mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

What Stephen Hawking Taught Us: Scientism vs. Revelation
John Stonestreet ~ March 16, 2018
The brilliant Stephen Hawking has died. We have much to learn from him, including what he never intended to teach us.

Typically speaking, theoretical physicists do not become cultural icons, much less pop-culture icons. But Stephen Hawking, who passed away Wednesday, was both.

His book “A Brief History of Time” became a surprise global hit, selling more than 10 million copies. He made regular appearances on television, including hit shows like “The Big Bang Theory” and (in animated form) “The Simpsons.” The film about his life, “The Theory of Everything,” did more than $100-million at the box office and produced five Academy Award nominations and one win.

Certainly, Stephen Hawking was a brilliant scientist who made significant contributions to his field. But many other scientists who’ve accomplished just as much remain unknown outside the scientific community. So, what explains Hawking’s celebrity status?

Yes, he was brilliant. And who could not be inspired by his rising above such a debilitating physical condition that left him wheelchair-bound for decades? But there are other factors to consider.

Many under estimate the place that science holds in today’s cultural backdrop. In pre-modern Christendom, the ultimate statement of authority was “thus saith the Lord.” Today, the closest statement with that sort of gravitas is “the science is settled,” despite how often that claim is misused to stifle debate and advance ideologies.

And also, Stephen Hawking didn’t stay in his lane. He was a scientist, but in each of his books and nearly all of his media appearances, he ventured into philosophy, masking metaphysical observations and proclamations in language of scientific certainty.

Hawking regularly opined on what are known as the “ultimate questions,” such as “Where did everything come from?” “Why are we here?” “What’s the meaning of life?” “Who are we as human beings?” and “What is our ultimate destiny?”

Here’s a sampling of the philosophy from this man who once proclaimed philosophy dead:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

And this: “We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the universe. That makes us something very special.”

Or this one: “There is no heaven or afterlife … that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Or my favorite: “The scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.”

Stephen Hawking spoke with certainty, but he did not apply the same rigorous thinking to the big worldview questions that he did in his science. Or perhaps more accurately, he tried to answer questions that do not have mathematical answers with the mathematical vocabulary in which he was brilliantly fluent.

In doing so, he looked for answers to ultimate questions where they could not be found. The results were incomplete and often misleading answers to vitally important questions presented with the Good Housekeeping Seal of scientific authority. At the end of the day Stephen Hawking, the scientist, peddled a worldview: scientism, the idea that all questions are, and therefore all answers are, scientific in nature.

Still, in a strange way, Stephen Hawking inadvertently taught us that worldview matters. Namely, that there are big questions that haunt humans; that we have much to learn from the natural world, as the psalmist said centuries ago; and that at the end of all our scientific knowledge there is still more to know.

In fact, Hawking once admitted that to know the ultimate why of the universe would be to know the “mind of God.” How tragic that He never acknowledged the God who went to such lengths to make Himself known.

John Stonestreet is President of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview and BreakPoint co-host.

PeterS

This is why science shouldn't delve into the realm of the supernatural. There is no scientific answer to the question of the supernatural, other than mans imagination, which is why scientists should steer clear of it with everything they've got. After all, people really do not want to hear that the god they worship is nothing more than their over active imagination no matter how true the statement might be...

glibona Loc: Nevada

And yet...faith and science do not conflict.. Each complements the other.

PeterS

Science is based on rationalism and faith is based on irrationalism. The are 180 degrees of each other...

currahee

Anyone who, like Maimonides and Spinoza, says, "The universe is absolutely eternal," worships only one god: "chance." Hawkins implied, from his subjective conclusions that this was his "god." "Chance" is found in a box called "nothing." When he, along with both the school of "rationalist" and "irrationalist" implied that god can only be found by faith in the scientific method of "science" then "scientism" became "the way, the t***h and the life." All you can say is: "nice try Iccarus, but the closer you get to the sun (son) the more the wax of your scientific wings will melt." Now that these "great men" are dead, they now know they have fallen.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You are saying that the original material for the Bib Bang just happened. That is a matter of faith. Or conjecture. I have heard people speculate that this material was somehow "left over" from a previous universe, and then claim that belief in a Supreme Intelligence is a fairy tale. They say that matter can somehow be created from nothing, but an energy such as God must be cannot. First there was nothing and then somehow there was something.
Tell me again how belief in God is a fairy tale.

PeterS

No, I said science is based on rationalism and faith is based on irrationalism. That's because science is based on that which can be proven and faith is based on that which lacks the ability to be proven. As I said, they are 180 degrees of each other.

Please stop reading into my words that which you want instead of that which I said...

As for god, nothing in the supernatural can ever be proven whereas in the natural universe it is merely a matter of time before we are able to understand. Label that anyway you like but for me that which we can never know I call a fairy tail. Is there something in particular you would like it called???

Loki Loc: Georgia

Prove to me that the original source material for the Big Bang just "happened." The Big Bang is based on an explosion of a small amount of primal source matter. You cannot prove the most basic tenet of your own belief system, which is the source of the source material; you take it on faith.
Mathematics is the basis of science, yet many scientists who show proper skepticism about anything else that is mathematically impossible (or tend to believe that which is mathematically probable) ignore the math of probability when it comes to proving the existence or non-existence of God.
Have you ever considered the possibility that what we consider "supernatural" is perfectly natural and imperfectly understood? Five hundred years ago possession of the laptop I am typing on would have gotten me a date with Tomas de Torquemada and his boys if I had the misfortune to live in the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella.
What if God is a part of nature? What if there is a part of us that survives physical death and this is a natural phenomenon?
There are natural phenomena from quarks to quasars that were unknown 100 years ago. They have existed since time began; not since they were finally recognized.
For that matter, what if all of the world's religions are some sort of practical joke by a Creator with a sense of humor we can't begin to understand? Kind of presumptuous of us to think that we know more than a Supreme Being; particularly in regards to His, Hers or It's plans (or lack of them) vis-a-vis humanity.
I consider organized religion of wh**ever faith to be basically a sham; that does not preclude a belief in God. It does, however, indicate a healthy dose of skepticism about the motives of organized religion. No matter how you slice it, religion is simply an attempt to explain the inexplicable. (Just like more scientific "fact" than most scientists are comfortable admitting to, much of religion is based on conjecture given credence by belief in the absence of proof.) Science is not always based on proven fact. It just relies on it more than religion. While there is no doubt that evolution occurred, much of the mechanics of how it happened are conjecture and educated guesses presented as fact. I could say the same about the creation of this universe we live in. Too many people are so enamored of what we have learned that they don't realize it is only a speck on what we have yet to learn.

As for "God," how do you KNOW that "God" is supernatural? You've never considered the possibility that "God" is simply another naturally occurring and imperfectly understood part of your "natural" universe?
A statement that God is impossible to prove and science is just a matter of time oozes hubris.

PeterS

I have no clue how the big ban happened nor am I a mathematician or astronomer but I do have 'faith' everything in the natural world can be proven, in time--whether we are aware of it now or not


There is no mathematical proof for god so what are they suppose to pay attention to?


If it's part of the natural world, just not yet understood, then we aren't talking about god or the supernatural. Only that which we can never understand would be considered the supernatural.



The definition of the Supernatural is (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If it's beyond the understanding of science and the laws of nature than just how do you propose one find a proof?

I once read an article that in 200 years man would have the mathematical sk**ls to create a universe. Now here's my question - would man be god to any resulting life? Yes it's possible that the supernatural doesn't exist but then we would be talking about a matter of perspective where, if you created the universe, to us you would be good ole Bob but to your creation you were a supernatural god...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/06/19/build-a-universe-in-the-lab/#.WrDUYejwaM8

Loki Loc: Georgia

"If it's part of the natural world, just not yet understood, then we aren't talking about god or the supernatural. Only that which we can never understand would be considered the supernatural."

Au contraire. Most modern electronics would have been considered at one time the darkest and most evil of magic. "Supernatural" is nothing more than a term that some people apply to something they don't wish to believe.

"I have no clue how the big ban happened nor am I a mathematician or astronomer but I do have 'faith' everything in the natural world can be proven, in time--whether we are aware of it now or not."

I thought you said that science only require rationalism. Faith if for those gullible religious types. Faith is okay as long as it's something you believe in?

PeterS

The definition of supernatural is (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Something that is understandable by science and the laws of nature isn't supernatural but simply not yet understood...


Having faith that the sun is going to come up tomorrow isn't the same thing has having faith in that which is unknowable. One is supported by reason and the other supported by hope.

Loki Loc: Georgia

So you have "faith" [hope] that everything in the natural world will be explained. Rots of Ruck with that one. You cannot be absolutely certain that the sun WILL come up tomorrow, or that you will be around to see it.

PeterS

No I can't be certain that the sun will come up tomorrow but if it doesn't there will be a natural, not supernatural, explanation why it didn't.

Loki Loc: Georgia

The same reasoning could be applied to a belief in what we call God. The concept that something can come from nothing can apply to the source material for the Big Bang; but not to the existence of a Supreme Intelligence...(for lack of a better word this early in the AM). The odds of the universe and all it contains just "appearing" and evolving in a remarkably non-chaotic manner by chance are in in 10 followed by a line of zeroes stretching from the Earth to the Moon and beyond, but the possibility that there was some sort of guiding force behind all of this is a fairy tale?