — but it appears we are in fundamental agreement...

[TXnMA]

"Man is not the measure of God. "

Indeed!I

[TXnMA]

"Man is not the measure of God. "

Indeed!I

[HMBillson]

I agree and refer to you an excellent book, “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins, one of the country’s leading geneticists and the longtime head of the Human Genome Project.

In his book Collins “explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes readers on a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible”. (Taken from the book jacket)

His conclusion, reads:

“In the twenty-first century, in an increasingly technological society, a battle is raging for the hearts and minds of humanity. Many materialist, noting triumphally the advances of science in filling the gaps of our understanding of nature, announce that belief in God is an outmoded superstition, and that we would be better off admitting that and moving on. Many believers in God, convinced that the truth they derive from spiritual introspection is of more enduring value than truths from other sources, see the advances in science and technology as dangerous and untrustworthy. Positions are heardening. Voices are becoming more shrill.

Will we turn our backs on science because it is perceived as a threat to God, abandoning all of the promise of advancing our understanding of nature and applying that to the alleviation of suffering and the betterment of humankind? Alternatively, will we turn our backs on faith, concluding that science has rendered the spiritual life no longer necessary, and that traditional religious symbols can be replaced by engravings of the double helix on our alters?

Both of these choices are profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful- and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”

Francis Collins presents a thoughtful reconciliation between science and belief in God.

Respectfully submitted. BW

[Louis Foxwell]

Thank you Ralph. Clearly Hawking should not discuss that of which he has no knowledge.

[ForAmerica]

Won’t he be surprised on judgement day.
_____________________________________

I was thinking the same thing, but it will be sooner, like when he dies.

[Antoninus]

His response would be -- can religion cure me ?

Yes. Read the Gospel. Christ cured folks much worse off that Hawking.

[SeekAndFind]

Yes. Read the Gospel. Christ cured folks much worse off that Hawking.

If Hawking prayed for Christ to heal him now, is it absolutely certain he would be healed ?

[Notary Sojac]

Put the blame on small-minded Man -- where it belongs.

Oh, I quite agree.

I think that the "small-minded", who insist that Genesis must be accepted as a word for word literal account of the universe's history, have done more to drive people away from God than any scientists ever have.

[TXnMA]

Ladies, it appears that we have here a gathering of kindred spirits...

[MEGoody]

Perhaps it was God that afflicted him in the first place—allowing him to focus his mind on unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

Who knows? God's ways are not our ways.

[EQAndyBuzz]

And when they can no longer ask another question or provide proof of an answer, out comes the name calling.