Replies

One of the most talked-about assertions in the whole book is that we don't need the idea of God to explain what sparked the creation of the universe.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes everything else of no value. The hubris of Hawking is astounding. He also said:

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, compared to science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.

Stephen Hawking may indeed possess a great deal of intelligence and have an impressive educational credentials but it's clear that he utterly lacks wisdom for "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1).

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, compared to science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.

Even if true, I have always failed to see how Hawking thought this was a "scientific" statement. If you take out the unscientific term, "based on," and replace it with the more defined "caused by," it's not clear how the (assumed for purposes of argument) fact that religion is "caused by" authority (whatever that is, eh, Steven?) makes it less valid than science which (here) is "caused by" observation and reason" in the observer.

Hawking himself says the past cannot be known definitely and that we might all have a skewed vantage for observation because, for all we know, we live in a "fishbowl." If those are true, they militate AGAINST the validity of observation, and reason based on observation, and therefore against the superiority of science or mere religion.

Also, as noted above, Hawking glosses over the idea of what, exactly, is "authority" -- the "authority" that religion is based on or is caused by. Authority must be some kind of power, even if only analogous to the power of gravity. So how would this differ at all from the basis for science in Hawking's conclusion? Aren't religion and science equally, fundamentally, based on POWER of some sort?

No matter how hard people try, they cannot get around the reality that God is just as valid an explanation for the creation of the universe and humans as science without God.

They don't have to accept that God is the explanation for the what is observed, but it surely is not scientific to rule that "hypothesis" out.