Last Thursday atheists across the world rejoiced as it was claimed that physicist Stephen Hawking finally acknowledged that the universe was created by the laws of physics, not by god. But if one delves into his actual wordage, one finds, rather sadly, that he abstains from denying the existence of god (just that he didn’t quite create the universe).
So why is Hawking so important to the global atheist movement? For one, the man is well-respected by the scientific community, the lay public, and – albeit begrudgingly, most likely because it would be rude to slam a quadriplegic – by the global religious hierarchy. Hawking has always been on the verge of denouncing the concept of god, but never quite got around to it, much to the chagrin of atheists and delight of believers.
Atheists have had a rough time with physicists. Albert Einstein refused to state that there was no god. A few months before his death, he famously copped out in an interview with biographer William Hermanns, when he claimed that although he did not believe in the Church, the god of theology, or mass indoctrination, he could not prove that there was no personal god, and that he himself believed in a god whose universe was ruled by immutable physical laws.
Hence, the thought of Hawking doing so was akin to the pope renouncing Christianity (well not quite, but you get the gist). Sure the atheist movement is steadily picking up steam, what with the Atheist Bus movement, the literary genius of Richard Dawkins and the brash confrontationism of Christopher Hitchens, but they still need a modern day stalwart, and it must be a scientist. Here’s why.
One of the most enduring promises of man-made religion is immortality. Whether it’s reincarnation or the concept of heaven and hell…you’re going to live forever, and some of you may even burn while doing so (that’s something to look forward to). Science, however, has only offered one outcome…absolute and impenetrable nothingness.
In fact, it was this rather bleak outlook that probably led Blaise Pascal to propose a wager (now famously known as Pascal’s Wager) whereby he stated: “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that god is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that he is.” There are a lot of betting human beings out there in the world today. Of course, the fact that the wager was published in a posthumous series of notes, Pensees, was rather fortuitous for ol’ Blaise, who by now knows for sure, or doesn’t.
But what if science could promise immortality? What if it already does, and it’s just that science has a really lousy PR team? Every person with an IQ over 50 knows that man is composed of atoms. Basically, we’re one big flabcup of energy.
Now according to the laws of thermodynamics, the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but moves from one form to another. So in effect when you die, you don’t actually DIE. You simply, how does one put it, dissipate, and go on to form something else. In sooth, you’re immortal. Not you per se, but the atomic components of your body.
All right, it doesn’t beat the angels with harps, the virgins, but it sure beats all that fire, brimstone and smiting (there’s a lot of that). I’m not here to convert science into a religion, or convert the religious to science. What I am here to do is pontificate on why Hawking didn’t take the final step. Why didn’t Einstein do so either? Were they afraid they would meet the same fate as Galileo?
Surely, society has progressed far beyond the incarceration of a human being simply because his beliefs do not gel with the mainstream? OK, maybe not, but still, the days of imprisoning a heliocentrist are long gone (one hopes).
Or was it the fact that, in Einstein’s case at least, he knew death was approaching and opted to take up Pascal’s Wager rather than find himself explaining Relativity to the devil?
Or maybe what most scientists, personal beliefs aside, fear is that any overt support for the atheist movement may result in a revolution that could unhinge the foundations of organised religion.
Maybe they fear it may make Nietzsche’s famous lines in The Gay Science come true: “Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet! Wie trösten wir uns, die Mörder aller Mörder?”
They needn’t fear; man has the brilliant ability to create new gods at will; merely moments after the old ones have been relegated to the ranks of mythology.
Comments: 2