Baroness Greenfield criticises 'Taliban-like' Stephen Hawking

The Telegraph ^ | 9/8/2010 | Alastair Jamieson

[bruinbirdman]

Physicists like Professor Stephen Hawking who claim God has no place in the creation of the Universe are behaving like the Taliban in trying to shut down freedom of discussion, according to Baroness Greenfield the former head of the Royal Institution.

Stephen Hawking and Baroness Greenfield

Lady Greenfield, former head of the Royal Institution and current professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford, criticised the "smugness" of scientists who claim to “have all the answers”

Hawking also attacked philosophers for failing to keep up with modern developments in physics and biology so that “their discussions seem increasingly outdated and irrelevant”.

Lady Greenfield said: “Science can often suffer from a certain smugness and complacency. Michael Faraday, one of the greatest scientists, had a wonderful quote, he said: ‘There’s nothing quite as frightening as someone who knows they are right’

“What we need to preserve in science is a curiosity and an open-mindedness rather than a complacency and sort of arrogance where we attack people who come at the big truths and the big questions albeit using different strategies.”

Asked whether she was uncomfortable about scientists making comments about God, she said: “Yes I am. Of course they can make whatever comments they like but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable. I think that doesn’t necessarily do science a service.”

She was also critical of Prof Hawking's comments about philosophy, saying: “Scientists have a duty, if they want to have people who aren’t scientists to appreciate that value of what they are doing, if they want to place it into a wider social and moral context, the duty is on the scientist to explain in words ordinary human being can understand. What is dangerous…

[agere_contra]

He’s a brilliant scientist.

However his refutation of the existence of God is based on:

a) postulating the steady-state theory of the Universe
b) saying ‘therefore there is no God’.

His argument really is as facile - and as ignorant - as that. His concept of God seems to be that of a being who can only exist within time.

[DB]

“I wouldn’t bet against Hawking when he’s speaking about physics.”

I wouldn’t either.

God isn’t his area of expertise. He simply cannot know what he speaks of in this area one way or another. It is unknowable. I don’t have to be genius to know that.

[Moral Hazard]

“Hostile to scientific discovery...so prove God does not exist, dummy.”

The theory that God exists adds complexity to the general model of the universe without providing a better explanation of how the universe works. It thus fails by Occam’s razor.

It is thus up to proponents of the existence of God to provide evidence of such. You could, for instance, explain how God came to exist, what God is made of, how God “thinks”, how God interacts with the universe, etc., and provide evidence to back it up.

So far I’ve not even seen a serious attempt to scientifically explain God, let alone a successful one.

[Moral Hazard]

“I don’t have to be physicists to have common sense. Are you really going to argue Hawking can tell us with ANY confidence through science that God played no part in the creation of the universe which is basically his claim? And if he can’t offer any confidence beyond 50-50 what’s the point in saying it? “

What Hawking can point to is a lack of evidence that “God played any part in the creation of the universe.” Why should he, or anyone else, give any more deference to the idea of the existence of God than any other theory for which there is no evidence?

[pnh102]

So far I’ve not even seen a serious attempt to scientifically explain God, let alone a successful one.

If you are referring to the Judeo-Christian God, then science will never be able to prove that he exists. This is confirmed by numerous passages in the Bible which clearly state that God is unobservable and unseen.

A true believer doesn't need the earthly construct of science to "prove" that God exists. Such a person believes in God simply based on faith alone. A believer who does insist on basing his faith on something tangible is going to be very disappointed.

[applpie]

Hawking is bitter. Bitterness at God for one’s condition has a tendency to cloud one’s objectivity on this topic.

I thought the scientific process looked at all relevant data prior to making conclusions—anti-God scientists (and academics for that matter) routinely exclude data that potentially support the existence of God, a creator, creation, etc.

[SES1066]

I may be wrong but I believe that Hawking's principal anti-God quote is as follows;

“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 ... set the Universe going."

This disturbs neither my reasoning nor my Christian Beliefs. God and any belief system is Metaphysical, literally beyond physics and was defined as such by Aristotle. That there is a God and that there is for me, A Savior, is something that I know inside and in the terms of Søren Kierkegaard, it is a "Leap to faith" unsupported by any logic other than BELIEF!

I pay attention to Mr Hawking in the matters of physics. He has taken a life that most of us would regard as horrible and made it a shining example of what can be done. I will add his philosophical views to my knowledge base but it will not effect my religious beliefs.

[TalBlack]

I don't mean to address her accuracy regarding S Hawking since I know little of the man. There is something people must understand about the Taliban or Nazis et al: That they are what they are BEFORE they ever do any overtly or outwardly evil or actionable thing. Evil is the simple condition of personally assuming ultimate moral authority.

[katana]

It's surely hard for most people to relate to someone who possesses little or no sense of humor (or has never seen the movie Airplane). And you can call me Shirley.

Dr. Hawking is probably the most brilliant theoretical physicist of his generation. His statements lately positing that a universe and its laws can spring from nothing with no intelligence guiding its formation may be his opinion, and he's entitled to it, but unless he can show his peers the math which backs that up the contention his opinion on this particular subject is worth no more than yours or mine.

[OldDeckHand]

"Are you really going to argue Hawking can tell us with ANY confidence through science that God played no part in the creation of the universe which is basically his claim?"

Two points. First, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the book. I'm hoping Amazing delivers my copy sometime before this weekend. It just went into print on Tuesday.

Second, all that we know about what Hawking said, and what he did say is....

"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."

Is what has been reported by the few media outlets that received advanced copies of the book. Of course, to sell papers, they're going to create the most sensational headlines.

Clearly however, you can see that Hawking isn't refuting "God" per se, he's saying that a supernatural force isn't perhaps necessary to explain the spontaneity of the universe. I would prefer to read his entire thesis, before I pass judgment on the man as a "racist & fascist" as some on this very thread have done already.

Theoretical physicists theorize. That is their stock & trade. Sometimes those theories hold up after close scrutiny, and sometimes they don't. I'm suggesting we let that process play out before we label the man the second coming of the Third Reich.

[SaraJohnson]

It is thus up to proponents of the existence of God to provide evidence of such.

---

Is that because the atheists say so? The arguments you gave are designed by atheist scientists to protect their little belief structure and kingdom. That is fine; they are allowed to have their own religion. But they may not impose their belief structure on everyone else from a delusion of superiority. In a world of many beliefs, it would serve science well if it removed itself from the atheists' politics of religious dominance.

[SaraJohnson]

Do yourself a favor and look up delusions of atheist social superiority. Then look up how that worked out in the Soviet Union and get back to me.

[OldDeckHand]

Let's see, thus far you've compared Dr. Hawking to a racist, a fascist and now a communist in the Soviet Union.

You do have a special kind of crazy, I'll give you that.

[DB]

Why go there at all since it is humanly unknowable.

[MHGinTN]

Do you ever sit down on a chair without grabbing to it and holding it as your butt descends to rest? ... You could choose to accept that the existence of something is the fundamental evidence that their is an intelligence behind that existence, but you are—in the words from Romans—without excuse.

[DB]

I’d propose that the supposedly rational step from literally nothing to literally everything is a magical step and a critical step that essentially is no different than God saying “let there be light”. Both are beyond physics as anyone can know it. Both are faith based.

[MrB]

You can say whatever you want, yes,

but you don’t deserve any respect for your opinions
when those opinions are ARBITRARY, ie, based on nothing but personal preference.

[MrB]

Without biblical creation, you have no foundational reason to believe that that chair will hold you THIS time, just because it did LAST time.
Uniformity is a biblical concept, and in a random universe, well, anything can happen.

[Moral Hazard]

“Is that because the atheists say so? The arguments you gave are designed by atheist scientists to protect their little belief structure and kingdom. That is fine; they are allowed to have their own religion. But they may not impose their belief structure on everyone else from a delusion of superiority. In a world of many beliefs, it would serve science well if it removed itself from the atheists’ politics of religious dominance.”

Science is not a religion. Accepted scientific theories are based on evidence. Science also accepts that any particular theory could be proven wrong by counter evidence. If there was prevailing scientific evidence of the existence of God, then the existence of God would be accepted by science.

[SaraJohnson]

You do have a special kind of crazy, I’ll give you that.

---

Thanks. From an self delusional atheist who mistakes himself as a superior over all knowledge and wisdom on the basis of “scientific” truth, I will take being named crazy as a compliment.

What ever happened to that global warming settled science doctrine and the cap and trade alms? Was the temple of the smart people preaching false doctrine? Since I lack a science degree from the church, I am not qualified to say. If I did, I would be acting uncivilized and blasphemous. Science gods would classify me as crazy.