As much as I appreciate Hawking's genius, on this point I believe he is wrong.
What do you think?
Science will win out over religion, says Hawking - CTV News
What do you think?
Science will win out over religion, says Hawking - CTV News
The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att...
There does not have to be a contest between science and religion. They are completely different things, and not in competition with one another.
ReplyDeleteBit if someone does manage to force the issue, science will win because science can be demonstrated.
Lady Janus: I always liked the following line to explain why what you say above is true:
ReplyDelete"Science explains how the heavens go.
Religion explains how to go to heaven."
Fr. Tim
When one looks at what Hawking actually means by ‘religion’, it becomes apparent that he is making some assumptions:
ReplyDelete1. What he means by ‘religion’ is actually fundamentalism: a disjunction between faith and reason, an appeal to pure authority, and a literal understanding of anthropomorphic imagery of God. Yes, science will win over fundamentalism—if indeed fundamentalists are listening.
2. He is assuming that humans’ only grid of meaning-giving is that of science. Science has its legitimate field of enquiry, but many scientists acknowledge that there are questions beyond the scope of science. By analogy, any good theologian will acknowledge that there are questions outside theology’s field of enquiry. How the universe works is one of those questions.
3. Hawking is assuming that there is no consciousness beyond human consciousness. For him, the impossibility of divine communication is simply a given.
Tim, it's sounding like another way of saying it (specially relevant to today's level of understanding) might be: science is the road building crews; religion is Google Maps. One is messy, inconvenient, and keeps changing the direction you must go in order to reach your destination. The other keeps giving you the wrong directions to get there... ;D
ReplyDeleteMichael, there is no connection between "faith" and reason, so declaring a disjunction between them makes no sense. And I've never met a scientist who thinks there is anything beyond the scope of science; current scientists might be inadequate to the task, but science will wait until they catch up.
As for the existence of "divine" communication that would depend on your definition of "divine." You choose to see your diety as being separate from your physical being -- "out there, somewhere." Or maybe partly within, but still a separate thing from your earthly self. There are those of us who know that we are diety. Not two things within one skin, but one thing, whole, complete, indivisible. And there are still others whose world view is somewhere between.
And Hawking knows there is consciousness beyong human consciousness; you are the one who is saying there are only two kinds: us and "it" (whatever "it" is). In Hawking's (and mine) multiverse, the levels of consciousness are innumerable.
In other words, Hawking is not limiting our possibilities; he is one who assumes we are much more than what we currently appear to be. He is helping to find ways by which we can all discover that. Your religion (and some others, but not all) is the thing that is determined to keep us earthbound and ignorant.
Professor Philip Stott is a christian scientist who has been specializing in this subject for many years. He originally believed in evolution and when he was converted to Christ, decades ago, he realized the theory of evolution is full of holes, as are many other theories such as the age of the earth.
ReplyDeleteHe delves into many aspects of science from a biblical point of view. He has travelled the world speaking on science and creationism for years. I was blessed to hear his slide-show presentations on several occasions, including a week of evening presentations. I see he now has an extensive presentation on a website if anyone is interested in digging deeper in this subject.
http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/index.htm
One paragraph from one article says:
"Evolution is a very old hypothesis which was long rejected by the scientifically knowledgeable as untenable in view of the obvious necessity for a designer to account for the complexities of life. When Charles Darwin proposed Natural Selection as a mechanism which could produce ever increasing complexity without design it suddenly became possible to be as Richard Dawkins put it, "a fulfilled atheist." Since then evolution has become perhaps the most commonly used weapon in attacking the credibility of the Scriptures. Its influence on society at large has been immense. Karl Marx noted that Darwin’s book was the foundation for "Scientific Socialism" (Communism). Stalin pointed out that "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it." Many would argue that no other "scientific" concept has had such influence on not only the progress of Christianity, but the whole of society."
The theory of evolution is a basic attack on the veracity of Scripture. People who think evolution and christianity are compatible do not have a clear understanding of what the problem is. Evolution is diametrically opposed to the account in Genesis of God's creative work. According to Genesis God created everything is six days. Apparently the same Hebrew word for a day in Genesis is the same word used in many other places in the Old Testament where it refers to a 24 hour day.
ReplyDeleteModernists will sometimes try to interpret Genesis in a way that will make evolution or a long earth age sound plausible. However, to do this one must reject the literal interpretation of this important part of Scripture. If the literal interpretation is rejected here, then it becomes easy to reject other supernatural events recorded in Scripture. This could even lead to rejecting the supernatural accounts in the New Testament, such as the fundamentals of the christian faith such as the virgin birth of Christ and the bodily resurrection of Christ.
As for Hawkins comment "science will win over religion", there is no contest.
ReplyDeleteGod is not in competition with science. He created everything and is in complete control of the universe. All laws of how the universe operates (physics, chemistry, etc.) are in accordance with how God designed things to be.
"The theory of evolution is a basic attack on the veracity of Scripture."
ReplyDeleteWrong way around. The universe (actually, multiverse) was here first. The attack comes from what you call "scripture."
"God is not in competition with science."
Well, that's true, anyway, as far as it goes. Not any more than any other myth is in competition with nuclear physics. They don't inhabit the same space/time continuum, so how could they be in competition?
Lady Janus,
ReplyDelete""The theory of evolution is a basic attack on the veracity of Scripture."
Wrong way around. The universe (actually, multiverse) was here first. The attack comes from what you call "scripture.""
I'm not sure you followed what I said there. The theory of evolution is indeed an attack against the veracity of Scripture. The reason is because Scripture tells us that God created the universe in six days. Evolution tries to claim that mankind evolved from the slime over a period of millions or possibly hundreds of millions of years.
However, man (or woman) cannot understand Scripture unless God reveals it to him. It is all foolishness to him unless the Spirit of God reveals the truth to him.
" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians ch2 vs14 KJV
You might not be aware but it is very difficult for RC people to discuss these spiritual truths because they believe only the RC has the truth; all else is heretical. Where does that leave all possibility of discussion and learning of the truth from Scripture? But what did Jesus say?
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John ch8 vs 31,32.
In other words, unless one is believing in Jesus and His Word, the Bible, he/she is not really free. Many are slaves to whatever their religion teaches them or slaves to the philosophies of the world.
Lady Janus,
ReplyDeleteEven if we don't agree about much (or anything), I have to complement you on replying to some of my postings. You do have the courage to rebut whatever you disagree with. At least you have some backbone and are not afraid to speak your peace.
"I'm not sure you followed what I said there. The theory of evolution is indeed an attack against the veracity of Scripture."
ReplyDeleteYes, I "followed" what you said, but you were going in the wrong direction. Evolution was here long before "scripture," so it was your scripture that made the attack.
"However, man (or woman) cannot understand Scripture unless God reveals it to him."
It's generally thought not to be a good idea to tell other people what they "can" or "can't" understand before they tell you. First, it's just plain bad manners. And second, it's so, so wrong.
"You might not be aware but it is very difficult for RC people to discuss these spiritual truths because they believe only the RC has the truth; all else is heretical."
*mghf* Where to start? Oh, hell...Pot, meet Kettle...
As for speaking my piece, let me set you straight on something -- I have no quarrel with whatever you want to believe as long as you don't try to push it on other people. I don't expect you to follow my path. Do NOT try to make me follow yours. And don't fling insults in my direction when I don't. I won't put up with that kind of crap. Are we understanding one another?
Hawking is and always was a fraud. I knew that the very first time I heard him. Whatever he is calculating is poppycock. He is pandering to those who deal with God, the Bible and religion in the historic sense, totally devoid of Faith, which IS required to even be able to come to the knowledge of God with no doubts whatsoever. It's unfortunate that human pride and arrogance is what keeps it from God himself but that's the way God wants it, so be it. If you really want to know who will win? God or Hawking? I know my faith is in God, not a delusional heretic.
ReplyDelete