What Is Stephen Hawking’s Problem?

Mihai-Silviu Chirila

Do you like this story?




Last week, at exactly the same time, I was writing an article on this site in which I was showing that Stephen Hawking allegations about the fact that the universe was not created by God do not stand to reason because of the logical fallacies his arguments are built upon.

I was hoping to revert to my work, and not to waste any more time on such trivial matters. For me trying to demonstrate the existence of God or to dismiss allegations like those made by Hawking is really a trivial enterprise, since the existence of God is so obvious than even blind people couldn’t miss it.

Then Stephen Hawking strikes again. Reciting his little “dogmas” ex cathedra while the world stands still, the famous and respectable physicist turns into an impostor and a con artist when he proclaims: “Theology is unnecessary!”

He goes on to explain that science can answer more and more questions that used to be “provinces of religion,” proving by that he has no idea what he is talking about.

One cannot elude the question “Why?” “Why is Stephen Hawking so set up against theology?” “How much of this denial is purely Hawking’s mentality and what is exaggerated interpretation of the media?” Because anyone credited to be as smart as Stephen Hawking passes for should know that theology is necessary.

I know it is rather obsolete to defend the need for theology in front of a public that was educated to despise theology and embrace erroneous ideas such as that of Hawking’s that science can provide answers for everything.

Still, to the risk of not having anyone who would take the bother to read me I will attempt at pleading for the dire need of theology in a world like this. For, as genius writer Cyril Connolly puts it, “It is better to write for yourself and have no audience, than to write for the audience and have no self.”

That being said, it is fair to add that the main reason why theology should not be dismissed is that, in spite of what Hawking thinks, theology is not cosmology, or better said it is much more than cosmology.

Scientists have made it their business to trespass the boundaries of their own field of expertise and pass judgments on a reality that transcends completely the material reality sciences are presumed to investigate.

Thus, they presume to know the answers related to the creation of the world, even though these “answers” cannot go beyond sheer intellectual speculation, wherefore they are susceptible of being wrong.

Since there is no way to connect the existence of God per se (God denominated himself in the Scriptures as “he who is,” (Exodus 3:15) that is the only existence capable of subsisting independently) to the creation of the world in a syllogism that would say that if God didn’t create the world then God does not exist, because God would exist even if He didn’t create the world, creating being one of his outwardly works, not the core of his essence, then the whole demonstration about the non-existence of God and unnecessity of theology has nothing to do with creation itself, and is motivated by other reasons.

Another reason theology is necessary is that, unlike most people think, it is a fascinating field of knowledge, and an experience that transcends every other experience that could come to mind.

To use a comparison, practicing theology as a science, the science of all sciences and the art of all arts, as it was called in the Middle Ages by all the elevated men of the epoch, is like smelling the most sophisticated French fragrance after crawling through the cloacae underneath a city.

Then, the challenges to the mind theology offers no other science could ever dream of offering. The bold enterprise to scrutinize the fathomless depth of the divine reality provides the most ecstatic experience possible.

He who studies the history of the Christian creeds for example or of its doctrine and understands the difficulty of the human mind to take in and accommodate supernatural truths, and the struggle to find the real pass through the agency of a feeble mind in which the scientists put their own trust in their endeavor to “provide answers” no one actually needs.

Theology is not necessary to human kind not only for knowing God through it, but also for knowing man.

Nowhere else in the world man discovered himself better than in theology. The theology of person for instance, which is the paramount Christian contribution to the history of ideas, along with the true knowledge of God, is extremely important today more than even, as a depersonalization process is known throughout the world.

Human beings will never understand who they are by theories that place them among the livestock. They cannot understand what is their purpose if they believe they are a simple accident in the world s Hawking is inclined to believe.

Theology is necessary even because of the moral imperative it postulates. “If God doesn’t exist,” Fyodor Dostoevsky, a great writer Hawking is most certainly ignorant of, “everything is permitted,” and in such a Darwinist world vision the operative principle is “survival of the fittest,” which most certainly rules Hawking out of existence.

Theology is just as necessary as every other field of human mind activity in the world. All it takes to see that is to go beyond the prejudices accumulated in hundreds of years of ignorance, and the lies told by people like Stephen Hawking, be they “honest lies” or not.

That Hawking is taking up his own struggle with God into the public arena it is no doubt. In fact, it stands to logic that if God doesn’t exist then Hawking is talking about, and is obsessed with, something inexistent, which makes him at least very stupid, if not completely delusional.

Which leads us to the conclusion that God does exist and for some personal reason Hawking has a score to settle with him, and takes it the hard way. And if God does exist, so must the science about him.11

Did you like it? Share it!

15 Responses to What Is Stephen Hawking’s Problem?

  1. Allen says:

    Hey, i have to say that i agree with the man. Besides the Bible, is there any other accurate proof that there is an immortal spirit watching our every move? That is if the Bible can be called “accurate proof”…

  2. Mihai-Silviu Chirila says:

    The question stands: Besides Hawking and the likes of him, is there any other accurate proof that there is not an immortal spirit watching us? That is if Hawking and the likes of him can be called “accurate proof”…

    Are you willing to make Pascal’s wager?

    And one more thing: those who believe do not require “accurate proof” since the whole thing about faith is believing the truths God told them. Trying to prove scientifically the content of the faith is a contradictio in adjecto, because acknowledging a truth that has been proved empirically has nothing to do with faith. It is a simple taking note of something.

    That is why faith is the highest way of knowing, because by it, we participate in truths that the feeble human mind could never construe in its own right.

    Thanks for the comment.

  3. jono says:

    Black holes don’t exist, thats his problem.

  4. jono says:

    Light is oscillating magnetic lines that propergate at the speed of time (light).Electromagnetism is a “time varying field” and is a source for time varying electric fields and vise versa. Atoms like stars and galaxies radiate electromagnetic radiation constantly called stimulated emission inward and outward and is a recipricol system. Wave fronts superimpose around objects causing an energy imbalance. Two or more objects wave fronts will superimpose causing constructive interference and high pressure; waves in between will cancel each other out causing de-constructive interference and low pressure; objects will be pushed together. Dark matter, gravity and the strong force is all the same force. “There is only one force, that force is time itself.” Time in the universe is like electromagnetic bubbles that collapse into larger ones, the more bubbles there are collapsing; the slower the time, collapsing into now. The collapsing of wave functions is the underlying nature of all motion and forces in the physical universe.

  5. James R. Evans says:

    I have to disagree with you sir. You ask, “Besides Hawking and the likes of him, is there any other accurate proof that there is not an immortal spirit watching us?”

    You assert here that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a very common christian argument but is flawed in every way. If we lived our lives with a requirement that assertions and accusations be proved untrue rather than true, we would all be child molesters and worse. All that would be required for a thing to be true is someone to assert it. One would then be required to prove themselves innocent rather than the accusers proving them guilty.

    In the same breath you mention Hawking and his ilk. I can only assume that you include the likes of Einstein in this elite club. If so I find it rather ironic that you use a computer to dissiminate your thoughts considering that it is the photoelectric effect which makes your monitor work. The photoelectric effect being the discovery that garnered Albert Einstein the Nobel Prize.

    It never fails to amaze me how easily the faithful will demonize scientists and discoveris which contraradict their bronze age mythology. The faithful will simultaneously embrace other creations and discoveries of these same men in order to continue their proselytizing.

    Also, I think you misunderstand Pascal’s wager. The first poster likely would not make it nor would I. It is you that makes the wager. Pascal said, “It is better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong.” It overides the question of whether there is or is not a God and simply covers the spread with a logically placed wager.

    I would ask you however to consider the words of a monk named Occam. “One need not enumerate entities beyond neccessity.”

  6. Mihai-Silviu Chirila says:

    Thank you for your opinion.

    Though I have to disagree with some of the things you are asserting, I cannot help admiring the splendid scholar language you use.

    I was only referring to the sayings of Hawkings, I do not include Einstein or any other scientist in it, I only analyze one man’s words at the time.

    These are the words of Pascal I was talking about:

    “You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.”

    Here is a translation of his words which is more accurate than the one I exposed above.

    It is a pleasure to see someone who understands this noble way of argumentations.
    My best regards!
    M

  7. James R. Evans says:

    Thank you for your kind words. I had never seen the full text of Pascal’s wager, a bit more thought out than the brief summary I’ve been offered before.

    I will concede one point to you though. You are right that it is ironic that Hawking bemoans the evils of Christianity when it is the rise of that religion’s morality that likely insured his continued existence.

    Regards

  8. Nicholas Danger says:

    Hawking only sees things as fact. I think he is spot on in his assessment that there need not be a God for the universe to create itself. The Planck and even the Geneva Collider are dangerously close to figuring out the evolution of the universe. The Big Bang questions….also known as the last footholds of creationism!

    Also, I think you both misunderstand Pascals Gambit. Either way, it might be better to err on the side of not concerning yourself with an invisible product.

  9. Gottfried says:

    Don’t use arguments that have names – this should be the first rule of any theological debate.

    Pascal’s wager is invalid because it is NOT merely a choice between two faiths. The dichotomy is false, the 50-50 that it relies on is invalid as the choice is not YHWH or No YHWH, it is YHWH or Hinduism or Buddhism or Orochi or The Great Spirit or Poseidon or Thor or Deism; and on and on ad nauseum. It doesn’t work for Christianity alone (though, admittedly, it is an argument for theism over atheism (regardless of the gnosticism of the believer), but such a God so petty as to throw someone into the fires of hell for not believing in It without evidence is no God that I would worship), because Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist-Animism, Hinduism, and all the Myriad beliefs in the supernatural are equally probable. Invalidating the Wager.

    Unless, of course, you have some piece of evidence that the rest of us are lacking. Which, frankly, I have to demand that you announce to the world so that once and for all this debate can be resolved (regardless of what you think, the first thing you need to admit to be a scientist is that you are wrong. Every theory you make is wrong, no matter how well it describes the phenomena. The goal, is ultimately to become less wrong, and you become less wrong through experimentation and observation of empirical evidence. If you have empirical, undeniable, unbiased evidence that God is real, I will not doubt that if you announce it and it is verified in a lab, Hawking will be among the first people who will admit that he was incorrect).

    Sorry, waxed poetic a little there.

    Gottfried

    (Yes. Name’s ironic.)

  10. Mihai-Silviu Chirila says:

    Dear Gottfried,

    Pascal’s wager was about God. Period. Not about religion, the way we worship Him. That it applies to Muslims, to Buddhists, it is not my place to say. It definitely works for Christianity, which is why I implied it here. The issue in debate was about faith in God (whatever His name is or the worshipping form) and the lack of it. So, it is perfectly valid. It is not about how you manifest your faith, but about having faith at all.

    That all religions are the same, or equal, I think no religion would accept that, since each claims to be The One. You cannot expect me to say that my religion is better that the next person’s, because I will never say that out of respect for that next person. I do know, however, deep inside that my religion is right (at least for what I require of religion) and offers me the way to salvation, and that makes Pascal’s wager perfectly valid. I dont need any other evidence, therefore, I cannot provide you with any. I am sorry. I can only invite you to share in with me my religion and see for yourself. No more than that.

    Anyway, this form of knowledge, by faith, is much more than the “empirical evidence” you seek, because empirical knowledge is, as Immanuel Kant says, and many other philosophers along with him throughout ages, the most primitive form of knowledge, and confines us within the bonds of matter, which God transcends by far. Plato speaks of it as of seeing shadows on the walls of a cave.

    However, since you are looking to experimental evidence about God’s existence, I offer you one: the Universe itself! You cannot possible believe the Universe made itself out of nothing, can you? The same Kant says he looked at the perfect order of universe and understood the greatness of God the creator. So could you.

    The universe, like all form of life, has a purpose, a goal, a telos, which only God could have imprinted. I know my telos. Do you know yours? Can science tell you why were you born, why are you alive, what is the purpose of the life you are leading, what is death? I think not. See, we already speak of questions science could never provide an answer to. What was that about admitting to being wrong? Don’t you think it is about time this admittance was made?

    Then, it is not God who throws the unbeliever into the fire of hell, but the unbeliever himself, by denying the sanctification God is offering him. God merely respects your right to disagree with Him, which makes Him great, doesn’t it? No one has ever uttered that God would throw people in the fire of hell, and if they did, it was for lack of better words.

    I wish it were true what you are saying about scientists. If the first rule is to admit they are wrong, they should have admitted that a long time, when they came with the increadible claim of having all the answers, which is merely a hoax, as we both know and have seen above.

    The funny thing is that even Mr Hawking will have his moment of admitting he was wrong about God. Unfortunately for him it will not be when he looks at God in the lab but when he gazes upon his majesty as he leaves this life and sets out for the next. It won’t do him no good then, but he will come to meet God, of that I am sure.

    Speaking of next life, a concept you may find repulsive, since it escapes all empirical observance, do you know how this life of ours is described in one of the chants sung at the memorial services in my religion?
    “Life is,” the chant says, “a shadow with no substance.” Indians call that “maya,” that is “illusion,” while ancient Greeks call it “moira,” which means about the same. If so, where does this leave empirical onservance? Think about it.

    Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
    M

  11. Mihai-Silviu Chirila says:

    By the way! I was forgetting! I perfectly agree with your idea that all theories are wrong. Indeed they are, like everything the reason construes. They are wrong because human cannot get the bigger picture, being inside the phenomen he tries to understand.
    I wish those who made a dogma of some theories would understand this truth as completely as you did.
    And I grant you that. With every theory we make we get less wrong. There is only one thing we could add to have the whole picture and make sure we do no stray: a little faith.
    Best regards,
    Mike

  12. Jean-Paul Satire says:

    You’ve totally contradicted yourself in the article.

    You are dismissive about Darwinism as a theory “that place[s] them [humans] among the livestock” but instead Darwinism shows that humans have evolved to move beyond simply “survival of the fittest” – we look after those who need it – including the elderly, injured and disabled.

    Think about a baby, which can’t survive on its own for many years after birth. But many animals never even meet their parents, because they have to survive alone from birth – they have not evolved beyond survival of the fittest. The fact that a baby can be born without a fully formed brain means that it can grown after birth so humans can have bigger brains than other animals and enjoy the advances that come with it. (If you’re wondering why humans can’t have fully-formed brains anyway, if they were any bigger than they are now they wouldn’t fit down the birth canal).

    If Hawking or for that matter other scientists had to compete with on physical strength alone with larger people for food or a mate (like an animal) he would lose. But humans have evolved over time to be better than this. Not having to worry about your own safety or where your next meal is coming from is great for creativity and frees the mind to do all sorts of other things.

    I say to anyone who is unsure about faith, read as many different religious texts as you can and read some Richard Dawkins and see who has the answers.

  13. Mihai-Silviu Chirila says:

    Dear Jean-Paul,

    Thanks for your thoughts. There is only a little flaw in your response: this “evolution” you speak of was brought by Christianity (as the climax of the moral ascent of human being), not by Darwinism, not even by science, given that it is a moral evolution, and that could not have been brought by the status of talkative monkey, Darwin has bestowed upon human race.
    By the way, did you know that this “monkey business” of Darwin has a ground in the Christian dogmatic theology? Imagine that!
    It goes like this. There are many opinions about the consequences of the original sin on human nature. Eastern Orthodox consider that sin damaged to some extent the human nature but it did not destroy it, allowing human to continue to be human to some point.
    Conversely, Protestantism considers that the nature was destroyed beyond repair, and while the Catholic doctrine introduced donum superaditum (the added gift) to explain how human can be capable of salvation after the Fall, Radical Protestantism insisted that human lost entirely humanity after the sin. If he was no longer human, what was he? This is where Darwin steps in with his explanation. So you see, human was human, than he became monkey only to be human again. Needless to say that this vision is not very much shared in the Christian theology.
    A saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church explains this monkey stuff like no other. He says that he who wants to be son of God is the son of God, whereas he who wants to be the son of the monkey will no doubt become so.
    Nasty business, ha? Welcome to the land of theological grasp.
    Thank you again.

  14. Dr. Sanathdeva Murutenge says:

    Now I am really getting tired of reading junk science of Stephen Hawking.