Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist

Page created by Frederick Graves
 
CONTINUE READING
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                                                                                                                   29
Book 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) 2005
Book 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                                                                                                                   31
Book 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) 2005
Book 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                                                 33
You can also read