Why does Stephen Hawking think science has overtaken philosophy?

[CHIMO]

Stephen Hawking uses his new book, The Grand Design, to admonish philosophers for failing to keep up. My question is: is this really about keeping up? Hawking believes that since science has so far outstripped philosophy it is time for the thinkers to leave the field to the guys with the protractors and pocket calculators, but – another question – who let Stephen Hawking choose the rules of the game?

A quote from The West Wing comes to mind. Speechwriter Sam Seaborn argues that mankind should go to Mars because "it's next": "we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next."

What is so disturbing about Sam's vision is his effortless linkage of the opening of the west (the "manifest destiny" of the pioneers, an adventure fuelled by the religious rhetoric of the Methodist "Great Awakening") to human spirit and on to space travel.

Here, on a single flight-path, Sam connects religion, human nature and science. Life is a soaring vector, and that vector is "progress". This is the exact same notion of progress offered by Hawking. Of course, Hawking has no use for religion, but so evangelical about the notion of "progress" is he that it might as well be a religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/08/stephen-hawking-philosophy-maths

[Orrex]

1. .

:popcorn:

[EmilyKent]

2. Another good reason not to

read the Guardian.

[dave29]

3. every niche has it's fundamentalists

Coming out against God also sells books. As a Deist myself, I find any assertion that science and or religion have solved the biggest questions to be ludicrous. Even Hawking's fantastic mind has not seen any "truth" -- his numbers tell compelling stories.... which will probably be proven inaccurate within 20-30 years. I find any notion of "certainty" absurd. The Universe, in my opinion is ruled by uncertainty, and it is this uncertainty upon which we should build a tolerant moral paradigm.

(Thank you to Heisenberg)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. why?

end stage neurological disorder?

[Jim__]

5. Hawking might want to test his belief in progress against John N Gray.

For instance, from the referenced webpage: 'Hawking is so evangelical about the notion of progress is he that it might as well be a religion'.

And, a quote from Gray:

The core of the belief in progress is that human values and goals converge in parallel with our increasing knowledge. The twentieth century shows the contrary. Human beings use the power of scientific knowledge to assert and defend the values and goals they already have. New technologies can be used to alleviate suffering and enhance freedom. They can, and will, also be used to wage war and strengthen tyranny. Science made possible the technologies that powered the industrial revolution. In the twentieth century, these technologies were used to implement state terror and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge — not even in the long run.

Gray believes that the belief in human progress is largely a religious belief - and, also, largely a delusional belief. One value of philosophy is to question your goals.

[Orsino]

6. Because science has achieved verifiable, reproducible data and results in any number of sciences.

Gods are fuzzier, and "progress" in religion is purely a matter of opinion.

Of course, it was never really going to be a contest. Hawking may as well criticize religion for not being ice cream.

[caraher]

7. If he thinks so it's because he doesn't understand philosophy

It's a little like saying we should stop having track meets because cars move faster than we'll ever be able to run.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Keep in mind, the OP's article trash from a scientically illiterate buffoon.

So it's entirely possible Hawking isn't saying anything of the sort.