THE universe was NOT created by God, renowned scientist Professor Stephen Hawking claimed yesterday.

In a challenge to religious beliefs, he insisted the Big Bang followed the laws of physics.

The 68-year-old professor says in a new book: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking's assertion seems to contradict his previous acceptance of a deity's involvement.

Writing about universe creation in his 1988 classic A Brief History of Time, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we should know the mind of God."

In the new book, called The Grand Design and co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he cites the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our sun.

And he says: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3122870/Prof-Stephen-Hawking-God-didnt-create-universe.html

Was he there?

Science is, and has been for a few centuries now, the new religion. Another false God?

Science is, and has been for a few centuries now, the new religion. Another false God?

I think it just might be. It seems to invlove a strong element of faith. I was watching something on Discovery a while ago where scientists were talking with such certainty and in great detail about the appearance and make up of other galaxies in the Universe. How can they claim to know what is going on 600 million light years away when they just recently figured out that Pluto wasn't a planet?

Scientists often speak as fact when they know themselves it is theory

It does seem like quite a close thing for Hawkins to say though, I wonder if he has been mis-represented.

Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the Universe

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308616/Stephen-Hawking-Archbishop-Canterbury-attacks-claim-God-did-NOT-create-Universe.html#ixzz0ySLqvaMX

I wish all the so called scientists who speculate rather uselessly about what happened few millions years ago put their energy in studying, let's say, a safer way to drill oil, or how to predict natural catastrophic events..

I wish all the so called scientists who speculate rather uselessly about what happened few millions years ago put their energy in studying, let's say, a safer way to drill oil, or how to predict natural catastrophic events..

That's exactly what such study leads to. Understanding the universe better leads to us understanding our own world better.

My point in suggesting that Science is the new God is that once upon a time people looked to religion to come up with life's answers. Now people look to science to supply the answers to life. Where faith was once held in high esteem we now view the intellect as the crowning jewel of consciousness. Intellect alone will fail us just as faith alone has failed us.

Science will fall far, far short. One only needs to look at the world today and ask, after all of our technological achievements, or supposed vast understanding of the world as it stands now due to all our probing and dissecting, what have we accomplished? Are we healthier? Are we more peaceful? Are we wiser? Are we happier? Hardly.

Science is a false God.

My point in suggesting that Science is the new God is that once upon a time people looked to religion to come up with life's answers. Now people look to science to supply the answers to life. Where faith was once held in high esteem we now view the intellect as the crowning jewel of consciousness. Intellect alone will fail us just as faith alone has failed us.

Science will fall far, far short. One only needs to look at the world today and ask, after all of our technological achievements, or supposed vast understanding of the world as it stands now due to all our probing and dissecting, what have we accomplished? Are we healthier? Are we more peaceful? Are we wiser? Are we happier? Hardly.

Science is a false God.

I'd wish you were wrong, but i'm afraid you're right !

I wish all the so called scientists who speculate rather uselessly about what happened few millions years ago put their energy in studying, let's say, a safer way to drill oil, or how to predict natural catastrophic events..

That's exactly what such study leads to. Understanding the universe better leads to us understanding our own world better.

I can quite agree in general, the fact is that's not possible (until now) to prove the existence or the non-existence of God, and what's have this rather philosophical dilemma have to do with the practical solution of the myriads of problems we have on this planet ?

Hawking sounds like his funding is under threat. He's towing somebodies party line. A few weeks back he warned us of possible dangers of E.T.s. Next week he'll be telling us how long a piece of string is.

Bought and paid for.

Regards.

Science will fall far, far short. One only needs to look at the world today and ask, after all of our technological achievements, or supposed vast understanding of the world as it stands now due to all our probing and dissecting, what have we accomplished? Are we healthier? Are we more peaceful? Are we wiser? Are we happier? Hardly.

Are you serious? Life expectancy in the UK has doubled in the past 300 years. Prior to 1921 a diagnosis of diabetes was a guaranteed very unpleasant death sentence. Prior to the discovery of penicillin an infected cut was nearly as dangerous. Before anaesthesia the lucky ones were those who fainted at the first application of the knife. We are very much healthier than we were even 50 years ago.

I've thought about it and I refute that science is the new religion.

Religion claims to have the answer to EVERYTHING, whereas science is aware that knows 'close to' NOTHING. Science isn't faith, religion is faith but not science.

Science is numbers and data and pictures and records and stuff. Science is us trying to put together all that we know. Science doesn't have to be right to exist.

Science would be there with or without textbooks (Bibles). You could be philosophical about the existence of science without living beings or the universe, but philosophy is in itself a science.

Science strives to prove itself wrong......... Religion is absolute faith

Before tip, or anybody else, steps in and tells me that I was not supposed to take it so literally, I know already. It's just that comparing a study of hard data to a belief in unfounded stories doesn't wash.

Stephen Hawking was some sort of idol for me... once.

Well, if Science means 'knowledge', i guess there are not many people who are against it.And Religion is not just 'absolute faith', which is potentially dangerous whether you are atheist or not.

Let's not confuse Science with 'scientists',and Religion with 'priests', given the nature of the humans, both can be used for good or bad purposes and can give good or bad results.

Now, back to topic, a scientist can use data which may be exact, and draw wrong conclusions, in the same way some mad priest with some charisma can use religion for evil purposes.

In this case we have a respected Scientist who is speculating about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, to come back again with a totally different theory after a couple of years...Yeah, give me a break..

Thanks to Science we have penicillin, but we have weapons of mass destruction too, and a longer life is not necessarily a 'quality life'.

Not advocating a return to the dark ages, just hoping for a better use of this planet's not unfinished resources

And Religion is not just 'absolute faith',

It is though. There is no fact or knowledge in religion, it's pure faith. Believers 'believe' in something that has not and cannot be proved.

And Religion is not just 'absolute faith',

It is though. There is no fact or knowledge in religion, it's pure faith. Believers 'believe' in something that has not and cannot be proved.

Ok Moonrakers.Am i right to assume you're not coming to church tomorrow ?

..Wait..where is the church ?

In this case we have a respected Scientist who is speculating about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, to come back again with a totally different theory after a couple of years.

4.5 billion years or 6,000 years - depending on who you talk to.

btw - I had always heard that the Earth was 4 billion years old, then just the other day I heard something like 6 billion. That's a BIG difference. I need to catch up on all the new changes in science of recent years.

And Religion is not just 'absolute faith',

It is though. There is no fact or knowledge in religion, it's pure faith. Believers 'believe' in something that has not and cannot be proved.

Ok Moonrakers.Am i right to assume you're not coming to church tomorrow ?

That would depend upon the Tea and Scones!

Science will fall far, far short. One only needs to look at the world today and ask, after all of our technological achievements, or supposed vast understanding of the world as it stands now due to all our probing and dissecting, what have we accomplished? Are we healthier? Are we more peaceful? Are we wiser? Are we happier? Hardly.

Are you serious? Life expectancy in the UK has doubled in the past 300 years. Prior to 1921 a diagnosis of diabetes was a guaranteed very unpleasant death sentence. Prior to the discovery of penicillin an infected cut was nearly as dangerous. Before anaesthesia the lucky ones were those who fainted at the first application of the knife. We are very much healthier than we were even 50 years ago.

Let me be clear. I am not denouncing science, nor am I begrudging science it's quite valid contributions, and I do recognize that it indeed has much value. No one can deny many of the medical marvels, for instance. Yet for all of it's wondrous achievements our hospitals are brimming over, seemingly half of the western population is on permanent medication, and for each conquered disease there are new ones, never-before heard of, to take their place.

The medical branch of science is far and away, in my opinion, of an understanding of what the true nature and cause of disease is. As long as their approach to the human body is from the perspective of viewing it as little more than a piece of complex equipment, independent of and uncorrelated to the human psyche, a mass of chemicals which can become unbalanced for no apparent reason, then they will fail to find real answers to maintaining health. Not simply cures to maladies, mind you, but a comprehension of what the true nature of health is.

Yet for all of it's wondrous achievements our hospitals are brimming over, seemingly half of the western population is on permanent medication, and for each conquered disease there are new ones, never-before heard of, to take their place.

The medical branch of science is far and away, in my opinion, of an understanding of what the true nature and cause of disease is. As long as their approach to the human body is from the perspective of viewing it as little more than a piece of complex equipment, independent of and uncorrelated to the human psyche, a mass of chemicals which can become unbalanced for no apparent reason, then they will fail to find real answers to maintaining health. Not simply cures to maladies, mind you, but a comprehension of what the true nature of health is.

The beautiful thing about science is that it is well aware of its shortcomings, in fact it embraces them. Although science strives to be the answer to life, the universe and everything, it is well aware that it is very, very, very far from the mark and may never achieve its ultimate goal.

Its as though you EXPECT science to have the answer to EVERYTHING, whereas science itself admits that it knows next to nothing. Science isn't about having the answer to everything. Whereas religion IS about having the absolute answer to absolutely everything.

And Religion is not just 'absolute faith',

It is though. There is no fact or knowledge in religion, it's pure faith. Believers 'believe' in something that has not and cannot be proved.

I would define faith as pure knowing. So as not to confuse, I'm not speaking of faith as in religious faith. And to further clarify, faith is not the same as belief. Knowing can be doubted, and when it is proof is then required. Unfortunately, there is much in this world that cannot and never will be able to be proved, at least not by science's definition of what constitutes a valid proof.

Faith is the knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow, that an infant will grow into an adult, that the wind knows where it is going, that there is purpose in all things, that we all will survive death. None of these things can be proven but they can be known.

And Religion is not just 'absolute faith',

It is though. There is no fact or knowledge in religion, it's pure faith. Believers 'believe' in something that has not and cannot be proved.

I would define faith as pure knowing. So as not to confuse, I'm not speaking of faith as in religious faith. And to further clarify, faith is not the same as belief. Knowing can be doubted, and when it is proof is then required. Unfortunately, there is much in this world that cannot and never will be able to be proved, at least not by science's definition of what constitutes a valid proof.

Faith is the knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow, that an infant will grow into an adult, that the wind knows where it is going, that there is purpose in all things, that we all will survive death. None of these things can be proven but they can be known.

I agree absolutely.

Do you think that believers 'know' that there is a god.

By your own definition, do you think that science has faith in itself?

Yet for all of it's wondrous achievements our hospitals are brimming over, seemingly half of the western population is on permanent medication, and for each conquered disease there are new ones, never-before heard of, to take their place.

The medical branch of science is far and away, in my opinion, of an understanding of what the true nature and cause of disease is. As long as their approach to the human body is from the perspective of viewing it as little more than a piece of complex equipment, independent of and uncorrelated to the human psyche, a mass of chemicals which can become unbalanced for no apparent reason, then they will fail to find real answers to maintaining health. Not simply cures to maladies, mind you, but a comprehension of what the true nature of health is.

The beautiful thing about science is that it is well aware of its shortcomings, in fact it embraces them. Although science strives to be the answer to life, the universe and everything, it is well aware that it is very, very, very far from the mark and may never achieve its ultimate goal.

Its as though you EXPECT science to have the answer to EVERYTHING, whereas science itself admits that it knows next to nothing. Science isn't about having the answer to everything. Whereas religion IS about having the absolute answer to absolutely everything.

I do not expect science to have all of the answers and I've already made clear my position that it never will. But I know many who look to science as providing all of the answers, or at least believing most every answer science comes up with without question (does that sound a bit like what some do with religion?). And if one postulates about something which runs counter to what science believes (similar again with religion) then it is quickly discounted. Science in that sense can offer only a very limited perspective from which to seek answers to life. And if science has wrong answers then it actually derails attempts to see answers elsewhere.

Religion is a messy affair and I don't subscribe to most of it. Too much sifting through it's distortions required to find those nuggets which do have value. But religion does offer much of value as it attempts to describe aspects of who we are which science completely ignores. Just as religion has within it both good and bad so too does science. I would believe neither without question.

Do you think that believers 'know' that there is a god.

By your own definition, do you think that science has faith in itself?

I dislike the term God because of all the preconceived ideas that come with the label. Names, or labels, are not important. Call it what you like. Life to me is divinely magical and I don't believe for a nanosecond that it is all simply by chance that we are who and what we are. To me the evidence that there is divine source is everywhere.

I think science has faith in itself as much as a priest has faith in his religion.

I also do not believe in blind faith but I most certainly think Blind Faith can be like a Sea Of Joy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdHNWJ1Xhk

But I know many who look to science as providing all of the answers, or at least believing most every answer science comes up with without question.

.....Some people don't understand the point of science, you cannot blame science for that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if one postulates about something which runs counter to what science believes (similar again with religion) then it is quickly discounted.

.....That simply isn't true, science constantly strives to to counter itself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science in that sense can offer only a very limited perspective from which to seek answers to life. And if science has wrong answers then it actually derails attempts to see answers elsewhere.

.....There is no such thing as a wrong answer in science, in the same way that there is no such ting as a right answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion is a messy affair and I don't subscribe to most of it. Too much sifting through it's distortions required to find those nuggets which do have value.

.....Yep!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But religion does offer much of value as it attempts to describe aspects of who we are which science completely ignores.

Please do elaborate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as religion has within it both good and bad so too does science. I would believe neither without question.

Agreed.

Scientific belief is like a religion for some.....true religion is for those who feel guilty......taxation is for those of us who fall through the net.....

Anyway for the betterment of society all three can work their magic in their own way....less so in any society lacking even one of these.

From this week's Economist on Line:

Another ungodly squabble

Sep 5th 2010, 15:19 by J.P. | LONDON

WHEN a prominent man (or woman) of faith asserts the existence of God, nobody takes notice. But whenever a prominent scientist raises the opposite prospect, all hel_l is sure to break loose. The latest furore was provoked by Stephen Hawking, one of Britain's best known scientists and a likely future recipient of the Nobel prize in physics (if, as expected, his 1974 theory that black holes emit radiation despite their notorious all-engulfing gravitational pull is confirmed by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in CERN). On September 2nd The Times, a British daily, published an extensive excerpt (this and other Times links behind a pay wall) from "The Grand Design", Dr Hawking's first major book in nearly a decade, which will hit the shelves on September 9th (reviewed here in the Financial Times by Roger Penrose, another big name in British physics).

Never mind the niceties of string theory and its implications for physics. What really got everybody aflutter was his contention that the Big Bang is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, so that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper." The jury is still out on whether current theories really are enough to explain the origins of the universe. And the scientific method, with its laborious procedures and peer review, ensures we won't know for certain in the foreseeable future. But the proposition elicited an immediate if predictable response from another quarter.

Clerics representing the Abrahamic faiths (supported by a handful of religiously-minded physicists) weighed in, rehearsing all the tired arguments about science providing explanations and religion offering interpretations, science being concerned with "is" where faith is concerned with "ought", etc. On cue, militant atheists trotted out their own hoary lines: vacuity of the god of the gaps, meaninglessness of the questions about the meaning of it all, and so on.

What made Dr Hawking's revelation so jarring to the religious establishment, and so mellifluous to its ideological opponents, was that until now he was regarded as an ally of faith. In "A Brief History of Time", the hugely popular 1988 book that cemented his fame outside academic circles, Dr Hawking seemed to acknowledge God's involvement in the creation of the universe. This made him something of a church darling.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and arguably the world's most famous atheist, welcomed Dr Hawking's apparent apostasy, telling the Times that "Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace." He quickly added that construing the physicist's past proclamations as anything more than a handy metaphor was indulging in "wishful thinking".

The row will peter out soon, no doubt, though not before saving Dr Hawking a pretty penny in advertising costs for his book. The broader debate, meanwhile, will rage on. After all, an important piece of knowledge is at stake. As Dr Dawkins is ever keen to stress, a reality inhabited by a sentient supernatural being is very different from a reality that isn't. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. We either live in one or the other; we can't have it both ways. Opinions vary on whether or not this is ultimately knowable, but there is little doubt that "the truth is out there". This Babbage would love to find out what it is, though he isn't holding his breath.

However, another fascinating question, hitherto absent from the current palaver, may prove more tractable. It concerns not how to explain creation without God, but how to account for the persistence of human religious belief without invoking its object. Evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists and neurologists are hard at work trying to figure this out. Watch this space.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/09/science_and_religion

No one yet has the answer, although many believe that they do.

Let them all go on believing what they wish, as long as they do not seek to impose their beliefs on others - when the others do not wish to know.