Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'

Mr. Hawking is obviously a brilliance we've been privileged to learn from, but in this particular instance the wisdom of Freeman Dyson immediately struck me as more sound:<p>"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."

&#62;"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason." Hawking is wrong when he says "Religion is based on authority". At the base/root of all/most religions, is an inquiry into truth. Today, religion has become authority, but that is not the true meaning.<p>Both science and religion inquire into the true nature of things. It seems science is only concerned with physical things, matter and energy, whereas the root of religion goes a step prior to that, to what even observes/experiences this.

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature."<p>I don't understand this sentence. Does he mean "<i>We</i> could define God as the embodiment of the laws of nature."<p>"When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."<p>Here something got lost in the transcription. It should be "... how insignificant <i>and</i> accidental human life is..."<p>"Science will win because it works."<p>I think science and religion are two different domains; they don't deal with the same questions. Only academic physicists are still fighting this 18th century war.

Dunning Kruger is a fundamental flaw in the functioning of our hardware/software, and is all religion needs to survive indefinitely, IMHO... but here's to hoping.