Stephen Hawking, atheism and faith

I think the discussion between reason and religion is a neverending story. But not believing in God, is different than not believing in magic. I wouldn't say Hawking believes in magic, but at least his arguments don't reach out to it. He once said that

In the interview, he said:

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

I understand this, and I agree with the logic he's following (but he's not one of the most convincing though). I think it is not about individual people being educated or not, it is about the whole paradigm of the scientific world.


In the translation on NBC news, he also said: "In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind." So, plenty of room for magic, I'd say (or spirituality, intuïtion, etc.)

Moderator Note

It is the extreme point of view which seems to be the most difficult as it seems that extremists hold that no other point of view is valid. Period. Anyone not holding the same point of view is considered as somehow less intelligent, or from the other side of that extremist view, less evolved.

In the face of such extremism, it is easy to become offended or insulted, and to lash out. But do remember that extremists do not represent the whole of the world of atheists or scientists.

Keep the discussion on topic. It is okay to discuss how such extremism makes you feel and how it may affect your own spiritual practice, which is what Ivanna has done. This doesn't need to turn into a whole scale bashing of Atheist extremists.

celticnoodle said:

I have not read the interview, so I don't know what was said, and I always had a high regard for Hawkins--but if it is the way Ivanna says, and I know she has no reason to lie about it--I think he is an arrogant and ignorant being. Sad for him. I have to feel very sorry for people like this, especially when they are so well educated and to still be so darn ignorant.

Click to expand...

Well, as my english is not so good as it should be, maybe I need to clarify:

He just told that there is not place for God in the Universe and that he is atheist.

The one parafhrasing Sagan was someone taking part of the discussion, on the comments under the new. Just to clarify it.

I have extra reviewed the interview and translating the best I can, he says:
There is no God. I'm atheist. Religion believes in miracles, but those are uncompatible with science.

Ivanna, I had no problem understanding your first post, and meant no disrespect to you at all. Now, reading your second post, it is even clearer that Poor Steven Hawkins is indeed a very well educated and still a very ignorant person. very sad indeed.

celticnoodle said:

Ivanna, I had no problem understanding your first post, and meant no disrespect to you at all. Now, reading your second post, it is even clearer that Poor Steven Hawkins is indeed a very well educated and still a very ignorant person. very sad indeed.

Click to expand...

Hi CN!!
I didn't thought you were disrespecting my.
LOL I know that my expressions skill in english sometimes are very bad and I was worried to meant that Hawkin was the one paraphrasing Sagan.
I don't have this english level which allow you to add nuances with the expressions you use and sometimes I fear to be missunderstood.

I agree, celticnoodle. Hawkins is brilliant at maths & physics. He is almost totally ignorant of (& uneducated in) religion, mythology, & the sociology, anthropology, psychology & above all philosophy of religions, various spiritual beliefs & practices and superstitions, which humans have practised across the globe since the year dot. He is not interested in those things, and so finds it easy to make assumptions & simplifications and then sweep them aside with a swipe. That attitude is not 'educated' nor 'scientific' nor fair, and is indeed 'ignorant'.

Ditto Dawkins. Ditto Cox, et al.
Since they have not studied these topics, their dismissive remarks show neither 'education' nor wisdom - they are merely opinions & prejudices. They have come to grief in interviews on these matters when challenged by agnostics & believers (in anything supernatural) on British radio & TV, and embarrassed themselves by being unable to make decent arguments for their prejudices. So don't feel bad - being curious & willing & eager to explore is just fine to any properly open-minded academic.

Being very clever scientists has no bearing whatever on one's insights into the spirituality of others who ARE interested & DO study & practise. They can teach me about science, but not about God(ess / s) & religions, any more than I could teach them about maths!
So I agree with your first post, ivanna, that these supercilious comments are insulting and I see no value in them.

Starshower said:

I agree, celticnoodle. Hawkins is brilliant at maths & physics. He is almost totally ignorant of (& uneducated in) religion, mythology, & the sociology, anthropology, psychology & above all philosophy of religions, various spiritual beliefs & practices and superstitions, which humans have practised across the globe since the year dot. He is not interested in those things, and so finds it easy to make assumptions & simplifications and then sweep them aside with a swipe. That attitude is not 'educated' nor 'scientific' nor fair, and is indeed 'ignorant'.

Ditto Dawkins. Ditto Cox, et al.
Since they have not studied these topics, their dismissive remarks show neither 'education' nor wisdom - they are merely opinions & prejudices. They have come to grief in interviews on these matters when challenged by agnostics & believers (in anything supernatural) on British radio & TV, and embarrassed themselves by being unable to make decent arguments for their prejudices. So don't feel bad - being curious & willing & eager to explore is just fine to any properly open-minded academic.

Being very clever scientists has no bearing whatever on one's insights into the spirituality of others who ARE interested & DO study & practise. They can teach me about science, but not about God(ess / s) & religions, any more than I could teach them about maths!
So I agree with your first post, ivanna, that these supercilious comments are insulting and I see no value in them.

Click to expand...

I entirely agree - and I also have that PERSONAL gripe with Dawkins. They are closed minded. Very sad. They miss so much.

It's dangerous I think in life to believe in anything too much, it becomes extremist! To be atheist and close minded to everyone else's views is exactly the same as being religious in any denomination and being so extreme you won't listen to or accept anyone else's views! It's also dangerous to be close minded in science as it is in religion, our beliefs might change or we might be proved wrong! Science is not always right on a theory!

Both him and Richard Dawkins (who has said some horrendous things about women, rape and also about Muslims recently) are giving Atheists a bad name! Perhaps this is like the top people who represent any religion, they tend to have the strongest opinions but get the most air time, but this is people with no belief in God! But they don't represent all Atheists.

Education doesn't really change your beliefs, my religious high school had a head master who was a Dr Rev! He was a Dr of physics and a Church of England Priest who was practising in both areas. I was fascinated as a teenager and he taught us about the National History Museum in London which is shaped in a cross, it's like a cathedral of science. Both subjects are an uneasy mix! there is a lot of relatives in my family who work in scientific fields, some are religious, some are atheist but they don't tend to moralise against the people who have spiritual beliefs. You can be logical and also have spiritual beliefs. I feel sad about him, I regarded him highly like CN!

For me this is a classic case that they should put themselves in someone else's shoes before speaking and to be open minded. You might believe there is no God but that is not to do with 'pseudo sciences' or someone's education. Good topic Ivanna and you were perfectly understandable as ever

Funny thing is, all these people try to get back to a field about which they can't say anything - because it was never the goal of science to proove God's (non)existence. It's like they are trying to think about something they have abandoned and regret it.

The thing is that it is easy to prove or disprove something like gravity. NOT so easy to DISPROVE something like god or magic. So they seem to feel they must diss these things, because they cannot apply scientific methods to them.