It’s one of the great unanswered questions in science. What is it about this particular physics geek that prompts mainstream journalists to publish his every insipid pronouncement? Other than the fancy speech box, that is.
It’s one of the great unanswered questions in science. What is it about this particular physics geek that prompts mainstream journalists to publish his every insipid pronouncement? Other than the fancy speech box, that is.
You’d think that it would make a particle theorist wonder, knowing that the rock on the side of a road is made of the same particles that he is, but he has the awareness of a living spirit and the rock doesn’t.
Wait,so he believes In Fairies?
Easy, Kate: It’s to demonize the religious right conservative while propping up the “intelligent” anti-Christian left. Because science is the polar opposite of the religious right, dontcha know. Left-wingers are scientific, while Harper ignores this empirical evidence. (As my left-wing friends have bloviated)
Paradoxically, religious people are less likely to commit crimes, or go on welfare, or require a nanny state, or generally contribute to the demise of the ‘advanced’ first world, while neighbourhoods that are wrought with aids, uneducation, unemployment, high-school dropouts, etc invariably vote NDP.
This seems to be a blind spot with atheist-science-y types. There is a lack of imagination about their being primary vs secondary causes. E.g. When we discovered the water cycle erudite atheists no doubt proclaimed “See! God doesn’t bring rain! We’ve identified the entire process and there’s no supernatural aspects to it at all!” This is what Hawking is doing here too. He’s thinking that his entire audience is as ignorant as he is about the relationship of God to creation. I guess in part the root of the problem is that he’s confusing the question ‘How?’ with the question ‘Why?’. E.g. I think thoughtful people ask “Why is there rain?” and the Hawking types chime in “Let me explain the water cycle, etc.” But that’s answering the question “How does it rain?” 🙂 The Hawking types have a presupposition that there’s no distinction between the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ so when somebody asks ‘why’ the Hawking types answer the ‘how’ while rolling their eyes at how someone could be so ignorant.
Hawking understands fully that his best years are behind him now- What you’re witnessing now are the last gasps of an individual who’s convinced the forever gullible segment of society (read media)that he’s still relevant.
Even his peers think he’s silly.
Maybe there’s answerz here; but, it takes an expert to open the link.
IOW, MSM has been Frenchified. Think the late Count Ignatieff.
“In France, intellectuals are lionized – and even listened to. In Britain, this is evidence that the French are unsound… more»”
http://www.aldaily.com/
It’s my impression that he has a lot of rage against God for having to live as he does. So do the leftists, who find, in him, a way to express the rage.
Mike in Calgary;
I’d be careful in ascribing too much piety to religious folks. There is no shortage of them who steal and cheat. As far as who is trying to bring about “the demise of the ‘advanced’ first world”, it’s most directly a bunch of God fearing types strapping themselves up with bombs and flying planes into things who are leading the way. Critisize atheists if you like, but I don’t see many of them doing that. They’re into their own nuttiness.
Science and faith are completely compatible, and Hawking knows this well. He is exploiting the religious faith held by his followers (science-ism) to imply his own opinions are facts. For that he is reprehensible, damn the wheelchair.
Hawking has no proof that there is no God, just as I have no proof there is one. Believing in one based on a multitude of factors is neither naive nor anti-science. And asserting there is none based on nothing more than self-important authority is imbecillic. Thanks for this post, Kate.
@bob c : Are you lumping God-fearing Jews and Christians in with suicide-bombing Muslims? Come here and say that to my face, bastard.
He hates God because he’s in that chair, which I completely understand.
fiddle;
I’ve never gotten the sense of any “rage against God” from Hawking. In the past he’s said that the existence of God is possible. He just thinks not and sees no problem in understanding the workings of the universe whether there is or isn’t.
Personally, and while I have my doubts, I acknowledge the possibility that there is a God. Like Hawking though, I think heaven is pushing it a little. Oh and I’m a conservative too.
Hawking would be better served is he studied President Obaqama,
many consider him a god,
and he has won a Nobel prize.
Flaggman,
Your rage is unbecoming and sadly misplaced. Surely you know that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same deity – the God of Abraham.
Some atheists have an intoerant hard edge but,their cousins, the agnostics are commonly a gentle and tolerant lot – certainly more amiable than any of your “people of the book”.
Actually, I’m a little surprised that Kate would take issue with this one.
I had always assumed that Kate was on the atheist side of things – being in such strong agreement with Ayn Rand and all.
He probably doesn’t like Roger Penrose’s math. Plus his wife left him, so he’s most likely a little cranky.
And let us not forget, he’s trying to sell a book just now so anything that gets him ink is fair game. Pandering to the Lefty anti-religion playbook is the surest way to get ink. They cover him with praise because he’s saying what they want to hear. Journos like him because his life has Dramatic Sweep or whatever.
Other than that, he’s a guy who did some clever work on black hole theory thirty years ago. Whee.
The idea that Hawking would know more than anyone else about heaven is sort of like the idea that Wayne Gretzky would be the guy to ask about places to land a space probe on Venus.
Zog, Muslims do not follow the same God. They follow Allah, whoever that is. Allah’s law is entirely different than the law handed to Moses, which is what Jews and Christians follow. Don’t fall for propaganda.
Plus, really, am I going to make up my mind about the existence of God on the basis of an f-ing article in The Guardian?
I came to the (possibly arrogant) conclusion quite early that I -know- at least as much about it as anybody else on Earth: nothing. That includes popular physicists AND Ayn Rand.
“…Allah whoever that is…”
Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.
I could swear that he used to think there was a god years back and changed his mind in the last few years. Anyway, a lot of great minds, Scientists, artists, inventors, do believe in God, or did belive in God when they were alive.
To belive in God or not has nothing to do with intelect. He is no more an authority on whether or not there is a God, than my 6 year old daughter.
At risk of going slightly off topic Zog Muslims and Jews claim to be direct descendants of Abraham and we Christians claim adoption into the descendants of Abraham but that is as far as it goes. Explain the Christian God to a Jew and he would understand. Explain the Jewish God to a Christian and he would understand. Try to explain the Jewish/Christian God to a Muslim and you get a blank stare. Try to explain the Muslim God to a Jew or a Christian and you get laughed out of the room. They are not the same.
On topic I think that the media broadcasts Hawking’s every brain cramp because it buttresses their own leanings. Most media is anti Theistic and Hawking gives them succor in their faith. Its that old appeal to authority thingy. To the average media type who has the scientific intelligence of an ice cube but fervently believes in Scientism anyone of Hawking’s scientific stature is nigh on to a scientism messiah.
I’ll pray for Mr Hawking that he would believe in the one true God, Jesus Christ.
Flaggman;
Before I answer you, let me say that that calling me a bastard and threatening to presumably bop me on the nose because of my post rather than asking me to clarify my remarks doesn’t show much religious compassion, tolerance and forgivness on your part.
My post that upset you so was in response to Mike in Calgary who made a general suggestion that to be religiously inclined led one to be less criminal and violent. I don’t buy that and gave the example of religiously devout terrorists to make the point.
Yes, terrorists today are overwhelmingly Muslims, not Christians and Jews. I didn’t think it necessary to point that out to anyone not living under a rock.
If to be religious is to be non-criminal and non-violent, then please explain to me why there is such a difference between different religious groups today, or why the western Christian world is relatively peaceful today, but was so violent from, oh let’s say the 3rd to the 17th century. In that case it’s the same religion, but with radically different behaviour.
So I hope that clarifies things. Don’t worry about having called me a bastard. My response is kindness and understanding. Hey, I’m the atheist here. Weren’t you, a presumably religious sort, supposed to lead the way on that. Go figure.
I don’t know the why of Hawkings pronouncements, but he should fires up the “believers”, the same folks in here that chastizes the AGW believers for believing without have “proof”
is the a beter definition of HYPOCRIC than what we are witnessing in this discussion????
Just for the record it was christians who invented actual real true science, not math ,science.
Flaggman;
You are absolutely wrong to say, “Muslims do not follow the same God” as do Christians and Jews.
Muslims believe there is only one God, that he created the Jewish faith and after looking at it for a while and seeing imperfections, sent forth Jesus, not as his son but as a prophet, to have a go at improving things. After a while of looking at Christianity and finding it wanting, he then finally sent forth Mohammed to get it right once and for all.
And presto. Third time lucky and God achieved perfection on earth in the form of the Muslim faith.
Same God for all three religions.
I laughed when I read Hawking’s views on God — or, no God.
It amuses me to think about Hawking’s meeting with his Maker when he goes the way of all flesh. I wonder what Hawking’s reaction will be? Whatever it is, I figure he’ll be in Purgatory for a while as he comes to terms with his pompous no-God pontifications.
bob c your statement that because Muslims believe that there is only one God therefore they worship the same God as Jews and Christians makes as much sense as saying that because the sky is blue, water is wet. Its a complete non-sequitur.
On the one hand Hawking is of course right about mysticism and such. On the other hand, the broader premise-that Hawkins and other scientists are unqualified to speak of grand stuff outside their field-is kind of true. Being a scientist does not make or even mean someone is smart in all things.
There’s a rather simple answer to the question posed:
Most physicists don’t attempt to simplify their work enough so that us common folk can understand it. Men like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking have written books that attempt to remedy that problem. By doing this, they become the “face” of all physicists because the public becomes familiar with them. This is a very valuable skill to have. I know from experience (and I’m sure many of you do too) that trying to explain your expertise in an area to someone else is often harder than the work itself.
Anyways, if some other physicist said he didn’t believe in Heaven, no one would no who he is, and therefore wouldn’t care. People know who Hawking is, therefore people write about him.
Stephen Hawking has forgotten more than I’ve learned, and I’ll not disparage or mock him on this pronouncement (though I disagree with him). I’d simply ask him how one would go about disproving the existence of heaven scientifically.
I do not doubt that he cannot imagine the mechanics of how heaven, and by extension souls, would work, and would simply counter that I cannot imagine how much of the universe works, but that does not negate the fact that it does.
Atheism, the claim that there is/are no god/s, is a statement of fact that is as unprovable as theism, a statement, as a believer, I am more than comfortable with. A truly rigorous thinker who does not wish to engage in faith would be an agnostic.
But Professor Hawking’s understanding of Physics should not be discounted or disregarded. But it does not mean that his brilliance in this field is readily transferable to any other field.
bob c,
Considering the state of the world today, maybe it’s time for God to have another go at achieving perfection on earth.
I was kind of hoping that the movie Salt had a different ending.
Damn you Angelina Jolie, why couldn’t you have left Liev Schreiber alone?
Joe;
Ask any Muslim and they’ll tell you exactly what I said, that God took three shots at passing his word along. The first effort was what proved to be a very imperfect Jewish faith, (their thoughts, not mine) the second an improved version delivered by Jesus but still somewhat lacking, followed then by the final word as delivered by Mohammed. Essentially, they believe that God needed to twice edit and revise his work.
Now I personally have a problem with that. It’s hard to square God having to take three kicks at the can, and in the next breath say, as they do, that God is absolute perfection and is never wrong. Try saying that to one of them and watch how fast they change the subject.
By far the most disgusting thread in recent history. Congrats, Kate, you’ve outdone yourself on this one.
Sorry dance…dance to the radio. I didn’t see the movie you refer to so didn’t get your point.
Flaggman
Perhaps you recall that the Christian church jailed smart people for merely postulating that the world was round and was not the center of the universe.
For example:
Galileo’s support for the heliocentric theory got him into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1633 the Inquisition convicted him of heresy and forced him to recant (publicly withdraw) his support of Copernicus. They sentenced him to life imprisonment, but because of his advanced age allowed him serve his term under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri outside of Florence.
perhaps you remember the Spanish inquisition?
All regions are backward and repressive if they have the power to be so. If it weren’t for the renaissance we would all still be living in a feudal system.
So lighten up.
No one is more conservative and freedom loving than me and I am atheist. I don’t have a problem with Christians as they are now … docile and easily manipulated by a new moder religion called environmentalism. Aside from that I do subscribe to Christian philosophy in general because most of it makes sense in a civil society.
Muslims, I have a problem with.
I sometimes think that there is a certain degree of anti intellectualism which surfaces now and then in this blog.
Why concentrate on some clapped-out old Brit when you might read, e.g. the writings of
Robb Mann, Professor of Physics, University of Waterloo, President of the Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation?
A link is here: http://gfcf-ubc.ca/archive_2005_2006.htm
Robb is a very good relativist and very good physicist. And a good Christian.
I would suggest, before you mock further, that you work through his “An Introduction to Particle Physics and the Standard Model”,
to the very last part, where he mentons some things about physics which are very difficult to reconcile with anything other than intelligent design.
It’s a good book – you will learn a lot from even an attempt at reading it – including humility.
Disgusting?
What is so disgusting? Unanswered questions in science? Calling Hawking a physics geek? Mentioning mainstream journalists? Labelling Hawking’s pronouncements “insipid”? Alluding to the fact that the only thing interesting when this guy shares his thoughts with the world at large is the manner in which he speaks, not what he is actually saying?
I don’t get it, why disgusting?
bob c: I went shopping for a new pickup. An enterprising salesman tried to tell me that because it had four wheels and could carry things in its box the kiddie’s little red wagon was basically the same thing. I didn’t believe him either.
There is a lot to understand about religion and physics. Did God give you the intellectual capacity to seek scientific theories of what He created?
The Big Bang blew something up but as matter cannot be created from nothing where did it come from?
I don’t know the answers and neither does he.
It has been a few years, but I believe that Hawking claimed that he had “proven” that there is no God in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time. Atheism is an old theme with Hawking.
Unlike the bob-c style atheists (usually Ayn Rand worshippers under the age of 30 with no kids), I understand that there are different types of atheists, just like there are different types of religions. While bob-c lumps all religions together to fit his extremely narrow world view shaped by extremely limited life experience, I separate between the honourable atheists who respect those they disagree with, and those who are arrogant and ignorant of their own ignorance.
As Joe pointed out above, the logic tying Islam to Judaism and Christianity is nonsensical. Muslims can say whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it true. They invented their religion 1,500 years after the earliest recorded evidence of the Jewish religion. Muhammad tried to co-opt Judaism, but what he came up with something entirely different. If you want to remain ignorant, go ahead – but if you want to educate yourself, there’s free online versions of the Torah, the Talmud, the Bible, the Koran, the Hadiths and Suras, and countless scholarly works on comparative religion at your fingertips.
Finally, as a Jew, I will not turn the other cheek when someone lumps my faith in with Islam. It’s like lumping bob c in with Charles Manson and Mao. I would never do it.
“Us Christians are a peaceful tolerant bunch! And if you disagree, I dare you to say it to my face you bastards!”
Love it.
I’m an atheist but I’m what some people call a “soft” atheist – I BELIEVE there is no such thing as god, but I don’t KNOW there is no such thing. If god decides to materialize in front of me and slap me in the face, I’ll be more than happy to admit I’m wrong.
For someone to say they know with 100% absolute certainty there ISN’T a god, they are making just as much a blind leap of faith as someone saying they know with 100% certainty there IS a god.
At the Farm Progress Show in Regina there was a booth with a robot that would talk to the crowd. It was controlled by a guy talking into a sleeve microphone. Is this what Stephen Hawking is used for? As for the leftist trolls,you apparently will buy into anything that goes against what your Mommy taught you.
Indeed, who cares what he says… I guess. But yeah, incidentally, I think he’s right.
Heaven always sounded a lot like hell to me anyway.
Check out the Evil Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/) to see what a vile, murderous monster the ‘god’ of the bible really is.
Amos,
a counter example to your explanation for Hawking’s notoriety is Roald Hoffmann, who developed what is now called the Woodward-Hoffmann rules, which are important enough to be taught to every student of organic chemistry. Hoffmann hosted a series for PBS that bombed and certainly didn’t make him a celebrity scientist. Clearly, quality of presentation and, perhaps, subject matter (the big questions of cosmology are more interesting to a general audience than those of chemistry) are important factors.
I would submit that if Stephen Hawking were not in a wheelchair, the public wouldn’t know who he was. He is given an inordinate amount of media attention because he is a cripple. I like Neil deGrasse Tyson’s presentations, but he was probably given his initial media opportunities because he is black, a real rarity amongst physicists. The lack of women and minority scientists is a source of much hand-wringing for a certain kind of person.
Full disclosure: I harbor a slight, irrational resentment against Hawking because of an episode of Star Trek TNG. The episode portrayed the undeniably greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, as a real jerk and portrayed Albert Einstein as a pleasant, grandfatherly type while Hawking smugly mocked the jerkiness of Newton. All scientists who have dramatically advanced scientific theory are fundamentally arrogant; one has to be arrogant to aspire to developing a game-changing scientific paradigm. Arrogance in cosmologists is like cockiness in NFL franchise receivers – it comes with the territory.
It was preposterous to include Hawking in the same league as either Newton or Einstein. Hawking is an important contributor to the advancement of science, but he is really just part of the pack and not someone who will be remembered as having changed the scientific world.
He’s ecome a Myth maker not a truth teller.
When was the last time you seen an explosion create order?
Mike in Calgary,
Paradoxically, religious people are less likely to commit crimes, or go on welfare, or require a nanny state, or generally contribute to the demise of the ‘advanced’ first world
Religion has a number of powerful effects on societies. One of the most powerful is that it reinforces and perpetuates a specific set of values which is why the dominant religions of the West are attacked by those who wish to radically redefine society. Religion is an obstacle to their schemes.
The value of a religion in reducing social ills depends on which set of values is endorsed by that religion. Western societies have gained global dominance because of the values traditionally endorsed by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, but religiosity per se can’t be credited.