Stephen Hawking on Religion: "Science Will Win"

Originally Posted by sooperhooper

I expect the smartest people in the world to fully believe in science, because it's wthin human comprehension. Life, on the other hand, is not.

eek.gif


/ THREAD
 
In a sense science has won, if you look at the bible, many of the claims within it have been proven wrong by science.
So in that sense science has done a good job at 'beating" religion/god Although science can never disprove a God, it makes it so that a God is highly highly improbable.



As I said it is difficult to ask how things began at the beginning of the universe, any reasonable person would accept this, as I do. However, when you ask what’s the alternative, if the alternative to what physicists now talk about is the big bang, if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence, a creator which would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theories such as Darwin’s seeks to explain. Then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physicists is, the theory of the theologians that the first course was a complicated intelligence is even MORE difficult to accept. They’re both difficult but the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse. What Darwinism does is to raise our consciousness to the power of science to explain the existence of complex things and intelligences, and creative intelligences are above all complex things, they’re statistically improbable. Darwinism raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how such entities—and the human brain is one—can come into existence from simple beginnings. However difficult those simple beginnings maybe to accept, they’re a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow gradual, incremental steps. God if he exists would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far more complicated than that which you are trying to go against. Now physicists cope with this problem in various ways, which may seem somewhat unconvincing. For example they suggest that our universe is but one bubble in foam of universes, the multiverse, and each bubble in the foam has a different set of laws and constants. And by the anthropic principle we have to be—since we’re here talking about it—in the kind of bubble, with the kind of laws and constants, which are capable of giving rise to the evolutionary process and therefore to creatures like us. That is one current physicists’ explanation for how we exist in the kind of universe that we do. It doesn’t sound as convincing as say Darwin’s own theory, which is self-evidently very convincing. Nevertheless, however unconvincing that may sound, it is many, many, many orders of magnitude more convincing that any theory that says complex intelligence was there right from the outset. If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence (i.e. the big bang). Try thinking about how complex intelligent entities of any kind could suddenly just spring into existence, it’s many orders of magnitude harder to understand.
 
Back
Top Bottom