Stephen Hawking Expands On His Theology

In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking claimed there is no need for a creator in order to explain the existence of the universe.  Recently he expanded his anti-realism theology by attacking the existence of heaven, calling it a “fairytale.” There is a reason why Stephen is becoming more public with his views about Christianity. He has Lou Gehrig’s Disease and back in 2009, he was taken to the hospital in a “very ill” condition which most likely got him to think more about his views about the after life. It’s a pretty common thing with people who are nearing the end of their lives. He most likely also believes the design of his body is unfair if intelligence was responsible and no way would a Creator would left him in such a state.

Hawking told the Guardian

“In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action. In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.”

“Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: “Why are we here?” “In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,” he said.”

It is interesting to note, Hawking considers the brain like a computer that stops working when its components fail. Nathan Heflick, a psychology doctoral student at the University of Florida, says that is the reason why he rejects religion. However, if you compare yourself to a machine, a computer like every other machine ever made was created by intelligence with a purpose, rather than by an accident guided by a mindless process!

The whole notion that something can be created out of nothing is “theology” because for one thing, Hawking or any secular scientist would not believe it is possible to create water out of nothing. So why then would he believe the universe was created out of nothing with 96 percent of its reality that cannot be seen nor hasn’t been directly detected and not only that but allege an untestable idea, other universes? Hawking knows there had to have been a beginning somewhere no matter how many universes you believe are out there. M-theory is just a collection of various unconfirmed ideas which like many other scientists in the world of anti-realism, bluff on the significance of their explanation.

Some may wonder why a cosmologist know any better about a theology question than those of a theologian when he doesn’t really have any hard evidence with his own reasoning? He is entitled to his opinion but it’s wrong! Cosmologists are dealing with more guess work than ever before, physics used to be cut and dry but with anti-realism being invoked, it’s become more and more complex with a blur getting darker and darker just like the rest of the theories based on a mindless process.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Stephen Hawking Expands On His Theology

  1. No scientist believes, as believing is not part of the scientific method.

    Also, no scientist poses that the universe was created out of nothing.

    And no, there is no reason “there had to be a beginning”. Why would that have to be ?

    Micheal: “He is entitled to his opinion but it’s wrong!”
    Which is just your opinion, not a fact.

    Micheal: “Cosmologists are dealing with more guess work than ever before,”
    Absolutely not. As a cosmologist myself I am doing less and less guessing than ever before: we are actually in an era we like to call ‘precision cosmology’, as measurements are getting better and better. Of course there is a lot to understand still.

  2. @Eelco

    But who cares about what Hawking thinks anyway ?

    Think for yourself !

    Exactly. Hawking is a great scientist, that much cannot be disputed, however that does not mean that we must therefore accept every statement he makes.

  3. We don’t even have to accept every statement Hawking makes about cosmology. Some other cosmologists do not, and they are busy looking for evidence to prove him wrong.

    The key word here is “EVIDENCE”.

    A concept that creationists do not believe in.

  4. “We don’t even have to accept every statement Hawking makes about cosmology. Some other cosmologists do not, and they are busy looking for evidence to prove him wrong.”

    Of course. I don’t, for one.

    Science is not about following. Science is about thinking for yourself about hard evidence.

  5. Science is not about following. Science is about thinking for yourself about hard evidence.

    Exactament. A couple years ago, Science conducted an informal study to noodle out why the percentage of agnostics and atheists is higher among scientists than in the general population. They wondered whether science turns people against religion.

    What they found was the converse. Many people who become scientists were already agnostics or atheists. Science seems to preferentially attract those who are skeptical of all belief systems.

    That is, scientists wish to think for themselves rather than following the opinions of others.

  6. Michael links to a number of creationist sources in this blog. Scrolling down to the very bottom, we see “The True.Origin Archive”, with links to alleged refutations of various mainstream scientific claims.

    Way down at the bottom of that site is an interesting section called “Reliability of Creationist Sources,” where the author admits that—

    The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about.

    But, the author continues, these sources are justified because—

    I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe…. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments,

    This echoes one of Michael’s major themes. “Experts, schmexperts; I’ll believe what I wish to believe, because I have the TRUTH.”

    TRUTH as in—The world will end at 6pm local time on May 21, 2011. The Bible tells me so.

  7. @Olorin

    TRUTH as in—The world will end at 6pm local time on May 21, 2011. The Bible tells me so.

    Considering all the similar failed predictions, I was really surprised when i first heard that prediction. Jehovah’s Witnesses made several of them (for the years of 1914, 1925, and 1975). In 1818, William Miller came to the conclusion that Jesus would return between 1843, a date later revised to October 22, 1844. I actually dare say that William Miller had more viable evidence for his date than Harold Camping did, though we still know that he was wrong.

    An overview of Harold Camping’s so called “evidence” here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBhmvBU-zCE&feature=feedu

    Camping has now backpedaled now that his prediction has failed. He now says that Jesus did visit earth on March 21, but that his arrival was spiritual… This is the same argument that Jehovah’s Witnesses make about their failed 1914 prediction.

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01q4Ir4TrBU&feature=feedu

  8. Camping now says that the rapture shall be on October 21, 2011…. Could it be a simple coincidence that this is the day before the famous failed prediction by William Miller set on October 22nd? [1]

    Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390268/Rapture-Harold-Camping-explains-wrong–says-God-bring-Rapture-OCTOBER-21.html

    ——-
    [1] To be more precise, William Miller was one of the last to accept the exact date. A preacher named Samuel S. Snow was the first one to arrive at the date.

  9. Kris, thanks for the ref to Camping’s biblical reasoning. The news accounts had never gone into that before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s