To you, I’m an atheist. To God, I’m the loyal opposition.

[rug]

by António Buscardini
12.10.2014 - 19:17

Following Stephen Hawking’s interview for the Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, where he denied the existence of God by saying “in my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind”, some were shocked whilst others applauded. I would like to approach the politically incorrect question: Is this statement influenced by his physical condition?

Hawking, British physicist and best-selling author, renowned for his work on time and space theory, helped to bring his ideas on black holes and quantum gravity tangible to a wider public audience. For most of his existence, he has been confined to a wheelchair due to a type of motor-neuron disease: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Since 1985, he had to speak through his trademark computer system – witch he operates with his cheek. Yet, what is astonishing is that this disease seemed to have hardly slowed him down work wise. He spent 30 years as a full mathematics professor at the prestigious University of Cambridge; he’s currently the research director at the school’s Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. However, we can assume that this is a very difficult condition to accept. Indeed, when we are disappointed with our life path, when we lose a father, a mother, a grand mother, when we get ill or become crippled, when we see injustice without “reason”, we tend to have this automatic and systematic human reaction of blaming God. We begin to question God and his powers, even if we doubt his existence to begin with. Hawking once said: “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?” Yet, one can ask oneself to witch hell he was referring to? Could it have been his own hell?

Hawking is a scientist and his statement to El Mundo reminded me of Karl Popper. Popper, generally considered as one of the greatest science philosophers of the 20th century, advanced the idea that empirical falsification was a mean for separating scientific theories from religious or philosophical theories. For him, falsification means that a theory is considered scientific if the hypothesis can be proven to be false by observation or physical experiment. Popper once said that some forms of atheism were arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but that agnosticism – to admit that we don’t know and to search - is acceptable.

In an interview he gave in 1969, he stated that “I don’t know whether God exists or not. We may know how little we know but this must not be turned or twisted into a positive knowledge of the existence of an unfathomable secret” Popper stated.

http://www.neurope.eu/article/you-i%E2%80%99m-atheist-god-i%E2%80%99m-loyal-opposition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Religion_and_God

[DeadLetterOffice]

1. Unrec

Seriously? This guy is hypothesizing that Stephen Hawking of being an atheist because he has "sour grapes?" That's just ridiculous.

And then there's this part:

...when we are disappointed with our life path, when we lose a father, a mother, a grand mother, when we get ill or become crippled, when we see injustice without “reason”, we tend to have this automatic and systematic human reaction of blaming God.

As if that's a completely unreasonable response (for deity-believing people). These same people, when things go right, would say "Thank God." It's two sides of the same coin. If you're going to credit a deity with the good, you need also credit said deity with the bad.

[rug]

3. Um, no.

He's criticizing Hawking for this statement:

“in my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind”

He contrasts Hawking with Popper who, in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, wrote this:

The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance. For this, indeed, is the main source of our ignorance — the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.

[Fumesucker]

2. No one could be an atheist because theism just doesn't make sense to them

No, there always has to be some childish emotional reason why someone would deny the existence of god.

[rug]

4. Karl Popper was the moast unemotional of men.

[Fumesucker]

5. Still waters run deep

I thought Popper didn't call himself an atheist?

How many non-agnostics would you say there are, people who are genuinely absolutely sure one way or the other?

[rug]

6. He considered himself agnostic but his criticism was of certitude, not emotion.

I think most people are not certain at all. Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't act like they were?

[Fumesucker]

7. An air of confidence makes people seem more intelligent, competent and powerful