Stephen Hawking: Science 'Will Win' Against Religion
Religion is based on authority, science based on reason: physicist
By Nick McMaster, Newser Staff
Posted Jun 10, 2010 5:24 PM CDT
An aide helps guide British physicist Stephen Hawking off the stage at the 2010 World Science Festival opening night gala performance at Alice Tully Hall on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 in New York.   (AP Photo/Evan Agostini)

(Newser) – Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has spent his life probing the cosmos for answers—and doesn't think much of those provided by religion, he tells ABC News. "What could define God is thinking of God as the embodiment of the laws of nature," Hawking says, but that isn't the god of most major religions: "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."

Hawking instead sees religion as a human construct, and one that stands in opposition to science: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority," Hawking says, "and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

View 2 more images
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Stephen Hawking: Science Will Win Against Religion is...
9%
3%
4%
4%
76%
3%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 157 comments
Chris Mankey
Jul 12, 2010 12:22 PM CDT
Is it random chance that somewhere a long time ago, but just a short time ago on the scale of the universe, that what we call amino acids formed and started to replicate? Is it random chance that some amino acids happened to gain a protective shell and formed what we call a cell? Is it random chance that those first single-celled organisms were driven by some reason to reproduce? No, it's not "random chance" nor do scientist say that it's "random chance" but unfortunately for you it's not magic, but the non-randomness of nature. "Is it random chance that those first single-celled organisms were driven by some reason to reproduce?" Cells aren't" driven" to reproduce, the do so because their structure. And the ability to reproduce probably existed before the evolution of the first cells. Do some research on self organization before you post your "profundities" on the Internet!
Chris Mankey
Jul 12, 2010 12:09 PM CDT
"Science cannot prove or disprove a Creator" Read- Religionists cannot prove a creator. In fact, the entire concept of the "Big Bang" speaks to the act of "creation" No, it doesn't provide evidence of a god. No religion predicted that the universe would turn out the way that science has reveled it.
ObiJo
Jun 14, 2010 2:04 AM CDT
There is no win. Science cannot prove or disprove a Creator. In fact, the entire concept of the "Big Bang" speaks to the act of "creation". Now just what caused that creation is no doubt the debate that is being talked about here. No physicist to date, including Hawkings, whom I admire greatly, can offer a plausible explanation for the creation of the universe that is based solely on science and observation.