Stephen Hawking and Prophets of Scientific Age

When people do not understand the limits of science, a new cult arises
By Y. Stuart Nam May 23, 2011

British physicist Stephen Hawking recently snapped up global media afraid of death. 1 In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, the Guardian reported, Britains most eminent scientist said there would be nothing beyond the moment when the

attention again by declaring that heaven is a fairy story for people brain flickers for the final time. 2 In an interview with the British daily

where he was asked about his own prospect of death, Hawking said, I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its

components fail. Obviously, there is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers. Hawkings Godless remark is not surprising. Hawking argued in his interview that theology isnt necessary since science will eventually to alienate religious readers at the publishers urging?). Despite his gloomy materialist remark, Hawking nonetheless showed a debilitating life. 4 courageously optimistic attitude for his celebrated but physically latest book, The Grand Design, that the notion of God was not necessary to explain the creation of the universe. 3 He further argued during a TV explain everything. He stopped only short of proclaiming that science has proven that there is no such thing as the divine creator (perhaps not

Hawking is of course not the first eminent scientist who scorned the 90% of American scientists do not endorse the notion of afterlife or personal God. 5 Einstein also did not hide his conviction that the observation of the universe. personalized conception of God was inconsistent with the scientific It would be naive, however, to assume that scientists know better

idea of an afterlife. Most accomplished scientists are with him. A survey of the National Academy of Sciences members showed that more than

because they are by profession scientists. There is some undeniable

truth in the reputation that natural scientists tend to be intellectually shallow outside their narrow area of technical expertise. Legitimate

grievances come from accomplished scientists who are well read career, lamented about his prominent colleagues shallow

beyond science. Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), the Nobel Prize-

understanding of religion (or its values to human life). 6 He even

winning German physicist who pioneered quantum mechanics and

predicted with a sense of great weariness that we may well reach the old religions will have lost their persuasive force even for the average or worse. Throughout human history, each era has witnessed its own share of

wrote about philosophical aspects of cutting-edge physics later in his

point in the not too distant future where the parables and images of the person. 7 I am afraid that we might have reached that point, for better prophets and oracles that promulgated their wisdom based on their

great understanding of the world with unquestionable conviction. In growing cadre of scientists, particularly among theoretical physicists, Hawkings exact conception of heaven is not clear from the brief labs and into the perilous arena of public entertainment.

this scientific age, none other than prominent scientists could play that role for us. Hawking happens to be one of the best known. The publics evolutionary biologists and more recently, neuroscientists, out of their genuine curiosity and the capital markets keen commercialism drive a

interview in the Guardian. But his dismissal instantly resulted in global that Hawkings heaven is the same Biblical heaven Pope John Paul II

headlines as if his casual opinion were new scientific discovery. I doubt

(1920-2005) spoke of. The Pope once explained that heaven, or hell for that matter, is a state of being of a spirit. 8 The Bible uses symbolic languages for easier understanding, according to the Pope who the mortal humans dwell. 9 A folk-tale image of heaven, a flowery emphasized that a place exists only in the temporal order in which we

meadow where angels fly around, was never a heaven serious Christians ever believed. Hawking is very likely to dismiss the spirit since he thinks of the human brain as a computer (that is, while we know very little the human soul. 10 about the brain). It is ironic that physics cannot explain its ambiguous notions of energy or force any clearer than theologians do spirit or

the religious view of the immortality of the human soul. The only point Id like to make is this: the mass media tends to sensationalize the that way as we have seen major global media pronounce the death of God upon the release of Hawkings latest book, The Grand Design. 11

There is little interest for a secularist like me in disputing Hawkings or

anyones view of the afterlife. Not necessarily comforting to me either is is preaching serious science. Or there is risk that the public perceives it

celebrity scientists atheistic remarks under the false impression that he

Besides their usual sensationalism, the media apparently presumes that eminent scientists like Hawkings remarks have special (scientific) meaning for the public. Their ill judgment is not only naive but also public ignorance of the exact nature of science. Hawkings atheistic poses real danger for society at large. It is a reflection of widespread

remark is no different from that of a typical atheist who in my view mistakenly thinks religion is inherently in conflict with science (so,

Hawking cannot be (profoundly) mistaken about the nature of science since he is an accomplished scientist; his professional status has no scientific activity. What is (natural) science then? logical bearing since understanding the nature of science itself is not a

therefore, religion is wrong). It will be equally naive to assume that

Defining science is hard since any serious attempt to define it

expanding universe, Einsteins relativity or quantum mechanics). physicist, once described science to his students:

aspect of science history, however, has been the sudden reversals of previous scientific truth often by accident and the unexpected emergence of shocking surprises also often by accident (e.g., an

essentially amounts to philosophizing about science (hence more of a leave it relatively open-ended or somewhat ambiguous. One notable

new vision of science). History of science has taught us that we should

Richard Feynman (1918-1988), arguably the most brilliant American The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also

needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. 12 Feynman was quoted at length because he pinpointed the actual logic of sustainable. What he was not necessarily quoted to be saying here is that the rechecking process is endless and has to be. All scientific accepted as settled, that is only because scientists have stopped theories, and any theory for that matter by definition, can fall or get the theorys hypothesis (an imagined generalization). If the theory is an experiment. That generalization, Feynman emphasized, has to be doing science. Notice that he said it takes imagination to generalize from

rechecked by another experiment to see if that generalization, a guess, is modified on the account of any future experiment that may contradict

rechecking (e.g., no good motive to suspect validity, no longer much argued that it is the only way science cans progress. 13

relevant, lack of funding, etc.). History of science is the history of endless Philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902-1994) hence observed and The key aspect of Newtonian physics suddenly fell when Einstein

self-reversal however, only given a chance either by design or accident.

showed contradictions to its one-dimensional presumption of time and space. Einsteins theory of relativity now awaits its turn of potential move toward quantum mechanics. No scientific theory can escape

failing as suspicion of its validity grows with modern physics increasing

its logical form. 14 Inductive reasoning (e.g., the sun will rise from the knowledge since that knowledge is essentially nothing but a good practical it might be, will never lead us to a certain and infallible

potential falsification since scientific theorizing (again, generalization east tomorrow because it always has in the past), however likely and

from anecdotal evidences from experiments) is inductive reasoning in

If not falsifiable by testing, as Popper argued, we can call it anything (e.g., faith, ideology, literature, pseudo-science) but science. An evolving picture of scientific activities proves more nuanced and subtly complicated than Popper articulated. But almost none will dispute that science is an endless process of guessing and selfexpanding frontier of ignorance...things must be learned only to be is more of an ongoing trial and error rather than a body of fixed students, however, as if they were facts or laws.

guess. That is why Popper argued that scientific knowledge cannot be

proven but only falsified; and it has to be falsifiable to be called science. 15

correcting. Feynman described this paradoxical process: There is an

unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. 16 Science in this sense knowledge set into textbooks. Scientific knowledge has been taught to Particularly because textbook science is presented so dogmatically, science has all the answers, observes Henry H. Bauer, professor of many people who have had but a little science come to have too much faith in the facts and laws they have learned, and too much faith that

chemistry and science studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University. 17 It is a sinful failure of modern public schooling that even The publics appetite for exciting scientific discoveries has grown consumer capital market. We have been seeing a growing circle of the educated public is not aware that science simply does not give us certain knowledge or prove anything absolutely.

tremendously over the last decades precisely because of the growing

misconception that scientists discover the truth. The misguided public hunger for new scientific facts translates into lucrative business in a celebrity scientists-cum-authors like Hawking who make fortunes on type scientists books, speeches or TV documentaries as if they were scientific truth or some sort of special wisdom they should take to their hearts. Commercialism and sensationalism abounds while the demarcation sheer non-sense) become blurred for the public. Celebrity atheist his credential as an evolutionary biologist and often using the messages are science-based or even scientific facts. explaining science to the public. The public then mistakes celebrity-

between legitimate science and personal beliefs or imagination (or even Richard Dawkins, for example, is not practicing anything remotely close to his academic expertise when he promulgates his militant atheism by subject, people often fall into a prevalent fallacy that his atheistic churning out one bestseller after another. Because the media highlights prestigious name of a university he is associated with, regardless of the

Real science is very difficult if not impossible to discuss in an

ordinary speech or entertaining manner since scientific knowledge as a form of technical hypothesis cannot be easily unraveled for the lay audience in a generalized fashion of the casual speech theyd like to

understand without inevitable exaggeration and distortion. Those who try to stick to real science faithfully are not likely to write a book for the those who are really pioneering the theories have almost never appeared to the public themselves. explain her medical research, which might have some potential mass for this reason alone. Hawking and other brand name scientist authors recently wrote about the fanciful versions of the universe like the multiple universes envisioned by cutting-edge string theories; but

I was listening to a young female scientist who was invited by NPR to significance for medicine. Whenever the host induced her with a not eat xxx to avoid cancer?), she answered with responses like: No,

generalized question meant for a generalized answer (e.g., so we should

that is not what the research shows. Under the following xxx conditions, the tested sample showed xx percentage of probabilitieswe have to do general guideline for the publicI cannot answer that question since it dismayed. He was used to talking to savvy scientist-authors who came onto his show mainly to promote their books and were inclined to say own expertise. a lot more research to see if what you are saying can be considered for a is outside the scope of this particular sample... The host was apparently

entertaining stuff in sweeping rhetoric, often in the areas outside their

The commercial mass media in fact rarely reports real science. They

highlight the generalized or exaggerated findings only when lobbied by the PR team hired by the institution, which financed the scientific efforts in the first place. There is almost always a commercial or nonor at least not in its authentic form. Popularization of science always comes with risks of over-generalization or misunderstanding no

scientific motive behind such campaigns. When scientists speak to the

public instead of writing for their peer-reviewed academic journals, the matter who does it if not outright distortion or exaggeration; but it can be forgiven to a certain extent since it still serves an important mission that the downside is often bigger when it comes directly from the scientists themselves. of sharing scientific understanding with the general public. The irony is The real peril for society at large, however, is not popularization by public must be aware that what they are reading might not be science,

scientists or journalists. It is the growing scientism that marginalizes questions for humanity; unfortunately, Hawking is one prominent certainty. Scientism is not science as science is not scientism.

humanistic worldviews we used to get from religion, philosophy, poetry or indigenous mysticism. Scientism describes the modern ideology that only scientific knowledge is valid and science can eventually answer all face of its logic alone since science by definition can never answer with subscriber. Scientism is a self-contradictory notion, however, just on the

The scientific form of inquiry has risen to the most laborious and

The real triumph of science is not its accumulated body of logically uncertain but fairly reliable knowledge for our practical purposes;

rigorous form of human investigation, which also increasingly costs suspend the metaphysical skepticism of the foundational issues of making. 18 Science also has helped expanded our understanding of technological and scientific progress. Most modern technological and errors. Sending men to the moon was not all about scientific nature and control our physical environment.

more money and gets entangled with politics and commercialism as a consequence. There is however a good deal of pragmatic reasons to

instead, it lies in its non-dogmatic, open-ended, value-free methodology.

science and take scientific knowledge, however provisional in its logical

nature, into account for our social, economic and even political decisionBut many people remain unaware of the important difference between

conveniences are owed to sheer human ingenuity, engineering prowess, and the collective body of accumulated experiences from past trials knowledge; it was much more about human resolve and persistent effort in terms of relevant technology developments and creative engineering. Pure scientific knowledge acts more like a compass for

those who develop the technology and engineering skills we cherish. so distrusting of any type of worldview unless it can be stamped by

Whether we like it or not, or we are aware or not, science has altered

our collective underlying worldview dramatically. We have now grown

scientists. Human life and the world we live in remain as vastly

as it failed its historical role of guarding society against dogmas (e.g., a Educated atheists, for example, often emphasize their scientific metaphysical view (faith).

academias philosophy departments, which also fell victim to scientism shrinking number of American academic philosophers are desperately trying to make their writing look more like technical scientific papers).

mysterious as it was in ancient times. Exploring such unlimited and aside as the step-cousin of the now discredited theology even in

plural possibilities of nature, such as metaphysics, has been long pushed

worldview when they dismiss religion as superstition. But they do not It is a historical irony that modern science has its intellectual roots in the religious thoughts ranging from the ancient Greeks to Christian theology. 19 Besides its underlying religious foundation, early modern

realize that the so-called scientific worldview is not science but another

science was often financed by churches or wealthy aristocrats who believed that science was one way to understand God. They even

thought they had a sacred duty to learn about the physical universe uncovering the hidden revelations of the Bible. 21 That was also book, A Brief History of Time, sold more than 10 million copies

since it is Gods creation. One outstanding example was Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, who was almost fanatically religious. 20 somewhat ironically one critical reason why Hawkings first popular

From Newtons perspective, he was not doing science but Gods work by worldwide (despite its being a little difficult read for many lay readers).

Hawking at the end of the book attributed the ultimate triumph of then.

science to knowing the mind of God. He was a clever first-time author who was willing to uphold the Christians traditional view of science of the Middle Age scholasticism, behind the modern scientific Equally undeniable is traditional Christian thinking, especially the trait knowability itself has never been seriously challenged in Western

thinking: We can know about the world, Gods creation. 22 The notion of Buddhism or Confucianism were much keen on the illusion of knowing itself. 23 On the Western side, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889the inherent limits of human language, its meaning and therefore

intellectual history since Plato. On the contrary, Eastern worldviews like 1951) circled back to the Eastern theme of unknowability by illustrating (cognitively) knowing. 24 What we cannot talk about we must pass over

atheists also may find it shocking that the idea of scientism has its roots in the Middle Age Christian faith. Philosopher Mary Midgley hence is a particularly naive one. 26 observed, The idea that being scientific simply means being irreligious

in silence, said Wittgenstein, echoing Buddha, who sought to teach his

ultimate wisdom by silence two thousands years before him. 25 Modern

Science is often described as a map helpful for navigating reality since it is an approximation of nature. It is not a good analogy in my view since is first in order to judge if science is even an approximation). I would science cannot even approximate nature (one has to know what nature

That window alone has unlimited mysteries unfolding before us; but we dangerous to believe that science shows the only and whole picture of nature. We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning, warned It is a huge mistake to think that what we see though the scientific shows, an observer sees what she chooses to see. It is modern superstition that science can save us.
1 2

will still never see anything outside the window frame. A completely (worldview). Heisenberg had rare insight as a scientist that it is

different picture of reality emerges when we switch to another window

like to think of science rather as a window we look out toward nature.

Heisenberg, explaining the paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics. 27 window is all there is. As Heisenbergs enigmatic sub-particle world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven Ibid. 3 See generally, Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, 2010. 4 Ibid. 5 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html 6 Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, HarperCollins, 2007, see the addendum titled P.S. 7 Ibid at p. 13 of the addendum titled P.S. 8 http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm 9 Ibid. 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force 11 See my book review at http://www.scribd.com/doc/37980802/Stephen-Hawking-s-The-Grand-Design-ABook-Review or at my blog (http://stuartnam.com/2010/09/23/stephen-hawkings-the-grand-design-grandscience-or-reckless-prophecy/) 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science 13 See generally, Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, 2007 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 See the note 4. 17 Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press, 1992, at p. 10.

18

I use pragmatic in the sense conceptualized by the general tradition of the American philosophical pragmatism. 19 See generally, Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views 21 Ibid. 22 See generally as a supporting reference, Michael Allen Gilespie, The Theological Origins of Modernity, the University of Chicago Press, 2008; the idea, largely my own, would need a book form to explicate. 23 Both Buddha and the Confucius refused to engage into purely speculative or metaphysical thinking which they thought had no bearing on real human life. 24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein 25 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a Kindle version, see the authors preface. 26 Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation, Routledge, first published 1992, a Kindle edition 2002, at p. 12 of 239. 27 See Heisenberg at p. 32.