Where are we going?

[Templum]

Hi,

I want to share my impression of what Mr. Stephen Hawkings (if that’s how one writes it) said on TV lately. I know that he is a physicist and he’s big in his field. However, is he an authority in regards to the existence of God? Instead of rambling on about “matter” and “galaxies” like a scientist would do, he clearly mentioned something to the effect that God is not the creator of the universe. He said this with such confidence that I personally was shocked. I’m Catholic and firmly believe that we do come from something and that we must be humble. He said that we come from nothing and again, that God is not the creator of the universe. He stated this as if he were the supreme intelligence.

Why does he mix science with religion? Aren’t theologians supposed to take care of the study of God? Science talks about the cause of things and sees life the concrete way while religion is a metaphysical way of interpreting life and the universe right?

What authority does he have to state that God is not the creator of the universe? Life as you know doesn’t just mean physics, but also, religion, art, and so forth. There are other ways of understanding the universe. Anyhow, I’m religious, so I believe what the Scriptures say about creation etc. Science is not first, but religion is. Science comes next.

If I were to follow Stephen Hawkings “scientific beliefs” than I would see myself on the last day of my life imagining my death like this: going back to the darkness, where I came from. How can someone be mentally at ease knowing that they are going back to the nothingness?

It takes a lot of guts to say that God is not the creator, but science is when you know nothing about faith etc. Where are we going with Hawkings’ thoughts? What direction is he taking this universe into?

It’s like he’s trying to replace theology with his “science”. Science looks at the causes of things, fine, but it does not talk strictly about the study of God. Theology does that. He doesn’t see the difference between religion and science. Their natures are different although I think they’re connected to a certain degree…where the intellectual gifts can be rooted on faith. However, they are mostly different from one another in the way that one’s of a spiritual nature and the other is of an intellectual nature.

Can someone help me understand why a physicist talks about God when he knows nothing about religion? He also said that Mohammed (if that’s how you write it) was the last prophet.

Why do I feel like he’s blowing up christianity? Why is his atheist view of God overbearing? Imagine children in schools learning this. What future do they have knowing that we go to nothing like we come from nothing? There’s no meaning without religion. What purpose do we have on Earth if we follow his thoughts? Is there hope with his
“scientific beliefs”?

Can someone help me understand why I should listen to someone like him?

Thanks,
Templum

 

[YankeeRC]

Mr. Hawking is not an omniscient being nor an eternal mind who was present at the big bang, he is a brilliant man writing a book about his scientific reasoning.

We cannot force him or those who agree with him to believe in God or in God as Creator. But we can thank God that the Church’s teaching that man is created in the image of God–and that includes the ability to shape and study the Universe–has shaped and influenced the Cultures which have led to great minds like Mr. Hawking’s and ultimately contributed a great deal to make Mr. Hawking’s book possible.

As for where we are going, no one knows but the Lord. We just have to have faith. And if it helps any, remember that even Jesus had to caution his followers to be careful in the world while He was present on it.

 

[JimG]

Many scientists are at a disadvantage because they have never taken even an introductory course in metaphysics–i.e. realist philosophy. Thus they are reduced to trying to understand all of reality from the standpoint of physics and materialism. It won’t work.

 

[GEddie]

If I were to follow Stephen Hawkings “scientific beliefs” than I would see myself on the last day of my life imagining my death like this: going back to the darkness, where I came from. How can someone be mentally at ease knowing that they are going back to the nothingness?

While I agree with you (the idea of not-being terrifies me) I can understand his perspective. Once you have ceased being, you cannot suffer anymore, so from that perspective, there is nothing to be afraid of. Some beliefs of the “human afterlife” (such as going to Hell, or becoming a spirit drifting around in the darkness wishing in vain for life) are much more fearsome because the dead human being is still conscious to suffer, whereas if you stop being there is no-body left to suffer.

The idea of not-being is actually comforting to some thinkers, because it negates the prospect of going to Hell, which they are not “mentally at ease” with.

Can someone help me understand why a physicist talks about God when he knows nothing about religion? He also said that Mohammed (if that’s how you write it) was the last prophet…

Can someone help me understand why I should listen to someone like him?

Thanks,
Templum

There’s no reason to, except in the area of physics. He does know something about physics. But otherwise, he is an intellectual celebrity using his name to push his personal beliefs as eternal wisdom, which of course they are not.

When it comes to knowing God, we are all on an equal footing at square one.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JohnDamian]

Many scientists are at a disadvantage because they have never taken even an introductory course in metaphysics–i.e. realist philosophy. Thus they are reduced to trying to understand all of reality from the standpoint of physics and materialism. It won’t work.

Absolutely correct… Scientists often approach these issues without having been educated in metaphysics; even the school you mentioned (realism) can be broken down into many different forms - Platonic realism; Aristotelian realism; Scientific realism; Moderate realism; Scotist formalism; Entity realism and Anselmian(Laon) realism to name but a few.

Lacking a comprehensive knowlege of metaphysics means that they are unable to make a sensible contribution; especially with regards to philosophies which have been translated; and / or use difficult or specific terminology; a good example would be “nothing”; which is oft. abused by scientists.

 

[Templum]

HI,

Thanks for your replies. Hawking might be an intellectual celebrity, but so was Descartes, Pascal and others. These two philosphers were mathematicians and ihad nteresting views of God even though the views were not strictly religious. The very thought of combining God with their thoughts made them quite modest thinkers. Plato even believed in one God and in a polytheist society which he was in at the same time, he was quite original.

Jean-Paul Sartre was an atheist all his life and before he died, he converted to christianity. He couldn’t cope with the nothingness that he believed in all of his life. He lead a decadent lifestyle, but became modest and converted.

Again, Hawking, an intellectual celebrity? There are other intellectuals who have more to offer to our human race than Hawkings does! They’ve accepted God to a certain degree although they’re not strictly religious in their views. They gave serious thought to the existence of God. They gave and still do, more hope and direction I feel to other intellectuals than Hawkings does.

Hawkings is atheist and proclaims to know something about God. I don’t worship false idols. His science is nothiing but intellectual fascination with no ground. The mind and soul are divided. He does nothing but lead us to the black hole, that is, to darkness.

Thanks,
Templum