Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win' | Hacker News Reader

Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'

abcnews.go.com

7 pointsderekc6 comments

Mr. Hawking is obviously a brilliance we've been privileged to learn from, but in this particular instance the wisdom of Freeman Dyson immediately struck me as more sound:

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."

>"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason." Hawking is wrong when he says "Religion is based on authority". At the base/root of all/most religions, is an inquiry into truth. Today, religion has become authority, but that is not the true meaning.

Both science and religion inquire into the true nature of things. It seems science is only concerned with physical things, matter and energy, whereas the root of religion goes a step prior to that, to what even observes/experiences this.

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature."

I don't understand this sentence. Does he mean "We could define God as the embodiment of the laws of nature."

"When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Here something got lost in the transcription. It should be "... how insignificant and accidental human life is..."

"Science will win because it works."

I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war.

I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war.

Agreed, the fact is we don't know and to take a position either way is faith. To state:

When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.

is pretty irresponsible statement for a person of his stature. The fact of the matter is even though we are not the size of a star or galaxy, or super cluster, does not mean that we do not play a vital role. Who knows each and everyone of us could play a very important part and be entangled with the very fabric that holds the universe together. For all we know the absence of just one of us could have caused the universe to never exist.

I am not saying that it is the case but merely pointing at that we have no idea.

I find it interesting that spirituality has show to have an evolutionary advantage and for the most part we have the core tenants of a moral code embedded into us despite what ones personal belief's are. It could be coincidence that these features where complementary to evolution but again we just don't know.

For me, discounting the possibility of a god would remove a great deal of cool though experiments. I am agnostic by definition but I always have cool thoughts about how a God could use math and physics to do all of this.

Well, I guess you could say that modern religion is what's left of the more descriptive religions they evolved from. Christianity's creation story used to be accepted as gospel (::rimshot::), but science has re-answered that question very differently and rigorously. Even in most Christian circles this is accepted.

Likewise, the psycho / social reason for religion is being unraveled as well - showing that religions' awesome memetic abilities lead to their spread. Also, historians and archaeologists are showing the earliest fertility religions and the genesis of modern religions.

While science isn't replacing religion, it's certainly shrinking it where one day it might disappear from mainstream relevance all together.

Dunning Kruger is a fundamental flaw in the functioning of our hardware/software, and is all religion needs to survive indefinitely, IMHO... but here's to hoping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com