One was an article at WordOnFire, the second is the video incorporated below. Both are by Robert Barron, a bishop from the archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Bishop Barron begins by praising Hawking, and then adds a 'but:'
by all accounts, he was man of good humor with a rare gift for friendship. It is practically impossible not to admire him. But boy was he annoying when he talked about religion!
He addresses Hawking's most recent book, and in particular his first chapter writing:
Things get off to a very bad start in the opening line of the chapter: “Science is increasingly answering questions that used to be the province of religion.” Though certain primitive forms of religion might be construed as attempts to answer what we would consider properly scientific questions, religion, in the developed sense of the term, is not asking and answering scientific questions poorly; rather, it is asking and answering qualitatively different kinds of questions. Hawking’s glib one-liner beautifully expresses the scientistic attitude, by which I mean the arrogant tendency to reduce all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. Following their method of empirical observation, hypothesis formation, and experimentation, the sciences can indeed tell us a great deal about a certain dimension of reality. But they cannot, for example, tell us a thing about what makes a work of art beautiful, what makes a free act good or evil, what constitutes a just political arrangement, what are the features of a being qua being—and indeed, why there is a universe of finite existence at all. These are all philosophical and/or religious matters, and when a pure scientist, employing the method proper to the sciences, enters into them, he does so awkwardly, ham-handedly.
Many of the people I have known have had a similar perspective as Hawking. A novel by Douglas Preston, Blasphemy, describes conversations among scientists that are similar to conversations I've had or overheard with scientists and engineers.
It seems as though not one of them has ever read or maybe even heard of the Summa, nor its' discussion about God's existence.
Aquinas' topics include:
As to 'does God exist' Aquinas writes:
Article 3. Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
It is a good idea to read and consider his five (5) proofs of God's existence.
There is a video discussion involving Bishop Barron on this same topic (Hawking and God's existence) shown below.
There is a video discussion involving Bishop Barron on this same topic (Hawking and God's existence) shown below.
It is, as I have commented earlier in this blog, a good thing to have some humility in the presence of God.
