Stephen Hawking has passed away

I felt the talk was genuine, witty and intellectually informative; though, obviously, I have some partiality toward people of faith.

However, the reference to Steven Hawking (from 20:25 ff) does not mention the quotation you cited, as far as I can tell. It might, however, be in the book he wrote “God and Steven Hawking”.

I think the most important distinction that I notice and was brought out in the talk is that, as Christians, we believe there is something more than just stuff. Not just dark matter, but probably lots of things we don’t know and are left only to ponder.

Another thing is his emphasis on “creativity”. We can very well educate people to do tasks – even very complex one – but we cannot make people creative. Are these just chemicals in my brain, or is there something strangely more? Being a serious musician and a professional scientist, I still cannot explain how that light kicks on. Yet we know that some things are creative and some things not. Hence, I favor the “something more” argument, because we have an imagination that extends (or at least appears to extend) beyond mere stuff. What ultimate reality is, is, of course, a different matter.

To inject my own perspective on this. … I sense that part of the reason we are stuck in this never-ending exchange is that we are given a choice. We can choose to say that matter is all that is and the laws of naturalism are all that is, or we can choose to say that yes there is matter and naturalism, but there is also something more. Whereas it is difficult – and indeed perhaps impossible – to show that there is something more, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. After all, where would the faith be required if we could prove the things of heaven? Moreover, were we to access that “something more”, how soon would it be between when we gained control of those things of heaven and we begin to destroy things on scales of universes with our own hubris? We see enough of how power is abused in the world to know what would soon become of it. Maybe we are cut off for good reason.

Most atheists are good people and probably reject God more due to the hypocrisy (and sometimes also the cruelty) of us Christians than anything else. However, there is also “practical atheism”, this is what Psalm 37 and Psalm 94 talk about. When you throw away the foundations, it is not long before the children of God will become the children of the world.

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. – Robert Heinlein

– by grace we proceed

Much like “Who created God?”

2 Likes

I am very interested in this quote. But i don’t really know what it means. Can someone elaborate a little? Does it mean we rather rationalise the world around us?

Robert Heinlein was a science fiction writer. I was unable to obtain a copy of the book “Assignment in Eternity (1953)” where the quote actually comes from (seems it is out of print), but knowing Heinlein, the statement was surely used as a cynical remark about human nature – that the typical person does not use his/her brain to do constructive things, he/she uses it to make excuses for foolish, selfish, or iniquitous deeds. Hence, man is a rationalizing animal.

… of course, we don’t actually have to be that way. My point was that if (collectively) we just throw away God, religion, etc. – clip that part of the brain out, if you will – are we really so sure we will have anything left of civilization (as a whole) other than some sort of pernicious nihilism?

1 Like

“Rationalize” has a specific meaning, basically “to use rational thought processes to make excuses for problematic behavior you’d really rather not stop.”

“You shouldn’t smoke.” “I know, but if I stop smoking I’ll start eating and gain weight. Also, I don’t really smoke that much.”

That kind of thing. I expect that is what he is referring to.

More abstractly, he could mean that people tend to use rational thought to justify things they’ve already really decided on.

1 Like

Thanks for explaining!

1 Like

I will leave this conversation with one of your previous posts:

Hawking said God is a “fairy story for those afraid of the dark.” John Lennox, another Oxford professor and mathematician, responded to him by saying “if God is a fairy story for those afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy story for those afraid of the light.”

1 Like

Why doesn’t the definition for “singularity” at Wikipedia apply to the singularity that our universe expanded from? All I am asking is for you to explain this.

Is it knowledge carrying people away from God, or is it the theological perspective that the discovery of natural processes disproves the existence of God?

I don’t think that there is any theological perspective that the discovery of natural processes disproves the existence of God. I think that Stephen Hawkins tried to make the claim that science has all the answers so we do not need a God anymore. So our own scientific knowledge is carrying some of us away from God.

Yes, he said that science was making the God of the gaps invisible.

The problem of course is that his contribution to the Big Bang Theory reveals that that YHWH is God of the Facts.

My guess is probably that he was already an atheist way before studying any formal science, but felt very comfortable with the fact that his science seemed to support his atheism at least in a God of the gaps scenario. I think it is similar to how Richard Dawkins states that evolution allowed him to be and intelectually satisfied atheist, though again, I really doubt his atheism started with or is even centered evolution/biology.

I would agree that the atheism of Dawkins did not begin with his science, but I think that it could center around his “science,” because he allows his atheism to corrupt his science.

From what I understand he has begun a little cult that revolves around his “science” and his atheism which are closely interdependent.

Hawking could be a different situation. According to A Brief History of Time he did have a problem with philosophy and the God of the Gaps, which I can sympathize with.

Hawkings may have had a problem with other peoples philosophy but he had no problem making his own philosophy. A lot of his books are actually his own version of philosophy rather than proven science.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.