Hawking hasn't changed his mind about God

[khyaal]

Hold the front page: the big bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Or indeed, as the front page of the London Times put it today: "Hawking: God did not create universe".
Media furore over Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, has made it the biggest science news story of the day. But it's not like Hawking has suddenly given up a religious belief – let alone proved that God doesn't exist.
Hawking's position on religion has remained unchanged since he wrote his bestseller, A Brief History of Time. At the end of that book he famously used God as a metaphor for the laws of nature: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of reason – for then we should know the mind of God."
This quotation is billed in The Times today as his "previous view" on religion. It was certainly influential – the book sold 6 million copies – but Hawking has always looked at God metaphorically, in much the same way, incidentally, as Einstein. "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos" was Einstein's famous quip about his discomfort with quantum mechanics. He also declared, "I want to know how God created the world."
But Einstein was not really religious. He remarked that "the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously". When asked if he believed in God, Einstein explained: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Dodging the inquisition

Likewise, in 2001 I interviewed Hawking and he made a telling remark underlining how he was not religious. He told me: "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence."
And in a piece by him that I edited in 2008, he described how he attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican, where the pope told the delegates they should not inquire into the beginning of the universe itself, because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.
Hawking joked, "I was glad he didn't realise I had already presented a paper at the conference investigating precisely that issue: I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the inquisition like Galileo."
Silly season

As Hawking's long-suffering assistant dealt with a deluge of enquiries from journalists from around the world, she told me how the furore says more about the silly season than any change of mind. It also says much about how God is used to sell science to the public. The Higgs boson, labelled the "God particle" – a moniker that Peter Higgs himself finds embarrassing – springs to mind. And after all, The Times is serialising Hawking's book, which he wrote with Leonard Mlodinow.

In it, Hawking describes how M-theory, a candidate ultimate theory of everything, may offer answers to the question of creation. "According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe," Hawking writes. "Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god."

The universe arises from scientific processes, not God – as Hawking himself would have agreed decades ago.

source: newscientist.com

[PFgulalai]

I think many scientists belief in God. They know all this universe couldn't have been a mistake.

It varies with the discipline and region besides many other factors. Those who are social scientists have more religious affiliation.The people of natural sciences (chemistry,physics,biology) are more inclined to question God's existence at some point in their lives than social sciences.Here is what wikipedia says...

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."
In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.

[PFgulalai]

Gulalai since they believe in evolution and it goes against Religions does that make them agnostic? Or atheist?

The theory of evolution excludes the role of ANY supernatural being in the origin and survival of the species on the planet. Atheism is the absence of belief in any supernatural being.So it is tempting to assume that both overlap, but that is incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated by "scientific evidence".
Atheism,on the other hand, is just a personal preference of living under a "godless" blue sky due to the absence of "evidence". An atheist/agnostic atheist does not need to believe in the theory of evolution to question God's existence.In principle, evolution is not a prerequisite for atheism.In practice,however, rarely an atheist would disregard the theory of evolution.

[amna.]

Evolutionism hasn't been proven as a fact yet. Just because scientists have aknowledged it does not mean its the correct and proper way.

[khyaal]

The minute you admit that Evolutionism is correct, there goes your Religion. That is how I look at it. You cant believe in Religion and Evolutionism its a contradiction.

Some Muslim scholars believe that the story of the descent of Adam and Eve is metaphorical or symbolic and should not be taken literally. Adam and Eve were the first conscious human beings according to them.So believing in the theory of evolution according to them is not anti Islamic. But here Hawking talks about cosmic evolution and not human evolution.

[Roshina]

The minute you admit that Evolutionism is correct, there goes your Religion. That is how I look at it. You cant believe in Religion and Evolutionism its a contradiction.

How is it a contradiction, HandsomePashtun? And, while you're at it, also tell me what evolution means, or which evolution you're talking about.

[Palwasha]

Some Muslim scholars believe that the story of the descent of Adam and Eve is metaphorical or symbolic and should not be taken literally. Adam and Eve were the first conscious human beings according to them.So believing in the theory of evolution according to them is not anti Islamic. But here Hawking talks about cosmic evolution and not human evolution.

Some Muslim scholars say and do a lot of things. We go firstly by the Qur'an and the Prophet (SAW).

If there's any Quranic (or hadith) evidence stating evolution is not 'anti-Islamic,' or that the story is considered metaphorical, then I'd be intrigued to see it.

Adam and Eve is not at all metephorical in Islam, it's a part of the belief, which therefore means Islam isn't a adovate for Evolution - (the theory of descending from Apes.)

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[Roshina]

Some Muslim scholars say and do a lot of things. We go firstly by the Qur'an and the Prophet (SAW).

Is there any hadith or Quranic verse that says evolution is wrong?

If there's any Quranic (or hadith) evidence stating evolution is not 'anti-Islamic,' or that the story is considered metaphorical, then I'd be intrigued to see it..

Actually, there would be one that'd say it IS anti-Islamic, not that "it's not anti-Islamic," don't you think? I mean, you can't expect it to say that everything is or is not haraam/halaal. We're to seek for evidence that something is haraam, not halaal. No?

Adam and Eve is not at all metephorical in Islam,

What makes you say this? How should it not be metaphorical?

it's a part of the belief, which therefore means Islam isn't a adovate for Evolution - (the theory of descending from Apes.)

I see where the problem is. It's that humans evolved FROM apes. Wrong. This is not evolution. Time and time again, I ask anti-evolution Muslims to tell me what evolution is, and until this is clarified, we can't have a discussion -- and when they do say it, it's always that "Oh, evolution teaches that humans came from monkeys" because they don't understand what it means to have the same common ancestor, NOT to have come FROM something else.

[Palwasha]

Is there any hadith or Quranic verse that says evolution is wrong?

The first man on Earth was created, by God, from scratch – there was no evolving involved.

"Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: 'I will create a vicegerent on earth." (Quran, 2:34)"

Humans and animals were created from dust:"From the (earth) did We Create you, and into it Shall We return you, And from it shall We Bring you out once again." (Quran, 20:55)

However, if you’re talking about how humans have evolved over the years, then that’s a completely different issue.

Actually, there would be one that'd say it IS anti-Islamic, not that "it's not anti-Islamic," don't you think?

What do you mean?

I mean, you can't expect it to say that everything is or is not haraam/halaal. We're to seek for evidence that something is haraam, not halaal. No?

Well yes of course, it’d be impossible to list everything, and yes, we should.

What makes you say this? How should it not be metaphorical?

The story of Adam and Eve is also considered metaphorical by modern day Christians.

I say this since, Allah didn’t state He created them for a joke, (astahfrughAllah), the Qur’an clearly says states they *were* created, and they are our common ancestors.

How is it metaphorical? Please explain, I’m intrigued.

Because scientists produced a widely accepted theory, we are to fashion our beliefs in accordance to recent supposed findings? Before the theory was produced, I’m pretty sure there was less confusion.

I see where the problem is. It's that humans evolved FROM apes. Wrong. This is not evolution. Time and time again, I ask anti-evolution Muslims to tell me what evolution is, and until this is clarified, we can't have a discussion -- and when they do say it, it's always that "Oh, evolution teaches that humans came from monkeys" because they don't understand what it means to have the same common ancestor, NOT to have come FROM something else.

Well now, I ask you again, to define your concept of evolution. There is in fact a theory which states humans evolved from apes, but I do somewhat acknowledge that there are other concepts to evolution.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[Palwasha]

Palwasha,

The problem is that even if you believe that Adam and Eve literally existed, you still have to believe in evolution to account for the differences even within homosapeans.

Oh yes, I know. =)

(Though it's not a problem in the least.)

And when you accept that yes, creatures (whether bacteria or animals) are evolving, you have to start wondering from when.

Well, it started from Adam and Eve, according to us Muslims.

By the way, according to religion, Adam was 90 feet tall yet the earliest humans we find were not anywhere near that height. How do you reconcile with that? We've found dinosaurs that lived millions of years before humans yet we simply can't find any fossil evidence of giant humans.

Humans that height haven't been found since they have reduced with time.

"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs." (Quran, 31:10)

Beasts before mankind - dinosaurs can fit into that category.

I'm not a scientist nor a scholar, thus unsurprisingly, my answers aren't perfect, neither can I touch on all areas, (in depth).

p.s. My previous answers are adressing evolution in Islam, rather than creationism versus evolution.

[Dust]

Is there any hadith or Quranic verse that says evolution is wrong?

To be fair, this is very absurd. This statement can be considered as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps lack of knowledge. The term "evolution" is a modern term.

[Dust]

Well, it started from Adam and Eve, according to us Muslims.

I am curious to know where Eve is mentioned in the Quran.

[Roshina]

To be fair, this is very absurd. This statement can be considered as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps lack of knowledge. The term "evolution" is a modern term.

Exactly. So what would Islam say about it? What exactly would say it's wrong to? The argument from many Muslims is that Islam is against evolution. My question is, why is that and how do we know it's against evolution?

But at the same time, Dust, remember that while the term "evolution" may be modern, there's nothing that indicates that it didn't exist before humans came up with the term. No?

[Dust]

Yes, of course, that is not to say that it did not exist before humans came up with it. It must have existed for the term to be coined.

I agree with your point that Muslims shouldn't simply reject evolution without substantiating why they are against it. The only answer I can come up with is their lack of knowledge of their own scripture.

What I find fascinating is that the Quran describes the coming of life far different than how Muslims themselves portray it. From my study of the origins of life as per the Quran, it has many components. But then again who am I so say something about the Muslims' holy scripture. It is not without reason or wonder why the present condition of Muslim countries is the septic tank of societies: they lack courage to question and would rather be spoon fed.