Religionists respond to Hawking

You might have heard that famed physicist Stephen Hawking proclaimed there was no afterlife.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, in which he asserted that there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe. The book provoked a backlash from some religious leaders, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who accused Hawking of committing an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

Lord Sacks' claim was laid out in an article last September:

Writing in the Times, the chief rabbi said: "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the universe came into being."

(The Times article is behind a paywall.)

Frankly, Lord Sacks' distinction is a little subtle for me. Perhaps it's because I've been overly influenced by the utterances of literalist, fundamentalist Christian sects here in the U.S. The idea that the Bible "isn't interested in how the universe came into being" is, I'm sure, literally anathema to those folks.

But even accepting that the Bible is a moral guide rather than a history textbook doesn't quite resolve my confusion as to Lord Sacks' point. If all of existence can be explained without reference to a creator -- and Sean Carroll convinced me -- then I don't see where Lord Sacks finds room for interpretation. As far as I can tell, he didn't address Hawking's claim at all.

At least Lord Sacks tried, and probably had some more or less cogent argument in mind. Over here, in the colonies (whoops, did I just write that?), we have no one of nearly as high intellectual stature contesting Hawking. Instead, it's former TV star Kirk Cameron shooting off his mouth:

"Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking's writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?" Cameron queried.

Cameron, whose claim to scientific credibility is, um, nonexistent, is calling Hawking's belief "unscientific"? To borrow from J.M. DeMatteis' Justice League dialogue, "Bwahahahahahahaha!" That's funnier than anything Cameron did on TV.

That Cameron never has heard of quantum physics is manifest. That he wouldn't accept its findings if he had, is even clearer.

Cameron also, and unfathomably, whines that Hawking's disability renders it impolite to attack him.

"To say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas."

Why does Cameron feel he's in such a superior position -- in any way -- that "saying anything negative" about Hawking is "bullying"? I trust I won't be the one to break the news to Cameron that, save in physical vigor and fervor of religious belief, he is undeniably inferior to Hawking.

Kirk, don't play in science's sandbox: you simply aren't equipped. Go back to your evangelical movies, secure in the stature you've attained in that world. In matters of belief, you cannot be assailed. In matters of ... just about anything else, well, stick to your day job.