Otherwise intelligent journalists (like John Humphreys on Radio 4 this morning) seem to turn into gibbering, incoherent numpties when they get near a religious news story*. The whole idea that Hawking has had a major turnaround in his beliefs is something with which the Church Mouse takes issue, and I'm inclined to agree with him:
Here's what Hawking said in 1989:What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]Compare the quote from 1989 with the one which has caused the headlines today:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."If anyone can spot a difference, please let Mouse know.
It occurs to me that a good religion editor in the BBC would have been called in here to make some sort of analysis, and they would hopefully have removed the spin and hyperbole from the BBC's coverage. They may even have offered some more incisive research into Hawking's position, and given a balanced and accurate rendering to the fact that 'Physics Genius Stephen Hawking has restated his previously stated position about the need for God in the process of creation in slightly different words, but with precisely the same conclusion'. Not such a snappy headline is it?
*I accept that's not entirley true - I enjoyed Humphreys' series of interviews about his own beliefs, but we can all use a bit of hyperbole occasionally
Update - Mark Vernon has a different angle on the issue here.
13 days
No comments:
Post a Comment