I’d stake my life that Stephen Hawking is wrong about heaven
by Michael Wenham
Hawking says some admirable things, but the idea that I believe in life after death because I’m afraid of the dark is insulting
Like Stephen Hawking, I have been living with motor neurone disease (MND). Like him, I’m one of the lucky few not to have died within months of diagnosis. I’m nine years younger than him and have had the symptoms of the disease for only 10 years, compared with his 49. However for those 10 years I’ve “lived with the prospect of an early death” also. Unlike Professor Hawking I am not a superstar scientist. I’m simply a small-time writer, who used to be a teacher and a vicar.
It seems to me that, while some things Stephen Hawking says in the interview as it’s reported are unarguably true, some are also admitted hypothesis, and some are merely tendentious. One of the features of MND both for him as for me is that it affects your ability to speak and hence pares down what you say to the bare bones. (That’s not of course the case when you have time to type a script.) Hence sometimes you are frustrated by your inability to nuance your ideas. And so it may be that his very categorical answers are the nub of his opinion, but not the full expression.
For example, there’s something of “nothing-buttery” about his comments about death: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” It’s unarguably true that there’s no heaven for broken down computers, as I have found to my cost when I poured fruit juice over my laptop. The brain may be nothing but a most remarkable computer, yet there’s something generically different from a computer in a brain which, when it starts to malfunction as happens in MND, can begin to love Wagner’s music and “enjoy life more”. That, I would say, is irrational, but not uncommon. Human beings, it would appear, are something more than machines. Maybe science will one day describe what the difference is.
Hawking tells us that “the universe is governed by science”. I think I understand what he means. It is certainly discoverable by science. Scientific theories that don’t fit with the evidence of the universe fail. In simple terms science is governed by the universe, not the other way round. What’s interesting is that this is in effect what Hawking says talking about the beauty of science. It’s “beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations”, citing the double helix and fundamental equations in physics as examples.
I find myself admiring and agreeing with much of what Professor Hawking says, but I find his ethical deduction and his quasi-religious observation sadly lacking…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>