ysabetwordsmith | Religion Works Too

I read this article in which Stephen Hawking argues against the afterlife. Okay, he's a smart guy. I admire him greatly. But he's a smart science guy; he doesn't have nearly the same credentials in terms of researching religion. (Consider that it's a poor idea to take the Pope's advice on science. I'm not sure it's a better idea to take Hawking's advice on religion, for similar reasons. It's not his field.) He argues that science will win against religion "because it works."

Science is a relatively recent human discovery. Religion seems to go back to the origin of human artifacts that we can interpret, and possibly farther. Science exists in some but not all human cultures. Religion exists in all known human cultures, and when people try to stamp it out, it regenerates. When it comes to decision-making, if there is an apparent conflict between science and religion, considerably more people will decide based on religion even if the practical effects of doing that are negative. I like science a lot. But I don't think it's fair to imply that science works and religion doesn't. Certainly it's possible for religion to malfunction, as anything can in a flawed universe. But when something has been around for 50,000+ years throughout an entire species, that pretty much has to fit some definition of "it works."

You can have the most awesome metric toolkit in the world, but it's not going to be a lot of use on standard machinery. Some tools generalize well across disciplines; others don't. This is not to say that the tools of science are never useful in religion, or vice verse; but it does mean you need to know your tools and both fields before understanding what will swap and what won't.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So it happens that he has no training whatsoever in theology, no one puts under discussion his abilities and competence in his chosen field, but that on its own gives him no particular credit outside it.

how do you know that? have you seen his transcript or recorded what he studies?

Well let's see: his bios (and his books)all mention his chair as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, his scholarship in Natural Sciences and specialization in Physics, his interests in thermodinamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, theoretical astronomy and cosmology.
His main research fields are theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity.
Nowhere are interest or studies in theology mentioned at all, not even by himself as a way to substantiate his views on the matter, he only and always refers to physics when talking of his views about religion.

he doesn't have any degrees in writing either, and yet has written several best-sellers. in fact i suspect it's more his popularity as an author than his standing as a physicist that has caused this much outcry. have you even heard of andrei geim, konstantin novoselov, charles kao, willard boyle, or george smith as physicists, let alone their views on religion? (i'll save you the google: they're the last winners of the latest nobel prizes.)

I don't see from where you infer my need to google these names, or how that (if true) would refute my points above.

Hawking and anyone else are welcome to their opinion on religion (and politics and every other topic), but the fact that he his a genius in some field(s)doesn't make him an indisputable authorithy on everything and anything.

By the way, it's interesting that he is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the recipient of a Vatican onorificence, it tells something about open-mindness, I guess.

Edited 2011-05-17 20:07 (UTC)

actually, his awards imply to me that he's spent considerable time talking with the extremely religious.

I guess it all depends how you define 'extremely religious'.
I don't believe something like the Pontifical Academy of Science could have been born in a restricted and dogmatic milieu, the member list is quite...interesting shall we say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences#Current_ordinary_members

i quite agree that it's an interesting assemblage! but i still maintain that its members would likely have discussed religious perspectives, as part of their commitment to the academy's quoted goals of examining epistemological issues.

I don't see why not, each from his own perspective.

I do mantain though that one thing is to discuss them from the perspective of an individual believer of whatever faith (or doubter, non-believer or person-in-research)and another is to discuss of theology within its boundaries of a philosophical discipline, with all its implications.

It's not that the first is worthless, far from it it's just that those are two wholly different levels.

We might have just to agree on disagreeing on this.

it seems to me that given his membership in this society and its stated goals, he would have been discussing these matters at the highest levels available to all involved, not merely exchanging personal anecdotes.

your interpretive mileage may vary, but i still think your pointer helps make my case. so thanks :)

'Available to all involved' is the operative sentence, we just happen to differ on what that level actually may be, and no, I wasn't thinking of 'merely exchanging personal anectodes' either.
But I do think the horse is quite dead at this point.

*nods* i yield the greasy spot on the ground, and invite you for a cuppa tea :)

Tea is just my thing.:) Lemon or milk? ;-)

*grin* i like either, just not both at once! :)

*nods* definitely!

Religion Works Too

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...

Re: Well...