Hawking and "Atheism"?

Probing into the so-called "atheistic" mindset of Professor Hawking

This superficial but ancient natural fact has never been hidden from the observatory sight of all humans but laymen that three questions constitute the summary of the history of the mankind in its entirety i.e. (I) Where do we come from? (II) What is our purpose? (III) What happens when we die? One can confidently claim without even a shred of threat of opposition that the struggles of human race in the fields of survival, civilization, science, philosophy, government, religions etc. have always been directed - both intentionally and instinctively - towards the solution of these mysteries and unmasking of these secrets which differentiate us from the common animals and insects; these non-human living organisms spend their lives in pursuit of mere natural desires while we humans have a higher purpose, allegedly, due to which we tend to think and create. These abilities of our nation forbid us from assuming that we were never granted these powers rather stumbled upon them accidentally after a mere coincidental gathering of a select number of amino acids.

Scientists have also consumed their intellect in order to find the perfect answer to the questions relating to human pre-history and their hypothetical future. From the beginnings of natural philosophy, there have been different opinions about the alleged creator of the universe. These "divine" issues separate the subjects of science and religion. From a religious point of view, people have always adhered to multiple variations of a God or several deities whom they have venerated and worshiped as their creators and benefactors. Some call themselves monotheists for they believe in the possibility of the existence of only a single deity who is universally accepted as the God. Others are labelled as polytheists for they are faithful to many gods and goddesses. Pantheism refers to polytheism in which animated objects are made centers of adoration. Satanists prefer ungodly presences over the holy ones. Then we have our very own dear atheists who totally reject the notion of a God's existence as preposterous, nonsensical, unscientific and utterly backwards; they often compare theism (belief in God) to the ancient geocentric model and other stupid doctrines and practices our ancestors so shamefully adhered to.



But we are not concerned with the notions of laymen here in this article. What we intend to discuss are the leanings of scientists and philosophers on this sensitive and significant topic. We need to find out what the learned men think of God, the men who have dedicated their lives to understand the ways of nature. We have scientists who believe in God. A lot of Jewish, Hindu and Muslims scientists and philosophers were staunch believers yet there were also people who had ditched faith for facts. Averroes was a famous Spanish and Rhazes was a celebrated Persian polymath; former was also a Muslim jurist (and had written a book on Maliki shari'ah) while latter was notorious for his disrespectful remarks about the Qur'an. After the Enlightenment, Christians began to questions to truth of Bible more deeply and science led them towards more convincing hypotheses regarding the origins of man. Dissatisfaction with Christian morality commenced with Galileo and Bacon's rejections of Christianity-labelled unscientific ideas so they spoke against superstition, not the religion.

Atheism - a trait very much detested in the current American society (as a remnant of their past) - has also been shunned by great scientific minds. We see that Albert Einstein hesitated from labeling himself as an atheist because of his Jewish heritage and his belief that God doesn't play dice with the universe. We see that Neil deGrasse Tyson has shown his opposition to the label "atheist" and prefers to be known as an agnostic. It reminds of Dr. Hofstadter from The Big Bang Theory who, unlike his openly atheist wife, calls himself an agnostic. Even in Muslim culture we see that people don't often leave their faith (just like the case with Judaism and Hinduism) after becoming obsessed with pure mathematics. We see that the majority of Muslim scientists was firm in its belief. But still it is usually believed that most of the scientists living today, belonging to a variance of races and faiths, have renounced spirituality in favor of atheism. One of the brightest example of this "infidelity" (if you catch my Islamic drift) is Professor Hawking (God bless his soul).

Recently deceased English astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (1942-2018) gained deep respect not only of the scientific community but of all the people around the world after he acquired and defeated ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, disproving his doctor's prediction that Hawking can't live long. He became undoubtedly one of the most famous physicist minds of the late twentieth century by his study of the universe (as a layman can understand). His main area of research were the black holes. His book A Brief History of Time has become one of the bestsellers. But, as famous he is as a scientist, the same amount of controversy he gave rise to because of his rude atheism. He never hesitated when asked about his belief in God; he rejected it completely.

Then why do I believe that Hawing was not atheist. The answer is here. For now I can only quote Imam Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq who remarked about the foolishness of atheism in his famous lecture:

If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.

And in case an infant was born with mature intellect, he would have been bewildered in this world so strange to his, in an unrecognizable environment abounding with animals and birds of varied forms all around, which would be focused to his vision every moment of the day.

Consider it in the manner of a man migrating to another country from the prison of one country. If he has a perfect intellect, you will see him perplexed and astounded. he can neither learn the foreign language soon enough, nor acquire the etiquette and decorum of the place. On the other hand, one who is taken as a prisoner to a strange land in his early days when his intellect is immature, will soon learn the language, etiquette and manners of the place.

Similarly, if a child had been born with mature intellect, he would have been astounded on opening his eyes and seeing such varied assortment, different kinds of forms, and distinctive imagery of unity and disunity. For a long time, he would not have understood as to whence he had come and where he had arrived and whether all that he was seeing was a dream.

Then, if he had been born of mature intellect, he would have felt disgusted and degraded on finding himself being carried about in the lap, being fed with milk, being wrapped up in bandages(the manner of the Arabs) and being laid in the cradle - all these proceedings being necessary for the infants because of their soft and delicate bodies.

There would not have been, if they had been born with a mature intellect, this sweetness, nor that sweetness, nor the considerations for the infants in the minds of the adults which springs generally from fondling the untutored children because of' their artlessness creating a particular attention for them. As such he is born in this world without an understanding for anything, quite unaware of the world and what lies therein. He views all these things with his underdeveloped brain and inadequate understanding, and so does not feel perplexed.

His intellect and understandings by degrees, slowly from time to time, little by little develop, so as to introduce him gradually to the things around and to accustom his brain accordingly in order to habituate him thereto without further need for curiosity and wonderment, thus enabling him to seek his sustenance serenely with understanding and planning, to bend his efforts thereto and to learn the lessons of obedience, error and disobedience.

And behold! There are other aspects of the matter. If the infant had been born mature intellect with an understanding of his functions, there would have been few occasions for the sweetness felt in the nature of the offspring, and the exigency, under which the parents find a full time pre-occupation with the affairs of the young ones, would not have arisen.

Love and affection, felt for ordinary children, following the inconvenience undergone for their sake, would not subsist between the parents and their offspring. Because of their mature intellect, the children would not have needed parental care. A separation would have taken place just after birth of the infant from its parents. Even a mother or a sister would have been strangers to him and as such within wedlock limits.

Don't you see that everything big or small has been created on a flawless plan without fault or error?

 (Mufaddil's Monotheistic Thesis)

In the end, I just want to say that our physicists don't find this stupid that an alien species brought life on this planet or that we all live inside a hologram. But they find the notion of God's existence beyond logic. That is hypocrisy!