Stephen Hawking, a brilliant and exemplary British scientist, faces with great fortitude a disease which has virtually immobilized him in a wheelchair. He has said that: "modern physics excludes the possibility that God created the universe."
I don't know how it will be expressed in English or if the translation will be correct, but a legion of atheists has been released as a herd of Huns on booty:" God does not exist, it is evidenced by the Science; Hawking affirm it."
The temptation to put God in a laboratory and study, measure, weigh him, etc. is very large, and in it have already fallen other scientists from Descartes. This is a futile task. God does not fit into any site because he is everything. You can't judge God with scientific methods because science is so poor and human that does not take on him.
Believing in God is obviously matter of faith. I believe in God, the creator of all things, infinitely good, that help me and is with me. Great saints spoke and speak with God constantly and listen him because God "speaks"; we only need to have an open heart. I am more humble than them and I hope that at the end of my life, as the good Father that comes out to the road to wait for his prodigal son; God take me to heaven. Faith comforts me, helps me to live in good and bad. But I do not want to impose this faith. Faith has to be a personal acceptance; otherwise, it does not serve and can only be take in total personal liberty. I believe and understand that there are atheists. There are serious reasons to believe in God but there are also serious reasons not to believe in him. These are few but they are. Pope Benedict XVI asked God in the concentration camp of Auschwitz: "Where were you when all this happened? What was God in Auschwitz? Was God in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was he in Haiti? What does God against evil? If we only see the negative side denies God. Ultimately there have been conversions of large atheists who have proclaimed their faith with the illusion of convert: André Frossard, Garcia Morente; and also believer people who has lost faith as Unamuno, after the death of his son.
Regarding Hawking and his conclusions, it is strange that a bright person get oneself into a real mess. For example, he argues that the Big Bang theory was the result of the laws of physics. These laws exist before the Big Bang, who has marked them? Was the own matter? Is the own matter intelligent? Isn't it more credible the existence of a Supreme Being who dictates laws and creates the matter than an own matter who dictates to itself laws even before existing? There are a lot of questions. Isaac Newton who occupied the same chair of hawking centuries ago and was the most important physical of history didn't see it as hawking: "The universe can not emerge from the chaos only with the laws of nature." eternal questions that have no easy answer. Do you remember this? Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?
What I find most disturbing is not that people believe or do not believe in God but any nonbeliever tries that I do not believe in God. But not by a dictatorship of the intelligence, but by a subtle perverse logic: "If believe in God does not make sense since it is denied by science, you can not claim any religious motive for example in the development of human laws such as the research with stem cells from embryos.
I say this because after hawking statements some atheists have started to celebrate it with high revelry. One of them is Richard Dawkins, promoter of the "atheist Bus Campaign". He sent a message:" Probably God does not exist, so you stop worrying and enjoy life."
This man is an atheist disseminator who denies the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. He not only seeks to deny God but he wants followers, he wants all the world denies him. There is an interview of June 2, 2009 that could be read in EL MUNDO and due to the hawking statements can be reread. Here the interviewer is much brighter than Dawkins and attacked him fiercely revealing too many flanks. We do not read atheists statements constantly, but every once in a while It is convenient to reaffirm own faith as it is my case.
First Dawkins launches several pearls:
"After Darwin, the hypothesis of a superior being who has designed the world ceases to be maintained" and I say: living beings follow the law of evolution that is a natural law. But who determined that law? Could it not be a supreme being?
"If we believe in God must do for other reasons but not because you need to explain the world, but for other reasons." This is something incomprehensible! So will matter go on the one hand and God on the other? God is not omnipotent if the matter dictates its own laws; he is only a mere spectator. Oh god! There would be two Gods; one who see what you do and the matter that makes its own laws and creates itself. I can't believe in that God. I can say that this God does not exist. If God can not change the laws of nature to act, as occurs in miracles, I do not want him.
"Religion is a by-product of various psychological predispositions of the human being". This is a secondary invention of man done at last minute. If something characterizes the human being is the religion. Despite Dawkins, a huge proportion of the world's population is religious. From the painters of the caves of Altamira, man has sought the divinity, first the forces of nature were gods, then gods had human appearance, finally it was the Supreme Being who created all things. It is a constant search:" Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? Is there anything beyond death? What is the sense of my life? According Dawkins these are secondary psychological predispositions of the human being.
When the interviewer attacks him with questions, the real Dawkins comes out For example he asks him: "Why is it hard to get rid of religion." “Because of ignorance”, he answers quickly. The interviewer sees the opportunity and does not forgive:" There are believers who are philosophers, mathematicians and biologists"; he argues. Dawkins says something silly: "it is because Christian scientists have an infantile indoctrination. They are not able to shake off it". Pure ideological fascism: I'm right and other people are stupid because they do not think like me. Dawkins is disarmed in his argument. Interviewer 1 Dawkins 0.
The attack is total. The next question disarms him: "Are equal great religions to sorcerers of African tribes?” "It is exactly the same thing"; he replied without thinking. "There is no evidence that what they believe exists then they have the same degree of respect. Zero"; he concludes. He put himself into dire straits. Christian thought has developed the western civilization and its values, such as human rights among others, making it equal to the spells of a sorcerer of the tribe says very little. Interviewer 2 Dawkins 0
After a series of atheists clichés so hackneyed as little sound:
• Indoctrination in Christian schools, like the Hitler Youth,
• Intolerance of believers, etc.
The interviewer suggest him that there have been believers that have made the world better and mentioned Desmond Tutu and the Mother Teresa of Calcutta, but Dawkins says: "The Mother Teresa of Calcutta was an evil woman, she did not care the suffering of the people, she just wanted to convert them". Without comments, the answer disqualifies him totally. Interviewer 5 Dawkins 0 at least.
Dawkins continues downhill:" in the religion there is a seed that leads the human being to do terrible things. Look at the September 11 terrorists. It is impossible to find something like that on atheism." "Hitler and Stalin were atheists"; the interviewer replies. Interviewer 7 Dawkins 0. Dawkins felt trapped and goes off at a tangent.
Then totalitarian ravings come:" I would like to make a campaign against the indoctrination in Catholic colleges." "According to you parents have no rights to educate their children according to their beliefs"; the interviewer has put him between a rock and a hard place. Dawkins regrets what he said before: "I did not say that". There are no longer figures in the marker; you can put whatever you want. Interviewer 14 Dawkins 0.
The final boom is serious: "Does your daughter is atheistic?” "Yes she does but you do not care." “Are you educated her on atheism?" "You don't care", he is still on the defensive. "People want to know if you has indoctrinated her or not," the interviewer argues very well, wanting to know if he is in accordance with his ideas or not. Then Dawkins account a tall story:" I wrote her a letter when she was 10 years old and I encouraged her to think for herself". Do you know a father to write a letter to her ten- years-old daughter who apparently coexists and encouraged her to think for herself? I do not know someone like that, I think it’s crazy.
The interviewer ends by proposing a slogan: "Mr. Dawkins. God probably does not exist, so stop worrying and enjoy life". Then Dawkins makes a statement that does not improve San Bernardo proclaiming the First Crusade:" While religious indoctrination interferes in the knowledge of scientific truth, I'll fight it. You can be sure."
With "atheist crusaders" like this, there is no doubt that they will be able to have the reason of the force, but never the force of reason.
(Independent Forum of Opinion)