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 

[a fool in paradise]

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."

He needs to take another look at the research then that studies patients in hospitals and their recovery when they and those around them pray and have faith that they will get better.

Where is the "science" in that? Is it strictly "the power of positive thinking"? If you have no faith in a higher power, starting to chant "meaningless" mumbo jumbo isn't going to improve your recovery no matter how much "hope" you put in it.

(Barack Obama's pocketful of lucky charms)

[Pollster1]

Hawking might as well assert the superiority of a fine cabernet sauvignon over prime rib. They go together well, but they are not the same, and even the best cabernet sauvignon will not leave me satisfied by itself, nor is prime rib by itself sufficient for an elegant dinner.

[Joe 6-pack]

It’s a shame Hawking could not have been at Cambridge at the same time as CS Lewis. That would have made for some interesting discourse.

[allmendream]

Deepak Chopra?

LOL!

The miracles of BOTH Jesus and Buddah?

LOL!

No doubt there is a better defense out there for the argument this lamo is trying to make.

[Notary Sojac]

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."

[MollyKuehl]

I personally believe Hawking would not have gotten so much recognition if it weren't for his ALS. He is strictly a mathematician and he was never able to prove his claims (eg: alien life may exist in a primitive form in the universe). He is also intellectually dishonest claiming that the NHS saved his life without adding that his healthcare coverage is being supplemented by a very generous stipend from Cambridge University.

"All that my work has shown is that you don't have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God." - Stephen Hawking

[laotzu]

The guy can’t even walk & chew gum at the same time.

[Texas Eagle]

This reminds me of a story about a meeting between God and a group of scientists.

The scientists insist they can create a man just as God did.

So God takes them up on their challenge and says, "Go for it."

The lead scientist says, "Great. Boys, go get me a bucket of dirt."

God says, "No, no, no. You have to make your own dirt."

[pburgh01]

The world of physics is beyond Hawking, most of his theories and postulates are bieng proven wrong. He is quite an intellect, that is for sure, but he was late to the party when it came to dark matter, etc. He gets very defensive about his shortcomings and his stock answer is..My Theory of Everything encompasses that possibility. Nonsense, he's a 165 IQ trying to act like someone with a 190. What we know about the universe is a joke, to make such a declarative statement about G*d is moronic.

[al baby]

Oh man thats cold

[tgusa]

I hate to do it but it must be said ....

Then why hasn’t science cured him?

[texaschick]

Won’t he be surprised on judgement day.

[trisham]

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?

***********************

Good article.

[MollyKuehl]

The guy can’t even walk & chew gum at the same time.

OK, this was sooooooo funy.. but also wrong! BUT VERY FUNNY :)

[SeekAndFind]

Then why hasn’t science cured him?

His response would be -- can religion cure me ?

[Pollster1]

I’ve met Hawking (several days, with hours of one-on-one and small group conversation), and he is an intellectual giant. However, as you say, he thinks he’s even smarter than he actually is, and he thinks expertise in one field extends to all fields.

[trisham]

Some of it was a little silly, but he’s definitely further along the road than Hawking. :)

[Cboldt]

-- It's a shame Hawking could not have been at Cambridge at the same time as CS Lewis. --

Indeed. Even now, Hawking could (maybe he has) read C.S. Lewis.

Hawking's contributions to physics are darn substantial though. The consideration of quantum effects at the event horizon of a black hole, for instance. Still, in my mind, Einstein's contribution and insight is more amazing, because it is boggling that "time" and "space" are not everywhere the same.

[trisham]

That’s kind of scary.