

Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'  - derekc
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164

======
phunel
Mr. Hawking is obviously a brilliance we've been privileged to learn from, but
in this particular instance the wisdom of Freeman Dyson immediately struck me
as more sound:

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to
understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The
two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both
views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of
the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either
science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or
scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and
scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their
arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media
exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact
that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations
that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of
scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim
jurisdiction over scientific questions."

------
crazydiamond
>"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on
authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason." Hawking
is wrong when he says "Religion is based on authority". At the base/root of
all/most religions, is an inquiry into truth. Today, religion has become
authority, but that is not the true meaning.

Both science and religion inquire into the true nature of things. It seems
science is only concerned with physical things, matter and energy, whereas the
root of religion goes a step prior to that, to what even observes/experiences
this.

------
zeynel1
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of
nature."

I don't understand this sentence. Does he mean " _We_ could define God as the
embodiment of the laws of nature."

"When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an
accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Here something got lost in the transcription. It should be "... how
insignificant _and_ accidental human life is..."

"Science will win because it works."

I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with
the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th
century war.

~~~
nickpinkston
Well, I guess you could say that modern religion is what's left of the more
descriptive religions they evolved from. Christianity's creation story used to
be accepted as gospel (::rimshot::), but science has re-answered that question
very differently and rigorously. Even in most Christian circles this is
accepted.

Likewise, the psycho / social reason for religion is being unraveled as well -
showing that religions' awesome memetic abilities lead to their spread. Also,
historians and archaeologists are showing the earliest fertility religions and
the genesis of modern religions.

While science isn't replacing religion, it's certainly shrinking it where one
day it might disappear from mainstream relevance all together.

------
getonit
Dunning Kruger is a fundamental flaw in the functioning of our
hardware/software, and is all religion needs to survive indefinitely, IMHO...
but here's to hoping.

