Stephen Hawking Says Science Will Beat Religion

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works,” Stephen Hawking tells Diane Sawyer in an interview to air tonight on ABC’s World News.

He also tells her that:

What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God. They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.

Category: On the Record

Tagged:

69 Responses

  1. If humans cannot possiby relate to and know the God Who created the universe, because we are so small and insignificant, then how can we reasonably say that we accidental humans could possibly begin to comprehend the vast complexity of the universe? Of course we can’t.

    If God wants to create humans in God’s own image and to have a personal relationship with us humans, who is to say that God cannot do this? That is what it means to be God, to be able do whatever One chooses to do.

    We might not understand how this is possible, but there is no way that we can reasonably say that it is not possible.

    As Einstein wrote: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensibile.”

  2. Robert Notley says:

    You can keep believing in an omniscient being of which you could never say you have ever actually met and of which you will never be able to prove exists. Unfortunately for you science has been able to explain pretty much everything up to the point of the big bang. What came before it? we don’t know. yet. Why don’t you imagine our big bang as once being a star of itself in it’s own mega universe. At least Hawking is working towards finding the answers humans seek and is not content to lay his head to what other humans tell him or simply having faith in a god that was created to calm the minds of the weak. The christian god was created and manifested by the Church to turn humans into mindless slaves. If you honestly think that what you believe now is what humans believed 1500 years ago you are sadly mistaken. Humans belief in god has evolved as people started to question the “truths” of the bible’s and started to dispel the hold it had on their minds. As the human race unlocks more secrets it slowly pushes your “Gods” out of the way to the truth of the universe and that we are but one small speck in the grand scheme. Sorry if that makes humans sound like a grain of sand on a beach but it’s true.

  3. John says:

    As a Christian, I don’t have a problem with science. I also don’t consider myself a mindless slave to any person or entity.

    However, I find the complexities of our world and what is beyond it, what came before it and what lies ahead of it to be a sign of God’s work.

    Science “works” because Wisdom works. Wisdom is found by many avenues, science being one of them.

    I think the thrill of being one of the first to do so prompted me to leave a comment more than I really wanted to wave my opinion. Stay blessed…john

  4. Shawn Grimm says:

    I’m going to go ahead and agree with Roger,based only on the fact that he understands punctuation and paragraphs.

    Robert’s wall of text is a sign of an inferior mind.

  5. Susannah says:

    Science has explained a lot, has theorized a lot and presumed a lot. Why can’t science and the individual’s understanding of God mesh together? I say… they can.

  6. Will Reddell says:

    I’m going to go ahead and disagree with Shawn, since he doesn’t understand logic.
    But that’s the problem with most christians. They’re too easily swayed by charisma and presentation and fail to practice sufficient analytical analysis.

  7. Micah Orsatti says:

    I’m going to go ahead and disagree with Robert, because I practice critical thinking.

    To say that we understand everything up until the Big Bang is sheer foolishness. We are beginning to understand many a thing about the way the universe works, but we are still babes lost in the dark. Look up blood clotting sometime. Or antibodies. Positing “our big bang as once being a star of itself in it’s own mega universe” is the same as suggesting that a god created everything.

    I am an atheist, but I search for the truth.

  8. Mark says:

    It matters not whether there are gods. The gods of the three thousand religions on this Earth are only good for spiritual thumb sucking at best and reason for murder at worst. I don’t concern myself with such simple superstition. Science is reason. Religion is blind.

  9. not christian says:

    Stephen Hawking’s idea of what could define God is just sloppy selfish thinking. He’s really not a bright philosopher.

    He says religion is all based on authority, which is totally hypocritical. Science has become just as much an authority, so much so that we’re supposed to just accept Stephen Hawking as an authority on concepts like God.

  10. D LeBlond says:

    Roger says “If humans cannot possiby relate to and know the God Who created the universe, because we are so small and insignificant, then how can we reasonably say that we accidental humans could possibly begin to comprehend the vast complexity of the universe? Of course we can’t.”

    This statement supposes that a knowledge of God is necessary to understand the Universe, which is circular logic. “God exists and therefor you must understand him to understand the universe” is your logic which requires one to accept without concrete proof (i.e. “faith”)that there is a God.

    Secondly, the statement “If God wants to create humans in God’s own image and to have a personal relationship with us humans, who is to say that God cannot do this?” is problematic as well. First the answer is “No one” if accepts that there is a sentient being of omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent potential. However, again that presupposes without proof (faith). In addition, the part that says “If God wants to create humans in God’s own image…” is a belief of Christian/Judaic descent, which makes one believe that not only do you believe that there is a God, but that it is your God, and not the Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, or even classic Greek gods.

    Suffice to say, we can all agree that science has yet to explain everything, and there is still plenty of room for science to eventually prove the existence of God should this God prove to be in said existence.

    Hawking is only pointing to that eventuality, and referring to the historical fact that there is a continued degradation in the centralized control of the worlds major religion as it becomes a more personalized experience, and the central control continues to abuse its authoritarian power.

    Please think of that next time you type on your computer, brought to you by SCIENCE :)

  11. Jack Keifer says:

    See, Will, what you said “They’re too easily swayed by charisma and presentation and fail to practice sufficient analytical analysis” is completely untrue. I don’t know where you got that idea, but I, as a Christian, know Christians, and very few are swayed by the contents of the aforementioned statement. (I can use big words too, bud.)

    And what is with people thinking the church wants people to become mindless slaves? Cough*Robert*Cough
    But really? The Christian Church wants to make mindless slaves? Give me a few solid points to prove this and maybe I’ll regard it as something legitimate.

    On a separate point, I think that science and religion can exist together. Think about it. How many of the great scientific minds were Christian? Galileo, Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon. All Christian. They wanted to explore a divine God’s creation, through science. Early pagans had no desire to do so.

    We’re surrounded by the huge creation-evolution debate. We have not even unlocked all the secrets of a single, “simple” one celled organism. We have not explored all of our own planet, let alone a fraction of our galaxy. Every thing you see in nature and space, and in the mirror, points to a divine creator. Evolution, I’m sorry, is frankly just not possible. Organisms are just far too complex and specialized to have evolved. Take the bombardier beetle. It contains within its exoskeleton a nasty cocktail of chemicals and enzymes to inhibit the chemicals from exploding inside the beetle. If just one component of the chemicals or enzymes was missing(I’m not even going to go into anatomical structures), there would be no bombardier beetle existing.

    As a young-Earth creationist, I believe that God created everything more or less 6,000 years ago. Take the Grand Canyon. absolutely massive, amazing, breathtaking. And supposedly, over millions of years, a single river formed it. Using my knowledge of SCIENCE in the area of geology, I can tell you that that would not be possible. Why? Because the tectonic plate containing North America would have moved far beyond the spot of the canyon before it was even close to it’s current depth. It could’ve, however been formed by water and geological activity. Such as the “Little Grand Canyon” near the site of Mt. Saint Helens. formed by molten lava so hot it melted the rock and water, it looks almost identical to the Grand Canyon except in size. It was formed in days, not millions of years.

    So, when it comes down to it, you can believe whatever you believe. I believe that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who saved my life some 2,000 years ago by being tortured and killed for my wrongs. and yours. and for every human, past, present, and future. I’ll not force what I believe on you. I’ll try to persuade you to think otherwise, but I will not force you to do anything. But think about it. really do. Every moment of your existence, since you were first formed in the womb, is a miracle of life.

    Think on it.

  12. Will Reddell says:

    Jack, I got those ideas from growning up in church, hanging out with christians all my life, a 2 year bible school, and a 4 year baptist university (as a christian). Hope that helps.

  13. Will Reddell says:

    Oh, and I’m happy that you know big words. Good for you pal.

  14. Patrcik says:

    Christianity is a mindless comfort food. It makes us feel good temporarily but inhibits our ability to think unbiased. Jack’s comments are a perfect example of such a herding mentality. Until one is able to separate their own convictions and think without historical idealism, they will not find the truth.

    As Stephen Hawking suggests, one must define what the term god refers before any such discussion can exist. I believe in god, but my definition of god would clash with most.

  15. Will Reddell says:

    Here’s a fun link about the “secrets of a single, “simple” one celled organism”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

  16. Chasmodai says:

    Does belief in God have to contradict religion? If there is a God, he or she created the scientific process through which we discover the universe.

  17. Patrick says:

    When anyone creates anything, does such a result create a process going forward? Or does the creation of any existence allow the possibility beyond intent?

  18. Patrick says:

    God and religion are separate and distinct. Religion is a process of beliefs and ideologies while god is term used to define one’s deity(ies)

  19. While Mr. Hawkings aptly demonstrates his limitless intellectual vanity, there may be a resonance to his statement. But I doubt it will be science as we know it that will defeat religion as passed down by tradition. Rather it will be a unified conception of the nature of knowledge, which science already uses seeking to confirm the nature of a reality. That is testable, demonstrable, direct cause and effect evidence necessary to authenticate any new claim to understanding our world, universe or ourselves. What existing religion has never been able to provide to substantiate its claims. Yet while science and religion have been trading insults, while no one was looking, a religious conception that fits this enlightenment criteria appears to have been discovered. But I doubt that either science or religion will appreciate an outside interjection into their own spheres of influence. Especially one that questions the limitations of them both! http://www.energon.org.uk
    Check it out at http://www.energon.org.uk

  20. Jonathan says:

    Define Science.

    A few observations:
    1. Science at its core is observation of cause and effect(and the rational explanation that follows describing how and why things happened the way they did). Since currently and in the foreseeable future it is beyond the human ability to cause a universe to come into being (or witness someone else cause one to come into being) it is highly unlikely that we will get any real conclusions from science on the origins of the universe. More likely we are just studying the effect and guessing at the cause.

    2. There is no authoritative body of “science.” This is especially the case when it comes to studying only the effect of things without the ability to duplicate cause. Within the scientific community their is a wide variety of disagreement on many issues.

    3. When you trust science you are trusting men and women who have gone before you. You are trusting in reports of people who put forward their truth claims based on evidence that you have not seen. Some scientists have falsified evidence to fit their truth claims. Unless you have verified the scientific findings of others by producing or witnessing the experiments yourself you are trusting others.

    4. All appeals to an ultimate authority are circular by nature. If you appeal to science as your authority and I ask you “why” long enough you eventually have to say, “Because science reveals it.”

    5. Scientific tradition actually emerged out of Christianity. Many early scientists were Christians and saw their scientific pursuits as an endeavor to better understand God by understanding his creation. While at times it is true that the Roman Catholic Church did persecute certain scientist for their positions, the emotion of that sentiment does not change the actual history of events.

    6. Science does not always work. It is limited in its helpfulness to what we can observe. Some things are beyond our power to observe and therefore beyond the realm of science. I put the beginning of our universe in that bucket.

    7. Functionally even European and American culture has moved past “science is the answer.” We were greatly let down by modernism and have moved on to post-modernism.

  21. Will Reddell says:

    If you ask why long enough you’ll get a report of the research done by intelligent people actually trying to make a better world for people and understand what is. Not someone set out to discredit religion as you might feel compelled to believe by what you read in the comment section of blogs. “Science” is simply knowledge and to say that it is not trustworthy implies that you don’t believe anything can be known for sure. So are you agnostic?

    Go ahead and replace the word science with knowledge and see how ridiculous your post seems.

  22. bobby says:

    Here is a physically crippled human being denying God, but has not the understanding that he has no ability to cure himself or others of certain diseases. He would take pride in his mind and accomplishments, but has no no desire to understand where they came from. He has no control over his own life or well-being; entirely dependent upon the mercy and will of his Creator and still will not look for help. At this point a man of God would accept what God has given him in this life and ask for forgiveness and help, and seek direction and assistance from his Creator.
    How like very many of us who, spiritually crippled and helpless, trapped in our body, proudly extol the science which God has given us by our ability to understand, and not ready to be thankful for the mind and understanding superior to all else in creation. How many more deny their own intelligence and compare themselves to the beasts of the field in order to find meaning and justification in their lives. We were created to find God…that is the meaning of life. If we choose to deny it no one will interfere. And I believe the free will we have been given to search earnestly for Him will be used by many to deny His existence…does it make you feel better… do you think by denial you are now free and exempt from all effort…excused?

  23. Robin says:

    I really don’t know why what Stephen Hawking says about religion — or science matters to either. Science, as Hawking is saying implicitly, is the New State Religion. Religion that worries about science isn’t good religion (for example, Fundamentalism), as it seems to be jealous of science, for some reason. Hawking is not a religious man, so what does he know about religion? He’d say I wasn’t a scientist, so what would I know about science. The whole science v. religion thing is idiotic. There are many more important things to think about, for scientists, and for people of faith.

  24. bobby says:

    One more thing…don’t you find a “herding mentality”, as you put it, in the denial of God? Isn’t this why web sites like this exist? To gather support? I think so. And also, there is more effort when someone chooses to understand God and His creation…not less…not a comfortable reduction of thought. If you don’t believe it, just say you believe in God and see how much easier your life is…just for a day. Or just stop drinking. Can’t do it?

  25. Patrick says:

    Humanity instinctively searches for answers and questions their surroundings. That’s what make us different. When we are unable to resolve our ultimate question, we create god(s). The god(s) of today is so different from the gods of Egyptian, Chinese, Norse or Roman times. But only figuratively. They all serve the same purpose: to give us meaning and for there to be a more powerful being than us.

    Read Joseph Campbell’s….The Power of Myth. He does not seek to undermine religion but rather to find commonalities amongst the thousands of religions though the ages.

    In the end, it is evident from his research that man has a need to feel that their life has meaning and purpose. Religion and god(s) have always filled this void.

  26. ecip says:

    I’ve never understood why extremists find it so hard to believe someone could possibly have a different point of view.

    Open your heart to whatever is out there, it will respond in its own way.

    As far as The Bible, The New Testament has a great message if you believe in Christ’s divinity or not.

    Lighten up, life is short.

  27. Brandon says:

    Religion is just made up stories about the sun.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3i6UwVkP6M

  28. Joshua Woo says:

    I am not offended by Hawking’s remark because I am into religion but because I am into philosophy of science. Among philosophers who are in the discourse over science, most agree that ‘science’ is still very much a term needed to be further articulated. Hawking wrongly assumes that ‘science’ is an already clearly defined and everyone knows what it is. Obviously, this remark is made out of innocence.

    In a recent Beginners Guides on Philosophy of Science, Geoffrey Gorham lamented that “there may be no single criterion for demarcating science from non-science or capturing the proper scientific attitude.”

    Then Gorham went on to described the various nuances of ‘science’ in each given field, “The concept of “science” may in this way be similar to a concept like “game”: there are many typical features of games–scorekeeping, rules, winners, and losers, etc.–but none of these are possessed by all and only games. […] we will expect a science to involve empirically testable, mathematically precise, logically coherent explanations of natural systems, different sciences will exemplify these virtues in varying degrees.” (p.40)

    Hawking is not only wrong on the definition of science but also wrong on the definition of ‘religion’. All contemporary scientists invoke authority in their published papers as a way to ensure the readers that there are already major works done to support the claims made in the papers. Contemporary theologians invoke authority for the similar reason. Clearly Hawking did not read contemporary theologians. If he did, obviously he failed to see this similarity. If he saw, certainly he had something else in his mind and was unable to convey with precision what was that when he made that remark, hence deluding the public over the issue.

    Thus, Hawking, as a celebrated scientist (for whatever reason), did not give a fair definition of ‘science’ in his statement, and so provided a disservice to the field he has spent his entire life in. In any way, he fell short to deal justly and adequately over the issue relating science and religion. He should just stick to commenting on theoretical physic and not on other subjects which is clearly out of his league.

  29. Jordan Hardy says:

    I think most of the negative commenters don’t understand Hawking’s point, or didn’t read the whole thing. The universe is vast; unfathomably vast. What are the odds that the progenitor of all that is resembles the insignificant inhabitants of an insignificant planet orbiting a small sun in an average galaxy? There very-well may be a creator, but the odds that he has anything to do with us in particular, as a species, are astronomical.

    That said, many of the roles God or Gods have traditionally filled in society (explaining weather, crop failure, random happenstance, etc.) have come to be filled by science, leaving less and less room for God over the years. Hawkings just thinks that eventually that trend will continue to its logical conclusion.

    My personal opinion is that devotional religion will never completely cease because, although we have developed into a posttheistic world in terms of the natural order of things, the concept of a God still has a profound, and oftentimes beneficial, effect on a person’s psyche. Lots of people become religious and become more whole individuals. I am not religious, but I can see the beauty in religion anyway.

  30. Jonathan says:

    Will,
    your are right it would sound absurd to replace the word science with knowledge. Because science isn’t knowledge. It’s how we obtain knowledge. At its core its observing cause and effect and coming to rational conclusions. When we cannot view the cause we study the effect to see what the cause might have been.

    Scientist submit theories based on their research and the research of others, often former researchers and scientists are proven to be wrong.

    One of the things that scientists are reporting now is that the universe is expanding. They have been able to theoretically rewind the clock to a “big bang” moment causing many scientists (religion aside) to believe that the universe did have a cause.

    Note the words of astronomer Robert Jastrow whom I understand was agnostic, “This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the begging God created the heavens and the earth… It is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in chasing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself up over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.” (God and the Astronomers)

  31. God says:

    You are mentioned in the Bible. God says you are
    a fool ! ! !

  32. Johnson says:

    Jonathan, and others who try to define the word science:

    To me, and I would imagine, many intelligent people (I can only know a small fraction of those that I would deem intelligent), science is simply used in place of ‘reason’ because it appears to be used commonly as a catch-all phrase that describes the use of observation, logic, rationalization, and acceptance of proven facts. Scientists may and do challenge those ‘facts’ daily, and yes, many are proven to be wrong, and replaced by the new ‘fact.’ But that’s just it, those who apply this ‘science’ to their efforts of understanding are willing to change their views when confronted with convincing arguments or evidence (as in, not ambiguous evidence that could lead to hundreds of theories). Let’s take the field of microbiology: all the knowledge we have in the area is a conglomeration of everything that the leading scientists of any particular time thought was correct, reviewed and revised constantly through time until we get here.

    You yourself point out that Jastrow, while acknowledging the difficulties in his thought, is still an agnostic. The scientist who has scaled the mountains of ignorance to find the believers at the top isn’t the fool to have done so… Quite the opposite. Those “who have been there for centuries” have been there because a book told them to go there and wait; nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, the knowledge at the top of the mountain that scientist has scaled implies that there was a beginning to the universe, not that there is a god. He will continue to climb any mountains he comes across, and the religious will sit content on the summits of their’s. Doesn’t sound like high praise for the theologians does it?

    Now off on a little rant that : what I find particularly ironic about the bible (other than all the ridiculous pick-and-choose mentality christians show, which is more about the followers than the book) is that what was determined to be ‘divinely inspired’ was what was chosen to be included in the new testament. Man chose which writings to be excluded, not god, not jesus, and clearly not jesus’ followers.

  33. super sue says:

    One of my students suggested I call what I do, Quantum Physics. Let me take a middle road in this debate and see if I can shed some light. In 1969 I wrote a paper, “Amentia and Dementia in the Newborn”, it was a 7 year study on my part. Dr. Giselle had listed over 47,000 birthdates of children who had Downs Syndrome. I cast charts on these children and discovered that except for two cases, they all had a retrograding Mercury connection. Mercury retrogrades three times a year. So, having sex & concieving on those 3 days will produce a child born with Downs Syndrome. Is anyone to blame? The recent Gulf Oil accident occurred May 17, Mercury Retrograded then too. It means its a mistake. We used to call the Retrograding Mercury, “Murphys Law”. Look at it this way, God must love Man a lot to only cause 3 bad days over 365.

  34. Steve says:

    It is sad that Hawking’s statements will still always fall on deaf ears, the less intelligent a person is 1) the more distrustful they are of those who are intelligent 2) the more likely they are to believe in an omnipotent being that is unseen, unproven, and yet somehow is accepted as fact by those completely unable to accept that maybe we just aren’t really that important in the grand scheme of things.

  35. Gurpreet says:

    if therez no god then can anybdy answer tht what is the limit of universe ?
    if it has limit then wat lies beyond that ???
    think 1ce-to what extent this universe lies ?
    u will feel unexplainable anxiety n happiness
    i would be pleased to make a contact with anybdy whose thinking matches me at
    substantial_singh@yahoo.com

  36. Jeff says:

    Science hasn’t and can’t disprove the existence of God. Any effort to make science disprove God’s existence is philosophy not science. Saying that science disproves God is only an excuse not to have to deal with the possibility that there is a God who would care about them and what they do.

  37. Arm says:

    There are lot of top-class scientists (I’m aware of mathematicians) believing in God, and lot of them were atheists for long time and then became believers… Hawking is an authority in physics, but one opinion can’t be taken as an ultimate truth. By the way, try to go deep into Godel’s theorem, or at least read one of excellent articles by Bernard d’Espagnat, listen what Gregory Chaitin is talking about. You’ll find lot of incompleteness in science, *theoretically* impossible things, putting obstacles in our understanding and reasoning. Will Reddell blames another about logic above (to me, without any solid ground) and then talks about “analytical analysis”: logic is much more than you think you know!

  38. Terry says:

    My problem with science and “reason” is objectivity lacks ethics. We need a reason, a base that gives value to life. The idea of accident ruling the universe creates the illusion that nothing matters. That life has no intrinsic value. There is enough lack of regard for life in this world. Scientists, not theologians, created the atomic bomb.

  39. Arm says:

    To continue Terry’s line of thought, I’d like to consider the theory of chaos. It’s a beautiful mathematical theory, with amazing results. But sometimes scientists directly connect it with Darwinian evolution. I’m not a specialist in biology, but I’m pretty sure that this kind of connections are misleading. After all, self-organization has its limits. So I don’t believe that “blind search” in the set of all possible configurations can lead to better adapted species: but even this “blind search” should be somehow programmed and implemented on biological level! And finally, living in purposelessly existing world has no sense, and this sounds like a tautology… 😉

  40. Gurpreet. You ask us to identify the limits to the universe. Here is an idea. To start may i say that I do not regard myself a scientist. I am fifteen and clearly do not yet understand properly all the necessary constructs of science. However i have read the bible many times as a result of birth into Christianity. And in knowledge of that i regard myself an atheist.

    There is a theory in science of which i’m sure you know of that the natural world as we know it was formed in a giant explosion from a single atom. This is the big bang. A theory often shunned by those in religion which is understandable to me. As for it’s effect on the limit or edge of the universe. Here is an idea I have had the pleasure of being struck with. Did it stop?

    Think about it. There is no reason to say that it had to. We can’t presume yet the possible magnitude of said explosion. After all in theory it created all we know to be existent so far in this universe. So think about it. It could still be expanding, creating countless galaxies among and beyond us. And who knows? Maybe the end could be discovered too. If the world started in expansion from an atom why not end in compression? black holes suck in everything around them constantly, compressing them down to the border of non-existence. If the big bang were still continuing and one day finally stopped, then a black hole we know of could eventually in theory compress the universe back into one atom size. A complete circle of events. A perfect description for natural infinity.

    Now this is a theoretical point of view from a fifteen year old boy and I can assure you of this. Which, just by the way, seems a little more intelligent than a boy quoting versus on creation from a book. But it is only a theory after all. I cannot claim it as a legitimate answer without proof of it. But think about this. There are real scientists in this world conducting research on theories more intelligent than mine. They may not be fully constructed but they are progressing. And you cannot say with the progression of science in the past few hundred years that we will not harness the means to unlock the secrets necessary to understanding the universe. Religion has sat stubbornly in one position for centuries and so have been proven wrong by science on all practical beliefs so far.

    And i dare you to try an answer the same question. Because in it you will find closure to the origin of the bible. In it’s creation it was based on what we could comprehend about the universe at that time (which was practically nothing). If you try to imagine what we new then the bible would, in theory, fit. The first verse speaks of god creating the heavens and the earth. But why not the universe? because no-one knew of it. And if god knew of a place where the earth was situated which was filled with countless stars millions of times the size of our galaxy you would think he would reveal that to us even if we didn’t know. He spoke of the heavens after all and no-one “knew” about that. The bible was created to fit the time it first saw as an explanation for what we thought we would never explain. And if you wonder why that would be then check the first page of the King James version of the bible (and i’m confident on similar accounts in other versions to). It states loyalty to the king of the British empire. An empire that forced their religion onto many countries to provoke obedience to them.

    But since we now have the means to understand more about the world we exist in, religion is being slowly stripped of all place in society. And i’m sorry to say but Hawking is right. When all comes to finish, science will have wiped religion of the face of the earth. Despite those still ignorant and simple-minded enough to stick with it.

  41. Jack says:

    James out of everyone who posted here you gave the most load of crap ever. You’re only 15 you still have alot thinking to do the most strange thing is you posted this at 7:42 am thats sad man

    No one cares about religion, everyone cares about God, as a student i bielieve more in God than religion, however religion is neccasary for life like einstein said science with out religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

    and in similar terms my view science with out religion leads to matarealism, religion with out science leads to superstions. science and religion are like wings you need both to fly if you just had one religion then you would fall and the same for science

  42. Human says:

    I think what is more important here is to respect each individuals opinion, beliefs, and choices in life. To accept each other simply as human beings that we are with compassion. To accept the knowledge that science and religion has given us up to this date. To keep learning from it and exploring new ideas without putting a label on each opinion.

  43. BigDaddy says:

    It is difficult to accept but man has always wanted to rebel against authority. Everybody wants to be ‘god’ of ther own domain. That’s why they defend the rationale, there is no God. But if there is no true God, then what is the purpose or meaning of life? I bet Stephen Hawking can’t even tell me exactly what that is. Yes, he can make equations but he doesn’t have the ultimate answer.
    There are universal truths ordained by God that we may never explain. We think we know so much but there’s really so much more that we do not know. Like how could you tell that the Big Bang really happened? Nobody wrote about this. Thus nobody can say that what they say is the absolute truth. Unless you live forever and has never died. People become aetheist and such because of their own selfish beliefs that they can do such and such. If humans are so mighty, then why do we hate each other. We can’t even mend our relationship with our families.
    Then we think we can solve the origin of the universe.
    It all starts from your own personal relationship with the God who created this magnificent universe. God is not afraid of science. He created these minds to explore His workmanship. Hopefully, we keep learning through the ages and stop throwing the wisdom of our fathers as what this generation is doing now.

  44. Apu Ehsan says:

    Science is a proven truth by it’s theory . logically nobody can deny it. Do you ignore we need oxygen for breathing ? On the other hand religious thinking are based on hypothetical faith. It needn’t any proof or laboratory work. The thinking way of science and relegion is opposite. In this perspective hypothesis or religios beliefs can not be the opponent of science.If we want to nullify a scientific truth we must have to find out better scientific theory. When we will debate we should remind it. Otherwise it may turn into a unfair wrangling.

  45. Apu Ehsan says:

    Science is a proven truth by it’s theory . logically nobody can deny it. Do you ignore we need oxygen for breathing ? On the other hand religious thinking are based on hypothetical faith. It needn’t any proof or laboratory work. The thinking way of science and religion is opposite. In this perspective hypothesis or religious beliefs can not be the opponent of science.If we want to nullify a scientific truth we must have to find out better scientific theory. When we will debate we should remind it. Otherwise it may turn into a unfair wrangling.

  46. Jackie Chan says:

    Test

  47. Jackie Chan says:

    1. English
    I am not interested in terminology, words invented by humans to form the basis of language.
    I don’t care about the definition of “science” – that is a useless debate, and plays no signifcant role in questioning how our existence came to be.

    2. Origins
    Who created God?
    But.
    If the Big Bang came from nothing, can God not?

    3. Start
    Can something come from nothing?
    But.
    For there to be a beginning, the above must have been the case, at some point.

    4. Open-minded?
    As a non-religious person, I lean towards the big-bang theory as opoosed to God, for the origins of all.
    But as religious people, are you able to open your mind to the possibility of a big bang being the start of the universe?

    5. Interpretation
    Who wrote / translated religious text, bible / koran etc?
    Yes – people / authors, like those of Little Red Riding Hood, or Cinderella.
    How accurate, how biased, how reliable are those “stories”?

    6. Evolution
    Adapting to your surroundings to survive is not just scitentific, it’s logical.
    Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is an example; creatures is “harsh” / extreme environments is another – harsh to us, not them.
    However, it is still possible to argue that God is / not responsible.
    If God created our surroundings, and God created living beings, then God has indirect interference with evolution – does he not?

    7. Which?
    There are many religions, many possible God(s).
    Many, if not all faiths conflict – who / which is right?

    8. Classification
    Christian: “God gives us free-will.”
    Me: “I choose not to believe in God.”
    Christian: “U will go to hell!”
    Me: “But I’m a good person. Y will God place me in the same group as murderers and rapists simply for not believing.”

  48. Jackie Chan says:

    9. Conditions
    Christian: “Get baptised, confess your sins, and believe in our father. U will not then go to hell.”
    Me: “So I’m going to be punished for acting on my free-will which apparently God gave me?… I thought God loved me unconditionally… Well, at least my parents do.”

    10. Ending
    Christian: “Believe in our father – u will then go to heaven. Or burn in hell for eternity”
    Me “… OK. I have a plan. Towards the end of my life, i will get baptised. After i die, whilst on my way to hell for eternal torturing, i will confess my sins. And because I’ll b on my way to hell, I’ll know God and hell are real, and will then believe in our creator… Can I then go to heaven?”
    Makes sense right?

    11. Expansion
    Is the universe expanding – what / where is it expaning into?
    I guess, wherever the universe expands to will become a part of the universe, and be incorporated into the concept of “something”.
    Vacuums can be created, with nothing in it; shove gases in that space, and it becomes something.

    12. Afterlife
    Does heaven / hell exist?
    When u sleep, what do you recall after you wake? Just your dreams. Dreams occur during rapid eye movement and last for minutes at a time. Everything in between one REM to another lasts for hours but is void, black, dark, empty. You don’t recall anything, because there is nothing to recollect.
    That, is death.
    It’s just a theory though. And probably more related to brain function an its inability / undesire to store unrequired info, than anything else.
    Conversely, I do believe that ghosts exist. But that does not validate the existence of a God.

    13. Aliens
    Y are other lifeforms and planets not mentioned in religous text?
    Billions of stars, galaxies, countless planets, satellites, and humans are the only ones “alive”?

    14. Explanantions
    Science doesn’t explain some things, but religion “explains” everything…?
    Science can’t prove it, so it must be the work of a supreme being…(?)

    15. !
    I am God.
    U can’t prove it, but nor can u disprove it.
    I will get my friend to write a “story” about me, which u can all read. Then, u can all worhsip me and pass it on through the generations.
    I love you with all my being, but, if you choose to disobey me, I will punish you beyond this lifetime.
    Do not question how I came to be, nor my actual existence. Do not query my methods, nor my teachings. Have, faith, my children…
    Ridiculous? Foolish? Idiotic? Pathetic?… Insulting even!?… Well… That sums it up doesn’t it…(?)

  49. S says:

    Sorry. Late on the scene. Science will win what? What is the prize? (Or, what is the nature of the contest?) Hearts? Minds? Stuffed animals? How is the winner determined? Will the loser know he/she/it has lost?

    Such a strange concept, this.

  50. jrad334 says:

    the social world has greatly interfered with how people percieve religion and science; science is like food we use it to survive e.g. technology, it will never define who we are; sure it can explain many things in our universe but the great mystery of life cannot be defined by science, some people who believe in science show very small conviction for themselves i believe there is a god but what he looks like and where he is has yet to be determined….

Leave a Reply