Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Book reviews
Stephen Hawking:
the closed mind of a
dogmatic atheist
holes. Even though her Ph.D. was
not in science, but Spanish poetry,
Review of she explains modern cosmology with
Music to Move the Stars almost the same elegance, fluidity,
by Jane Hawking precision and accuracy as that of her
McMillan, New York, 2004 world-famous husband. The book
provides much insight on the age-old
conflicts between science and religion,
a subject that Jane discusses in depth.
Jane also provides much insight into
Jerry Bergman the minds of the world’s leading
scientists, especially cosmologists.
Jane Hawking was, for a quarter Jane married Stephen Hawking
century, the wife of Stephen Hawking, knowing that he had an incurable
one of the most famous living scientists disease, but, believing that his life
existence in a Creator God’ (p. 46).
of today. Stephen Hawking, now would be short, they hoped to jam as
With candid insights into her private
an international celebrity, has sold much love and fulfilment into what
spiritual experiences, Jane draws her
millions of books, and draws huge they thought would be only a few
own conclusions regarding God’s role
crowds wherever he speaks. Cited years together (Stephen outlived all
in the universe.
by Time as the heir to Einstein, only expectations, and they were together
Jane also discusses in detail the
Darwin and Einstein are arguably for over 25 years). They married fairly
anthropic principle, which she calls
better known among the public. The young, and soon had three children.
For years, Jane was an astounding ‘an important cosmological principle
first American edition of his best seller,
care giver, dealing with Stephen’s of the twentieth century’ (p. 153).
A Brief History of Time, had a press run
of ten thousand copies—typical press progressive physical decline and She observed that the strong version
runs are five hundred to two thousand heavier demands. She managed the has a ‘close philosophical affinity to
copies.1 A professor at Cambridge, household, reared the children, and the medieval cosmos’ where humans
he occupies the same Lucasian chair hauled him around for years before were at the center of creation (p. 153).
that Isaac Newton filled two centuries a serious respiratory incident forced She then concluded that the anthropic
earlier. Hawking is not only famous them to hire full-time professional principle places humans in a ‘special
as a physicist, but also as one who nurses. She also recounts her battles place at the centre of the universe’, just
has overcome obstacles due to the with the British health care system, as did the Ptolemaic system, and that,
severely disabling neuromuscular and with Cambridge University for ‘for the medieval populace, this special
disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis access. position was a strong statement of the
(ALS), commonly called Lou Gehrig’s unique relationship between human
Disease. Jane’s theism vs Stephen’s beings and their Creator’ (p. 153). The
atheistic faith main intent of early philosophers was
Courtship and marriage to reconcile the
One factor that was central to their ‘existence of God with the rigours
The book contains much relationship—and eventual divorce— of the laws of science, towards
background about Jane’s courtship was religious conflicts. Jane notes that unifying the image of the Creator
with Stephen, their marriage, and the ‘Stephen had no hesitation in declaring with the scientific complexity
problems in their marriage due to the himself an atheist despite the strongly of His Creation. … Conversely,
domestic friction that one would expect Methodist background’ of his family (p. their intellectual heirs, some
when a family member is seriously 46). She concluded that his reasoning 800 years later, seemed intent
handicapped. Stephen’s pioneering was, ‘as a cosmologist examining the on distancing science as far as
research is clearly explained in simple laws which governed the universe, he possible from religion and on
terms for those lacking a Ph.D. in could not allow his calculations to be excluding God from any role in
the mathematical physics of black muddled by a confessed belief in the Creation. The suggestion of the
TJ 19(3) 2005 29Book Reviews
presence of a Creator God was an Jane notes, and disputing our right to ask the
awkward obstacle for an atheistic ‘at the end of the twentieth question “Why?” in relation to
scientist whose aim was to reduce c e n t u r y, r e l i g i o n f i n d s i t s the origins of the universe and the
the origins of the universe to revelationary truths threatened by origins of life. They claim that the
an unified package of scientific scientific theory and discovery, and question is as … inappropriate, as it
laws, expressed in equations and retreats into a defensive corner, would be to ask why Mt. Everest is
symbols. To the uninitiated, these while scientists go into the attack there. They dismiss the suggestion
equations and symbols were far insisting that rational argument that the question ‘Why’ is the
more difficult to comprehend than is the only valid criterion for an prerogative of theologians and
the notion of God as the prime understanding of the workings of philosophers rather than scientist
mover, the motivating force behind the universe’ (p. 200). because, they say, theologians are
Creation’ (pp. 154–155). She concludes that the engaged in the “study of fantasy”:
She adds that, as a direct result complexity of the cosmologist’s belief in God can be attributed to
of the focus of modern cosmologists on calculations and the admiration their “a shortage in the oxygen supply
mathematics, the concept of a personal discoveries have caused some people to the brain”. Their theories reduce
God became irrelevant for these ‘to fall into the trap of believing the whole of Creation to a handful
scientists because, in their mind, their that science has become a substitute of material components. They
calculations diminished ‘any possible for religion and that, as its great complain with a weary disdain of
scope for a Creator’, and high priests, they can claim to the stupidity of the human race,
‘they could not envisage any other have all the answers to all the that human beings are always
place or role for God in the physical questions. However, because of asking “Why?” Perhaps they
universe. Concepts which could their reluctance to admit spiritual should be asking themselves why
not be quantified in mathematical and philosophical values, some of this is so. Might it not be that our
terms as a theoretical reflection them do not appear to be aware of minds have been programmed
of physical realities, whether or the nature of some of the questions’ to ask “Why?” And if this is the
not the actual existence of those (p. 200). case they might then ask who
physical realities was proven, were She is especially disheartened programmed the human computer.
meaningless’ (p. 155). with attempts to extrapolate animal- The “Why” question is the one
behaviour rules to human behaviour, which, above all, theologians
The nihilism of atheism as illustrated by the evolutionary should be addressing’ (p. 201).
psychology field. After noting that She concludes by opining
Her major concern is that she evolutionary psychologists ascribe that, since the modes of thought by
perceives—and discusses extensively altruism solely as a result of natural scientists
why, based on discussions with her selection, she adds that ‘are dictated by purely rational,
husband and the leading physicists of ‘scientists still cannot satisfactorily materialistic criteria, physicists
the world—that the result of the goals explain why some human beings cannot claim to answer the
of science would eventually result in are prepared to give their lives questions of why the universe
the situation where for others. The complexity of exists and why we, human beings,
‘Human reactions in all their such anomaly lies far outside the are here to observe it, any more
complexities, emotional and scope of their purely mechanical than molecular biologists can
psychological, would one day ... grasp. Nor can they explain satisfactorily explain why, if our
be reduced to scientific formulae why so much human activity actions are determined by the
because, in effect, these reactions operates at a subliminal level. The workings of a selfish genetic
were no more than the microscopic spiritual sophistication of musical, coding, we sometimes listen to the
chemical interactions of molecules’ artistic, politic, and scientific voice of conscience and behave
(p. 156). creativity far exceeds that of any with altruism, compassion and
The result was that ‘in the primitive function programmed generosity’ (p. 200).
face of such dogmatically rational into the brain as a basic survival
arguments, there was no point in mechanism’ (p. 200). Their marriage deteriorates
raising questions of spirituality and Although scientists offer
religious faith, of the soul and of a God explanations, they ‘acknowledge that In the latter days of their marriage,
who was prepared to suffer for the sake they are still very far from reaching’ her ‘attempts to discuss the profound
of humanity—questions which ran the goal of answering ‘why’, noting matters of science and religion with
completely counter to the selfish reality that many scientists Stephen were met with an enigmatic
of genetic theory’, evidently referring ‘arrogantly even aspire to become smile’ (p. 465). Stephen usually
to the work of Richard Dawkins and gods themselves by denying the ‘grinned’ at the ‘mention of religious
others (p. 156). rest of us our freedom of choice faith and belief, though on one historic
30 TJ 19(3) 2005Book Reviews
occasion he actually made the startling assert the blunt positivist stance She adds, ‘They were much more
concession that, like religion, his which I found too depressing aggressively competitive than the
own science of the universe’ also and too limiting to my view of relaxed, friendly relativists with whom
required a leap of faith as did theism the world because I fervently we had associated in the past’ (p. 296).
(p. 465). Jane approvingly quoted needed to believe that there was Their old friends’ dedication to science
scientist-theologian Cecil Gibbons, more to life than the bald facts verged on the dilettante in comparison
who concluded that ‘scientific research of the laws of physics and the with the ‘driving fanaticism’ of their
required just as broad a leap of faith in day-to-day struggle for survival. new friends (p. 296). Jane stresses that
choosing a working hypothesis as did Compromise was anathema to she concluded that
religious belief’ (p. 465). Although in Stephen, however, because it ‘Nature was powerless to influence
theory, a leap of faith in science ‘had admitted an unacceptable degree intellectual beings who were
to be tested against observation’, the of uncertainty when he dealt only governed by rational thought, [but]
problem is that a scientist has to ‘rely with the certainties of mathematics’ who could not recognize reality
on an intuitive sense that his choice (p. 201). when it stood, bared before them,
was right or he might be wasting years pleading for help. They appeared
in pointless research with an end result The Galileo irony to jump to conclusions, which
that was definitively wrong’ (p. 465). distorted the truth to make it fit
When asked if he believed in God, Ironically, Stephen’s hero was their preconceptions’ (p. 312).
‘Always the answer was the same. Galileo—‘a devout Catholic’ (p. 200).
No, Stephen did not believe in God Stephen launched a personal campaign Jane’s solace in religion
and there was no room for God in his for Galileo’s reinstatement, which was
universe’ (p. 494). When Stephen eventually successful. But it ‘was Religion permeated Jane’s world,
gave his usual atheistic answers in nevertheless seen as a victory for as is obvious from her extensive
Jerusalem, this struck Jane as especially the rational advance of science over discussions. This world, though, her
ironic, and she quipped: the hidebound antiquated forces of husband did not want any part of, nor
‘My life with Stephen had been religion rather than as a reconciliation did most of his friends. It was a world
built on faith—faith in his courage of science with religion’ (p. 202). that Jane eventually left, partly because
and genius, faith in our joint efforts Indeed, Galileo’s main problem was the antagonism of Stephen and his
and ultimately religious faith—and the dogmatism of the Aristotelian atheistic friends. She concluded that
yet here we were in the very scientific establishment of his day! The most famous scientists, her former
cradle of the world’s three great intransigence of Stephen on religion husband among them, were dogmatic
religions, preaching some sort is in dramatic contrast to the many atheists, unwilling to even reason
of ill-defined atheism founded changes he made in his theories and on the evidence for design in the
on impersonal scientific values ideas—for example, the conclusion universe. Jane even called physics a
with little reference to human that ‘contrary to all previously held ‘demon goddess’. Such scientists, in
experience’ (pp. 494–495). theories on black holes, a black hole turn, saw someone such as Jane, who
She concludes by saying that could radiate energy’ (p. 236). believed in God, as an ignorant person
the blunt denial by Stephen ‘of all that who inhabited a world that they were
I believed in was bitter indeed’. Jane Dogmatic boffins not part of, nor did they want to be
was also stuck at the insensitivity of the part of.
press to matters of religious faith—they As Stephen became more famous, Stephen’s view of the world was a
often treated it as something that, if one his associations changed to more universe ‘which had neither beginning
possesses it, should be kept well hidden and more eminent scientists, which nor end, nor any role for a Creator-God’
(p. 525). Jane had to admit she did not find (p. 389). And this was a universe in
As he got older, Stephen became appealing. The contrast between her which Jane did want to live, and which
more and more hardened in his atheism. old friends and the world’s leading many people increasingly see as not
As a result, Jane notes that although scientists who became their friends only unreal, but one that avoids reality.
in the early days their arguments (as Stephen became increasingly Jane summarized her concept of much
on religion ‘were playful and fairly renowned in his field) was enormous. of the research, of which her husband
light-hearted’, in later years they Their old friends were able to talk was in the forefront, as ‘theorizing on
increasingly intelligently about many things and abstruse suppositions about imaginary
‘became more personal, divisive show a ‘human interest in people and particulars traveling in imaginary time
and hurtful. It was then apparent situations’. In contrast, as a whole, in a looking-glass universe which did
that the damaging schism between their new friends were ‘a dry, obsessive not exist except in the mind of the
religion and science had insidiously bunch of boffins’, little concerned with theorists.’ This she described as ‘the
extended its reach into our very people, but rather very concerned with demon goddess of physics’ (p. 372).
lives: Stephen would adamantly their personal scientific reputations. In an assembly before the Pope,
TJ 19(3) 2005 31Book Reviews
Jane states the Pope said that scientists wholeness which I had not known for was a great encouragement to her,
‘could study the evolution of the a very long time’ (p. 572). partly because he helped her realize
universe’, but ‘should not ask what A critical stabilizing factor in that ‘atheism was not an essential
happened at the moment of Creation at Jane’s life was her church. She often prerequisite of science and not all
the Big Bang and certainly not before talked about her minister’s sermons, scientists were as atheistic as they
it because that was God’s preserve’ and how they helped her to cope with seemed’ (p. 246). Jane’s assessment
(p. 391). She stated that she was not the difficulties of dealing with an is especially critical because she was
impressed with this attitude; rather she invalid husband who required twenty- able to stand back and observe both
believed that four-hour-a-day care—he needed to be the worlds of science and religion in
‘Instead of embracing the modern bathed, have his teeth brushed, have order to make objective judgments.
scientific quest for truth to its his hair combed, and have his bodily Indeed, her book clearly represents
ultimate objective and glorying in functions taken care of just an effort to come to grips
the even deeper layers of mystery like a six-month-old baby, ‘She [Jane with some of the central
thus revealed, the Vatican still yet he attracted worldwide Hawking] was questions of humanity, and
viewed cosmological science as notoriety wherever they the proverbial why she accepted theism
a contentious issue, a threat to went—and they traveled fly on the and rejected the atheism
religious stability, which had to be often, which was also a wall, giving of virtually all the leading
contained’ (p. 391). struggle. Jane noted that, as us insight scientists with whom she
She concluded that the Pope’s his conditioned deteriorated, that can be spent much of her life,
prohibition was misdirected, and what she became more like a found nowhere including, especially, her
is dangerous is the misinterpretation of, nurse taking care of a man husband. She was the
else into the
and the use to which, these discoveries with a body like a Holocaust
thinking of the proverbial fly on the wall,
are put—especially those who have victim who had the needs of
world’s leading giving us insight that can
an axe to grind, such as many eminent a child. A concern she had
cosmologists.’ be found nowhere else into
scientists. was that ‘Although I derived the thinking of the world’s
The fact that many came to look comfort from my return to
leading cosmologists.
at Stephen as godlike is discussed the Church, it also posed imponderable
in several sections of her book. She questions in my mind.’ One was,
The enigma of evil
stated, ‘What was God really asking of me?
‘I found myself telling him that he How great a sacrifice was required of
Evil was a subject with which
was not God. The truth was that me?’ (p. 336).
she had to deal because of Stephen’s
supercilious enigma of that smile Although Stephen’s state of health
which Stephen wore whenever was often extremely precarious, modern progressing illness, which caused
the subjects of religious faith and medicine and twenty-four-hour nursing endless hospital stays and almost
scientific research came up was care (he carried his own mini-hospital insurmountable obstacles necessary
driving me to my wit’s end. It with him everywhere) allowed Stephen to live a life that resembles normalcy.
seemed that Stephen had little to pursue a ‘hedonistic way of life, With much insight, she notes that if
respect for me as a person and no compensating ever more tenaciously ‘belief in God were automatically
respect at all for my beliefs and for his disability, ever more assured decreed by the Creator, the human
opinions’ (p. 536). of his own invincibility, mocking the race would simply be a breed of
One of her strongly held untimely death whose grasp he had automatons’ (p. 461). The world
opinions was that ‘reason and science evaded’ (p. 476). What sustained Jane God created provided motivation for
alone could not furnish all of the was trusting ‘in God through darkness, discovery, and a sense of wonder due
answers to the imponderable mysteries pain and fear’ (p. 484). When she to freedom of choice. Jane recognized
of human existence’ (p. 536). Yet this tried to help Stephen understand the that, given this freedom, therein lies
‘simple and fairly obvious’ truth was solace she obtained from her faith, the heart of the source of suffering and
‘most unpalatable to those people and especially the Bible, Stephen ‘was evil. God could eliminate evil, but if
who had come to believe in Stephen’s insulted by any mention of compassion; He did, freedom of choice also would
immortality and infallibility’ (p. 537). he equated it with pity and religious be eliminated. She stresses that most
The fact is, in the minds of many sentimentality’—something for which evil is often reducible ‘to human greed
people, Stephen’s scientific theories he had contempt (p. 485). and selfishness’ (p. 461).
became ‘the basis for a new religion’ Jane discusses her friendship with However, this does not explain
(p. 537). Nonetheless, she concluded many well-known cosmologists, many physical evil such as her husband’s
that ‘Religion for me had to be a of which were close and personal illness which only a literal Genesis
personal relationship with God and friends. The theistic evolutionist Creation and Fall, provides.
through it … I found the germinating John Polkinghorne, whom she states Jane abandoned by Stephen
seeds of an incipient peace and a she admired, was one of the few who
32 TJ 19(3) 2005Book Reviews
Although many other women
might have left Stephen because of
his intolerable attitude toward her,
and especially what she represented,
she stuck by her husband through
everything. It was he who left her
for another woman. She tried in vain
to reconcile with Stephen—his terms
were, he would live at home with his
family for part of the week, and the
rest of the week he would live ‘with
his ladylove’ (p. 574). This was
unacceptable to Jane. His selfishness
and hedonism had shown through
again.
Much of this work is a contrast
between a woman deeply conscious
of her Christian spirituality, and a man
firmly closed to any theistic spirituality.
It is also a sober warning against a
Christian becoming unequally yoked
with an unbeliever in marriage. Jane
concluded that faith is the outward
expression of one’s spirituality that
‘can make sense of all the wonders
of Creation and of all the suffering in
the world’ and give ‘substance to all
our hopes. However far-reaching our
intelligent achievements and however
advanced our knowledge of Creation,
without faith and a sense of our own
spirituality there is only isolation and
despair, and the human race is really a
lost cause’ (p. 594).
One cannot read this book without
truly admiring Jane and feeling the
struggle that she faced. It is an
important work for all people interested
in not only science/religion conflicts,
but also the human needs that so many
of us possess.
References
1. As a point comparison, the first American
edition of Jonathan Sarfati’s best sellers
Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2
had a press run of 19,472 and 22,494 copies,
respectively.
TJ 19(3) 2005 33You can also read
