Steven Hawking recently had a heart to heart with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer. While I’m usually interested in what intelligent men have say, this interview left me somewhat disappointed with Mr. Hawking’s near-sightedness.
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 (emphasis mine), [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
Think about this statement for a minute — do you see the flaw? Steven Hawking want us to take it on his authority that beliefs based on authority will fail because they won’t work. Mr. Hawking, every type of belief, scientific or otherwise, is based on some type of authority. I’ve never been to Rome, but I take in on people’s authority that it’s there. I have never myself been to Mars, but I take it on scientific authority that it is indeed there. If I were to excluded everything from my mind that I’ve been taught on some form of authority or another, I would become quite ignorant — as would you.
As far as observation is concerned, I’ve observed some pretty incredible occurrences attributed the Christian faith. I’ve a life long smoker who quit cold turkey, with no future cravings, after she felt God telling her she doesn’t need cigarettes anymore. I’ve met a preacher who was spared execution in Africa by incidental fluke in the way the body of the man executed next to him fell after being shot. In my own life, I’ve felt overwhelming and uncontrollable peace countless sleepless nights as the side effects of chemotherapy incapacitated my body. I’ve looked into the faces of my two beautiful sons, as I held them each close, just minutes after they were born and stood in astonishing awe of the gift of life. These observations, and many more, compel my reason to believe that life is not some cosmic accident, and goads me to further pursue what can be summed as “more to this life”.
I don’t consider myself an overly religions man — I still don’t have enough inner strength to be one, though it is my goal — and I’ll be open and honest about my doubts in the faith I believe. But I can honestly say that these doubts are stemmed more from my feelings and emotions than from my reason and logic. In fact, most days my reason and logic are the only two pillars holding up my faith.
June 14, 2010 at 7:42 pm
I think the important things to note here is 1. There is a difference between religion and faith 2. Mars can be seen through a telescope…Rome can be seen by satellites…God cannot be seen. That’s where the faith part comes in. It’s that never ending catch 22 that God cannot be proven nor disproved, its all based on faith. Things you have seen or felt cannot be repeated in a test…good science can. Therefore its based on a persons opinion whether God can be felt or not.
June 14, 2010 at 7:43 pm
ou are correct in stating that things that you feel can’t be repeated in a test, but the observations of specific instances carry intellectual weight with them.
Much of this also has to do with evidence and interpretation. I see much more evidence in support of God’s existence than not. Though I don’t understand it, others take the opposing view… See More.
I liked you’re point about ‘good science’. Good science that can be repeated in a test is actually quite limited in scope. I don’t know how familiar you are with Mr. Hawking, but he’s spent his life dappling in, what could be called, ‘bad science’. That is, he works mostly in theory and speculation. This is why I was disappointed with the interview. Of all people, with a grasp of the seemingly infinite universe, you would think that he would, at the very least, have an open mind to the idea of creator.
June 14, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I’m very familiar with him…you would have had to have your head buried if you didn’t know who Hawking is considering his obvious incredible intellect and contributions to the field of relativity. That being said I think that is a small statement of his. Hawking has been quoted to thinking that God may exist but left the laws of science in place … See Moreto govern things. The point is many of his theories can be repeated either mathematically or through a test. God can not. Again it boils down to if things you see seem mystical or logical. We’ve had this debate many times but it never gets old for me haha. I just thing its interesting that one of the most brilliant minds in science would completely disregard intelligent design. However, even from the scientists I have known this seems to be a growing trend. In fact the only distinguished scientist that comes to mind is the man running the human genome project…can’t remember his name. But he does believe in intelligent design.
June 14, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Well that is very interesting that steven hawking said that. I very much enjoy reading his works. He is arguably the greatest thinker on earth right now concerning astro and theoretical physics. In his book “A Brief History of Time” Hawking never rules out the possibility of a creator. On page 145-6 he argues that should science determine that the universe had a beginning it most certainly has a creator (God). In his conclusion, he states that when science completes its “complete theory” of what the universe is, it will then be up to the philosopher to answer why it is.
Though Hawking does not seem to want to acknowledge God, it seems that he cannot totally deny Him. He cannot answer for our meaning and purpose or why we are here and therefore thinks he cannot believe in God. I haven’t read/listened to the whole interview but I would speculate that when he says science will beat religion because it works, he is thinking of religion as the superstition that many attribute to their religious beliefs. Sadly good christians, do not realize that theology is a science and that many of their religious beliefs are forged from the labor, blood, sweat and tears of great thinkers, scientists, philosophers, etc. Some of the superstition that people augment to their theology is tom foolery. They are looking for a “feel good” experience. They seek comfort, and as another great thinker once said (C. S. Lewis), “comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth–only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.” So I would argue from that context, Hawking is right. However from the context of true down to earth religion, which is based on good theology, he is incorrect.
Just my initial thoughts. I am sorry if I offend you. Please email me a response on my email above. It will be easier for me to communicate that way. I get it right to my phone. I’d really like to talk more about this topic.
June 14, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Rich,
I’m not offended at all by this, this is excellent insight.
Hawking never broke down in the interview the specifics of what he was referring to. Rather he lumped everything underneath a religious ‘umbrella’ and tried to comment on it as a whole. As you’ve stated better than I, you can’t do this. The whole notion of theology falls apart if you try to.
The ‘why’ question seems much more important to me that the ‘what’. Without an answer to the why, and a positive answer at that, does anybody still care about the what? If the world were an accident and man was privileged with solid proof of that fact, than what meaning would there be to life? Despite what some might try to believe, life would be quite meaningless.
Again, much of this issue does boil down to evidence and interpretation. As Tim pointed out, no one in either camp can prove with solid fact, but rather evidence that points to conclusions must be weighed. Speaking purely logically, I interpret the evidence as supporting the theory of God existence stronger than opposing interpreted evidence.
I don’t understand people who can step out into this beautiful world, albeit a fallen world that retains only a faded memory of what it should have been, and consider everything to be an accident.