Stephen Hawking On Religion: 'Science Will Win' (VIDEO)

Stephen Hawking, known for his groundbreaking work in physics, told Diane Sawyer that when it comes to reconciling science and religion, there is only one outcome: "science will win because it works." He also elaborated on his views about God.

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

Read more from ABC here. Watch Sawyer interview Hawking below.

Comments

[Lifencompass]

11:00 PM on 07/05/2010

and more interesting...

[Erzsebet Gilbert]

08:11 AM on 06/23/2010

I'm an atheist, with a scientific heritage and a degree in the Philosophy of Science. I believe in the scientific method - though interpretations of this can vary - in experiment, logic, observation, proof, and debate. But I don't believe it's beneficial to anybody to frame the situation in terms of a grand opposition. If anything, it only gives fundamentalist religious factions more justifications for vehement conflict. Religion should stay out of schools and out of legislation and out of an experiment, but I think scientific practitioners have better things to do than waste time trying to refute it. What we really need is to realize that religion and science are in dialogue, a discourse which makes our culture; we need to realize that what is truly sacred is simply the human search.

[holyheretic]

08:28 AM on 06/23/2010

Dear Erzsebet Gilbert.

Are you for the spreading of the virus of voodoo and organized ignorance? Why?

We must preserve our cherished freedom for all sacred superstitions but never establish an official one. We must value facts too.

Aren’t you happy that even in the most reactionary religious regions in this country, in the heart of the Bible-belt, in the strongholds of “full of faith” politicians such as Sarah Palin and born-again Bush, they can’t teach Creationism in science classes anymore?

[Erzsebet Gilbert]

10:02 AM on 06/23/2010

Heretic,
I always enjoy our discussions.... Of course I'm glad prayer and religion are out of public school, and creationism isn't classified as any form of science. As a subjective experience, religion has no place being taught among objective facts.

But, as you say, we preserve freedom for superstitions and religions. Doing so does not mean spreading belief or going on a mission, nor does it bar us from valuing fact and science. The liberties a society permits need not be mutually exclusive.

But the more we choose to portray the differences between religion and spirituality as at war, the less progress we make; each has its own realm. Everybody, regardless of belief or lack thereof, is only trying to tell the story of the world to themselves.

[petegrif]

11:32 AM on 07/13/2010

Erzsebet
I can't agree with you for an important reason. Most people seem to frame what you term the 'grand opposition' as between religion and science. But that is a mistake. The grand opposition is in fact between Rationalism (of which science is a subset) and Religion. Science as afforded a great deal of credibility to Rationalism but there are many fields in which science has as yet little to say and yet rationalism has a valid and important contribution to make. The problem with religion is that it is fundamentally irrational. I am perfectly well aware that there are rational human beings who maintain an irrational corner in their mind and that there has been an enormous amount of casuistry passing itself of as coherent analysis. But the fact remains that religion is corrosive of rationality and this has far reaching implications for everyone on the planet. You cannot expect to have an informed debate about important things that affect us all when hundreds of millions of people are mired in what is literally a medieval mindset. The gap is widening between the products of reason and the majority of humankind who are running pre-enlightenment software.

[ddc0708]

11:46 PM on 08/06/2010

Petegrif,

Well put! I don't think I could have said it any better. You pretty much summed up how I feel about the debate between Rationalism and Religion spot on. Kudos.

[holyheretic]

04:01 AM on 06/23/2010

My Post Judeo-Christian heritage series

For Einstein, the greatest Jew ever, the Word God was Devoid of the Divine.
Most mortals believe in a “personal God”, in heaven and souls, in idols and all kinds of sacred follies. And they also believe that Einstein believed in God.

Not only Einstein’s personal God has been dead all along. In fact God was never even alive according to Einstein.

According to Einstein, God is “a product of human weakness”. That is what’s important. Beyond that all the pretentious, pseudo-science is empty, meaningless, and delusional.

Einstein’s quotes were used by dealers of delusions to confuse the common man to fool him about Einstein true religious beliefs. Einstein categorically rejected the supernatural.

In his article, Albert Einstein’s God — the “Product of Human Weaknesses”, published on Thursday, May 15, 2008, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth wrote: Einstein’s language is very clear. God is dismissed as “nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses” — a statement hauntingly like the verdict of Friedrich Nietzsche... In the end, it is better to see Einstein, not as a believer of sorts, but as an atheist of sorts. Belief in God was simply childish, he asserted.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/05/15/albert-einsteins-god-the-product-of-human-weaknesses/
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

[holyheretic]

03:42 AM on 06/23/2010

The caption of Hawking’s definition of God is erroneous.

The caption says: “One could define God as the embodiment of the LOSS of nature”.

The caption should say: “One could define God as the embodiment of the LAWS of nature”.

[IndependentBadger]

09:02 AM on 06/14/2010

Its so odd that in order to be a decent human being, you have to tolerate a lot of the childishness and stupidity of people who still believe in deities, fairies, miracles, etc. Meanwhile, they get to use our tolerance to attempt to take control of the democratic institutions that kept them alive while they were out of power. And then whenever and wherever religious people gain control, they slaughter us like cattle. I'll never get over how odd it is, to look at some harmless looking housewife in the burbs and realize that her religious practices are responsible for more misery and carnage than the ebola virus or tsunami.

[James Ballard]

08:54 PM on 06/15/2010

@ "IndependentBadger"
7:50 PM CST

Great post, IndependentBadger.

Sometimes the "harmless" can be the most harmful.

Fanned

J.B.
6/15/10

[holyheretic]

03:46 AM on 06/23/2010

Fanned, dear IndependentBadger.

[realitytrumpsbull]

03:23 AM on 06/14/2010

I think that a belief in a god and being a learned person, a student of the world, a scientist, are not mutually exclusive states. I think both religion and science are an attempt to understand and explain the world as we know it. Science makes assumptions, and so does religion. Are all correct? Well, precision and accuracy depend on measurements, concrete findings, things that can be easily demonstrated, reproducible results, yep, the brick still hurts when it falls on your foot, therefore both gravity and your nervous system are working today, but god? Well, I don't think that anyone's come up with a set of calipers that can latch onto the Invisible Man, but organized religion is a definable phenomeon, roughly, and bears more study for its' ability to assert influence over the public.

Is science itself a form of religon, a cult, basically, people that believe only a certain way, because of what they've studied in their texts, could a university be likened to a monastery, or a madrassah, or similar religious academy, where indoctrination and rote learning substitute for personal discovery? What do we believe? What do YOU believe? And, what are those beliefs based on, assumptions, or demonstrated results?

Myself, I lean more toward science, and maybe a more skeptical approach. I think results can be falsified, calling their ultimate validity into question. Some people are very dogmatic, things are set in stone, others more flexible in their perceptions, opinions etc. We know we know nothing.

[adrianrf]

12:49 PM on 06/14/2010

religion is powered by fear of mortality, intellectual laziness, and magical/wishful thinking.
science is about the antithesis of all three.
people who extemporize, as you do above, about their ability to straddle both are simply admitting intellectual cowardice and lack of will to shine the cool light of rational empiricism on their fuzzy bed-time stories of tribal affirmation and foggy reassurance.

[Erzsebet Gilbert]

08:02 AM on 06/23/2010

Hey, you know RTB was just asking some questions, just musing a bit. I am an atheist, and the child of a scientist, and my degree is in the Philosophy of Science, but in what I feel is a crucial tradition of scientific practice, I appreciate hearing questions asked. Moreover, I think it's historically ignorant to assert that the religious are entirely intellectually lazy and afraid. Some of my heroes - Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Bruno - all believed in a divine element within the cosmos. Western science owes its existence today to Islamic scholars. I can't reconcile myself to such religious viewpoints, but I do not consider myself superior.

[Cardhu1]

01:42 PM on 06/23/2010

Talk about a bunch of prejudiced preconceptions.

[Publicola]

01:06 PM on 06/15/2010

realitytrumpsbull: "Is science itself a form of religon"

No. Science is based on empirical evidence; religion is based on dogma.

realitytrumpsbull: "I lean more toward science, and maybe a more skeptical approach."

Science when properly practiced is always done so from a skeptical approach.

realitytrumpsbull: "I think results can be falsified"

Of course they can. This is in part why the scientific community uses multiple lines of reproducible evidence before making strong inferences about what said empirical evidence tells us.

Does the scientific community still arrive at "wrong" conclusions anyway? Again, of course it does - scientific theories, being models, are always simplifications of reality. As our ability to accurately observe empirical reality improves, however, so does the validity of our revised and updated "wrong" scientific theories.

Issac Asimov explains further in his excellent essay "The Relativity of Wrong":

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

-- Issac Asimov

[Cardhu1]

06:28 PM on 06/15/2010

I would offer a slightly view that distinguishes between science, faith, religion, and religious authority.

Religion is nearly completely pablum for the uneducated masses. Religious authority (e.g. the evolved doctrine of Papal infallibility) rests on dogma.

History has many examples of dogmatic insistence being refuted by science: A vacuum, the Earth-centered universe, denial of moons orbiting other heavenly bodies, and denial of imperfections such as craters and mountains.

Science rests on the scientific method. As a physicist, I accept membrane theory, hyperinflation, and evolution as much more complete explanations of cosmology and life than the Book of Genesis.

But that knowledge does not affect my personal relationship with God. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my scientific education and experience bring me closer to God.

Behold. These are His Works. They are not the works of a parlor trickster as fundamentalist creationists would make Him.

[Lisa Ryder]

11:00 PM on 06/13/2010

James can you repost your argument here so I can address my back peddling. You were stepping on my toes and I tripped...sorry you think that's a back peddle. We ran out of replies and I am having a hard time finding your reposts :P

I

[James Ballard]

03:35 PM on 06/14/2010

@ "Lisa Ryder"
2:35 PM CST

There were several points to my argument; not sure which one you want me to repost.

Quote (from your post) :

..."This blindness shines brightly in religion as well as science."...

This is the crux of my opposition to your lumping science and religion together as if they behave the same. I confess I was stepping on "your" toes because you have this thing about stepping on "science's toes" which I don't believe you are well informed about.

Quote (from my post) :

..."Other than extreme examples, like both the American and Nazi experiments with genetics and euthanasia in the early 20th century, I'd be curious to know examples of scientific "fascism" or "cult like" behavior you are referring to in today's scientific community."...

One point I wanted you to address, but your wondering "philosophical" syntax about "hope/reason/love/empathy" did a "duck & cover" on me and failed to address any of my points... :) ...

This is from your first reply :

..." Instead of using a religious propaganda club we use scientific devised propaganda club"...

When you insist on making broad stroke statements like this, I need to see some foundation here : examples in other words.

...(continued)...

[James Ballard]

03:48 PM on 06/14/2010

...(conclusion)...

Whatever examples you have to offer, I will stack centuries upon centuries of blood saturated abuse committed in the name of religion up against the few examples of scientific abuse within the past century. And the abuses of religious orthodoxy and fanaticism remain in full bloom; there's just no comparison with religion & science when your talking about tangible, provable actual benefits of science vs. the centuries old and continuing abuses of "religion".

Quote (from my last two posts) :

"...Science does not "cling to ignorance". Religion does. Science questions. Religion does not. Science does not make false promises. Religion does."...

"...Our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe can and will be achieved through science; compassion and empathy are not dependent on religion; they are dependent on enlightenment and the will to reach out beyond ourselves.

Science will help us achieve that end. Science is the flowerbed/oasis grown out of the black hole of superstition that has long plagued humanity. There is hope. If only we will see it's face and by that know the "promise" you seek."...

J.B.
6/14/10

[michael moonshine]

10:19 PM on 06/13/2010

Let's start by agreeing that organized religions are human institutions, and like human beings themselves, are capable of both good and evil.

To the extent that religions give hope and comfort to the bereaved, to the extent that they inspire charity and humility and honesty among their followers, they should be admired.

The darker side of a religion appears when its adherents cross the line from seeking a personal spiritual path to forcing nonbelievers to accept their doctrines.

Freedom of individual conscience and respect for other's beliefs should go hand in hand.

Whatever Stephen Hawkings or James Dobson or Mullah Khatami might believe about religion, we each have the basic human right to believe what our own experience teaches us and to follow our own conscience. We have that right exactly up to the point that we start to impose our beliefs on another human being.

[holyheretic]

05:35 AM on 06/23/2010

Dear michael moonshine.

Do you think we must respect any sacred stupidity?
Do you consider any sacred voodoo to be a good thing for society and for the followers of that sacred dogma?
Do you find mystical Heavenly Pies nourishing?

[petegrif]

11:46 AM on 07/13/2010

I totally agree with you on human rights but I would ask you this. Let us suppose that we find a society in which people gain real benefits (peace of mind, help in times of trouble, soothing explanations about troubling question as to the nature of the world...) and yet that belief system is demonstrably complete false. (as I am sure you know there are many such belief systems eg cargo cults) Is it a good thing that they have this belief system or a bad thing? I don't deny the benefits but I believe that opiates for the people aren't the best that humanity can shoot for. The promise of rationality (not just science) is that it can shed light where there is none.

[Lisa Ryder]

08:13 PM on 06/13/2010

When I first started my studies in Buddhism. I noticed an awful lot of people had taken up Buddhism because they hated their birth religion. This hatred is like a distorting lens or veil when viewing the object that you hate. I had to address this in myself. I loathed my birth religion (evangelical nondenominational christianity) and the people I grew up with within my church, who seemed to me to be a bunch of hypocrites. I had to let this go to be able to progress in my Buddhist studies. How many of you think your hatred of religion has distorted your view?

[Dabo415]

02:05 AM on 06/21/2010

I'm an athiest but I never hated or even resented the religion I was raised with (Christian Scientist). As a matter fact, I have many fond memories of my church and the people in it. At worst, I just think of it as silly and misguided.

[holyheretic]

04:21 AM on 06/23/2010

Dear Lisa Ryder. I like your new avatar.

I was born in the holy land and was bred as an Orthodox Jew. I agree with the greatest Jewish thinkers of recent history, Spinoza, Marx, Herzl, Freud and Einstein that the Jewish religion is a collection of sacred superstitions.

I also believe that this organized ignorance, this sacred dogma proved catastrophic for the Jewish people.

MY BLASPHEMOUS BLOGS
In the East God Won - The high cost of organized ignorance.
Michael Pieracci, Ph.D., Religion Instructor: “Holy heretic’s insight is indeed profound.”
http://whengodwins.blogspot.com/

Holy Cows and Calves - Sacred superstitions, aka religions.
http://holycowsandcalves.blogspot.com/

ניפוץ אלילים - ביעור הבערות
Holy Heretics - Jesus, Maimonides, Spinoza, the Founding Fathers, Herzl, Einstein.
http://holyheretics.com/

Holocaust Haggadah - שואה
Delusion dealers blame the victims.
Rabbi Irwin Kula: "Your Holocaust Haggadah is amazing."
http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/

[nyyankee70]

06:47 PM on 06/13/2010

Religion is a means of enslaving people thru mind control. They control you by getting you to agree to behave a certain way an adhere to certain beliefs on the promise of a fantastic after-life. Of course, the extreme side of this is getting people to do harm to others based on those same promises. Religion is garbage for the weak minded who don't have the courage of introspection to solve their problems and constantly must seek others to do the work for them. We'd have less problems in society if people tried to solve their own problems and pushed themselves to achieve on their own instead of waiting for some "magical" higher power to do it...

[Lisa Ryder]

07:43 PM on 06/13/2010

Religion has been abused by the elite. Science has now taken it's place regarding controlling the masses: Episode 1: "Happiness Machines"
Episode 2: "The Engineering of Consent"
Episode 3: "There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed"
Episode 4: "Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering"

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dA89CBBOC0

[breeding]

08:39 PM on 06/13/2010

Oh, jeez. Just because someone writes a book or teaches an understanding of how people have always manipulated other people doesn't mean they "used science to discover it." It's called book learning.

[petegrif]

11:48 AM on 07/13/2010

Lisa
this has nothing to do with science.

[nyyankee70]

06:34 PM on 06/13/2010

Any minute now we should begin hearing the bible thumping idiots and zealots, led by Sarah Palin and her moronic ilk, asking for Stephen Hawking's head on a platter in the name of God. She and her followers make me doubt the theory of evolution...

[Lisa Ryder]

08:33 PM on 06/13/2010

Sarah Palin is a neo-con and uses religion to move the ignorant masses. She acts like an idiot, however the women and the people who pull her strings are not stupid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-palin-doctrine-why-th_b_126511.html

[Dabo415]

02:08 AM on 06/21/2010

You're right Lisa...Palin isn't stupid, just willfully ignorant.

[WhereIsTheTruth]

01:49 PM on 07/18/2010

Personally, I don't think she's acting.

[Steelsil]

03:41 PM on 06/13/2010

Is Buddhism a religion? Is anything in Zen Buddhism contradicted by scientific findings? The most widely known religions are not the only religions.

[nyyankee70]

06:32 PM on 06/13/2010

Actually, buddhism is not a religion. It is considered a way of life and being...

[Lisa Ryder]

08:38 PM on 06/13/2010

To many folk born into Buddhism it is a religion and a way of life.

[Hirnlego]

09:42 AM on 06/14/2010

I think it is..as people consider it something they should follow, it also includes supernatural elements like re-incarnation and karma.

[Dabo415]

02:13 AM on 06/21/2010

Religion

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
personal beliefs or values:
3. a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

[breeding]

01:58 PM on 06/13/2010

"My point was not in how the laws of the universe emerged, but from where and why? Evolution is presented as the 'why' for all life, and thus presumes to replace the need for the answer to why. But before all life, before all the planets, the laws of the universe emerged from the Big Bang completely intact, structured, serving their purpose from that time on."

(sorry, I wanted to post this so as to not get buried.)

I beg to differ. Evolution describes the "how" of life, not the "why". In fact, all of science is about the "how". I'm comfortable leaving the "why" to religion but not comfortable with the one intruding on the other.

Our earliest ancestral cultures wanted to know the "how" and "why" of things but lacked the skills to answer either question so turned to spirituality to answer both. The resulting dogmas fused these two questions together and it is now heretical to try to separate them. This is the basis of the controversy, the war between science and religion.

For my part, I get my "hows" from science and not knowing "why" doesn't really bother me much but I lean towards "why not?"

[petegrif]

11:50 AM on 07/13/2010

I beg to differ. Science very frequently answers 'why' questions. These are very important in all sciences.

[WhereIsTheTruth]

01:56 PM on 07/18/2010

Evolution answers the question, "How?" Science can also answer the question, "Why?" in the form of theories, laws, etc. That said, the question can be asked ad nauseam (think five year old) to make it appear as if the question is not answerable.

[mntnguy]

12:29 PM on 06/13/2010

I am glad to hear someone of his great intellect speak out about these things. In the end Religion serves only to distract and confuse the mind. It keeps humans who lack the mental capacity to accept that we are all alone in the universe.

Religion did have its purpose and place in our society however, that time has long since passed. Although most of the post on here revolve around empathy and other such emotive references. Religion is much more about teaching basic skills for survival and growth as a society. Skills such as nursing, Basic Hygiene, Basic rule of law.

As time has passed and society has evolved, we have other institutions that teach us these basic skills like Hospitals, Schools, and other community centers.

He is correct in his assessment however, his rational is for comedy. The real reason science will when is because it is the natural course of human evolution and existence.

[Mishal Zeera]

05:19 AM on 06/13/2010

While I agree with what he is saying, specifically in regards to what he is calling "religion" - I am amazed at his complete lack of scientific interest in the potentials of human consciousness. It's easy to forget that most of this wonderful science came from an impulse deeper, wilder and more alive than simply reducing everything down to things we can designate. Not to want to explore that is, in my opinion, a dangerous error that has led us to being the proprietors of vast, imperfect technologies whose benefit is at best questionable.

I saw him speak about how the future of mankind is dependent on space travel and technology, while mentioning medical advances that allow us to live longer. I may not have his erudition or his academic status, but I think he is wrong. Our future is more immediately dependent on whether we can define ourselves as larger than our little egos and have the courage to stop the destruction of our planet through overpopulation and environmental irresponsibility.

I think science "winning" without a profoundly increased level of collective self knowledge a suffocating and sterile prospect.