Stephen Hawking was probably one of, if not the greatest, minds of this generation. His name recognition speaks for itself; he is without a doubt, intelligent. Hawking had an IQ that could be not compared to many others, and he was a well-respect physicist.
However, since his passing, there has been a lot of talk about Hawking’s religious views. Hawking was a staunch atheist, no doubt influencing many with his speech and contentions.
This, is where I will begin to make the claim that intelligence is in fact different than understanding. In a Washington Post article, Hawking is mentioned saying, “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.” Hawking thinks that God, in this situation, is actually not necessary. How interesting is that? How can we, mere mortals, determine whether God is actually necessary? Should it not be the other way around?
This is, in my opinion, the result of an egocentric philosophy. We humans see ourselves as the center of the universe. It’s why we abuse the environment, kill animals, and act lawlessly. It’s why we feel as though we must prove God’s existence, and why He can only exist if it seems like he has to, scientifically.
No need for a creator? It’s more like, there was no need for us to exist, but God willed us into existence anyway. It’s a miracle he hasn’t sent another flood! We don’t deserve life, we don’t deserve existence, and we don’t deserve His grace. Yet, he provides it anyway. How on earth would this system be manufactured by the greedy clutches of man? I’ll tell you what, if I was going to imagine a pathway to heaven, I wouldn’t have made it free—and God’s grace is.
Hawking also seems to think we would “know everything God knows” if he “were to exist.” Although I am always appreciative of the English subjunctive, this is an improper usage of it. How on earth would God be God if we knew everything he knew? Then he would certainly be lacking omniscience, or we would all be immortal, too. And the latter is certainly not true, and the former cannot be true either, simply because if God is God, he knows things that our mind cannot even handle!
Stephen Hawking, as brilliant as he was, seems to be limited in his ability to understand God’s ultimacy, mutability, and infiniteness. He is restricting God to the properties of a man-made Zeus, rather than a God who created us when we it was far from something he was required to do.
Science, as I’ve always seen it, is the study of what God created, not the study of our own awesomeness. After all, the only thing that can truly be awesome is God—and we lest not get that confused.
Just to clarify, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Hawking. He was a brilliant man, but what one lost out on, I hope the rest of us don’t, simply because we put our own intellect before our own understanding.