Well said, Mr Hirschfield.

The existence of heaven (as w/ anything else purely supernatural) cannot be proven one way or another.

The evidence that someone is a judgmental... donkey, is (IMO) substantially more conclusive!

JC Fisher

Rabbi Hirschfield's response is brilliant. As though science is the only source of knowledge....

Certain scientists who believe they can pontificate on subjects far outside their expertise, all too often demonstrate an appalling level of ignorance.

June Butler

It seems to me that Mr. Hawking's religion -is- science, perhaps science as approached from an assumption that atheism is a reasonable scientific approach. It is not, of course, because reasonable scientists remain open to the possibility of whatever new data and evidence emerge. Given his physical disabilities, (and one would assume there are emotional consequences of these disabilities as well), his thinking is bound to have been shaped by an abnormal social adjustment due to lack of community. In other words, he has an excellent intellect, but poor social skills, including a notably limited capacity for empathy. When the brain is all one has to count on, one is bound to be limited as a person.

Belief in an afterlife plays less of a role today than it did in the past, particularly in the Middle Ages. From the Renaissance on, humanism stressed life before death. The Christian notion of resurrection is not just about an afterlife but especially a new life in the here and now. As R. M. Hare suggested, the difference between believers and nonbelievers on the afterlife may not be that great these days.

Hawking may believe what he wants, as well as argue for it. I see nothing wrong with his position. Each individual must decide what stories to adopt to help shape one's life.

It is a poor defense to argue that X can neither be proven nor falsified. In that case, one is dealing with something that cannot even be wrong because it is not a scientific hypothesis.

I don't think those who believe and those don't believe in heaven contradict each other because neither advances a hypothesis. It is as if they were both holding up a different picture to live by, as Wittgenstein suggested in his writings on religion.

I would leave it to the gods to deal with such big questions and focus on the doing of justice in the world today.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Lashon ha'ra is defined by the callousness, mean-spiritedness or insensitivity of the utterance, even if it is true. --Hirschfield

Certain scientists believe they can pontificate on subjects far outside their expertise, all too often demonstrating an appalling level of ignorance.

Theologians also pontificate on nuances of traditional narrative that no one can check up on -- the events in question are now legendary and the derived implications are pure armchair reasoning (if Anselm or Augustine et al. had armchairs). The concept of evidence has brought a lot of high-flown speculation down to earth.

We go on telling stories because we must -- story is implicit in language -- but we've learned to distinguish between made-up reality, even inspirational and helpful constructions, and reality that reflects evidence rather than intuition. Living in fantasy worlds can be lovely and satisfying -- we've all done time in Middle Earth or Jane Austen's England -- but whatever values we take from stories must be applied in real life. As Hirschfield notes in closing:

Whatever one thinks about the existence of heaven, it seems that the real issue is not what may or may not occur in the next life, but how we treat each other and speak to each other in this one.

I like the Rabbi's opinion. However, it helps to follow the thread and read Hawking's actual interview. I'd like to make three separate but related points. (1) His assertion that heaven is a fairy tale for people who are afraid of the dark has some degree of truth in it--even if one is a person of faith. Eventual extinction can be a frightening outcome to contemplate. A mythology that posits an everlasting and non-deteriorating state in the face of such a prospect does tend to tame fear with ultimate meaning. It seems logical that such a state could not possibly exist in nature thus making evidence for it unavailable. (2) I'd be interested in knowing how, if at all, Hawking relates his scientific view of the macro/universal to the notion of general transcendence. (3) Hawking closes out completely (doesn't he?) the possibility of analogia entis. Working in the opposite direction he replaces it with analogia “techologie”. (See Jacques Ellul). Read, for instance, Hawking’s comments on the dead brain as broken down computer. I doubt that opposition to this trajectory and its implications is limited to those who believe in heaven. But thanks for this article. Without it my stimulus for the evening would have ended with Parish Council.

Ah, Murdoch, this is a keeper:

don't get me started on theologians, who pontificated for centuries on human sexuality in serene ignorance of the facts of biology.

Indeed, it still goes on; see, for example, in the report of the traditionalists in the Bishop's theology committee .

Hawking is simply being honest about his view--rather rudely, perhaps, but then, some of the responses are rather rude in return. But to say his religion is science, is to completely misunderstand what science IS.

As the philosopher John Gray said in an interview recently,

"I'm very opposed to investing science with the needs and requirements of religion. I'm equally opposed to the tendency within religion, which exists in things like creationism and intelligent design, to turn religion into a kind of pseudo-science. If you go back to St. Augustine or before, to the Jewish scholars who talk about these issues, they never regard the Genesis story as a theory. Augustine says explicitly that it should not be interpreted explicitly, that it's a way of accessing truths which can't really be formulated by the human mind in any rational way. It's a way of accessing mysterious features which will remain mysterious. So it was always seen right up to the rise of modern science—as a myth, not a theory. What these creationists are doing is retreating, they're accepting the view of religion promoted by scientific enemies of religion, and saying, no, we have got science and it's better than your science. Complete error."

Really can't we let science, be science, and faith, be faith?

Susan Forsburg

The quote from John Gray is right on in many ways. However,it is important that there be dialogue between religion and science. Dialogue is a function of letting religion be religion and letting science be science. Letting Stephen Hawking speak for himself without a reactionary "down closing" religious response is an example of a starting point. The originating article in The Guardian states "His [Hawking's] talk will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework that encompasses string theory, which is regarded by many physicists as the best hope yet of developing a theory of everything." So, even in a polarized room it is possible for the very distant cousins of " a theory for everything" and the religious notion of transcendence to find one another and at least hear what each other is saying--if not about phenomena then at least about the horizon against which phenomena may be contemplated. Dialogue may also help keep both religious practitioners and scientific practitioners humble--not a bad goal in our current social climate.

IT, I would say that Theory is Myth that is true. Both are not simply statements of fact but "ways of seeing." Thus, for example, the theory of evolution provides more than a simple collection of facts, but a way of understanding the biological realm, including yet undiscovered facts. An even better example would be Medeleev and the Periodic Table, which, well in advance of much sub-atomic knowledge, provided a predictive template for the unfolding of that knowledge.

Where Myth breaks down is when facts that run counter to it fail to undermine it. And, of course, the same thing happens in Science, and can lead to some lags in the growth of knowledge because of the tendency to "stick" with one theory rather than one that better fits with the newly discovered facts.

In this case, the argument over heaven, like that about God, often boils down to "it depends on what you mean by _____." Heaven in the vision of people sitting on clouds and playing harps almost certainly does not exist. But a Whiteheadian "heaven" in which all of the actions and motions of the cosmos are incorporated in the consequent nature of God, to give but one example, is as much a possibility as some of Hawking's own notions. That it is not "science" is true -- it is not falsifiable. But that doesn't mean it is false!

However,it is important that there be dialogue between religion and science.

Rod, I agree, but Hawking's statement that heaven is "a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark" is hardly an inducement to dialogue. It seems a dialogue-stopper to me.

"I am not afraid of the dark."

"Are, too."

"Am not."

It's not necessary to demean others to make your argument.

June Butler

I appreciate June's point. I would make a distinction between the possibilities in a science-religion dialogue and the possibilities in person of faith-Stephen Hawking dialogue. And I do appreciate Rabbi Hirschfield's point of view. However, I don't think I feel as put down as others do by Hawking's comment, terse and dismissive though it is. I think there is some truth in his statement as a bald observation ( see above). However, despite Hawking's credentials as a physicist ( and that does not make him unique) his statement is , from the point of view of religious insight, untutored and lacking erudition. Therefore the person of faith may choose to respond with an " is not!" rejoinder, or one may instead take advantage of an opening to push back in the interests of increasing the complexity of the discussion. What intrigues me about Hawking's position are the small clues it provides, not about his cosmology but about his anthropology. Cosmology and anthropology are entwined in myth, and I suspect also in science. I think a discussion about the kind of human being that fits Hawking's cosmological framework is potentially interesting and important. There is also the experience that Hawking is drawing upon in making this kind of comment. Wonder what that is? For example, liberation theologians and street smart pastors both have reputations for being abrasive and impatient with middle class piety. Sometimes we have to work at getting past each others outer shells in the interests of opening things up. I point to the example of Joseph Campbell. I think his insights provide challenge and possibility to those of us who stand in the western Christian tradition--the abrasive nature of some of his writings notwithstanding.

I wish Hawkings has stopped with calling religious beliefs "fairy tales" -- or had used a less tendentious term, like "folk tales." A case might be made for such a view. But suggesting that believers are "afraid of the dark" is dismissive. People value their beliefs, the stories, for the values they enshrine, for the art and music they inspire, for the constructive work they undergird. "Heaven" is not held up much as a lure nowadays. The Kingdom begins here and now.

Hawkings, with his difficult and precarious life, is more in touch with reality than his critics like to suggest, but on this, he strikes a jarring note. However, if our present financial and social order goes downhill as soon and drastically as many predict, fear of the dark may stage a come-back.

The problem of dialogue and "dismissive" comments is that they have been, and continue to be, a very two way street. Some of the stances that religious leaders have taken on scientific issues, creationism being an example, represent an entrenched and banal ignorance. Demanding equal time for "creationism" is pretty harsh, from the perspective of science. It's like a hospital board of directors enacting a policy that allows divining goat entrails as a diagnostic tool on par with radiology. So, when people like Hawking retort with dismissive resignation, we can respond in like manner or we can be a little less thin skinned and engage in a more cool and cerebral response. Don't think of Steve's comment as an insensitive first date. Think of it as a bad opening move in a friendly match of verbal Judo.