An interesting thread came up in the comments section about Stephen Hawking:
Neil, I’m interested in reading your take on what you think of Stephen Hawking’s opinion on God? “Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story.”
I think Stephen Hawking’s comments are morbidly and eternally ironic. He’s the one crafting a fairy tale. He thinks the universe came into being from nothing and that an explosion was responsible for the spectacularly complex and fine-tuned universe he’s dedicated his life to trying to explain. He thinks life arose from non-life and evolved to all we see today. And he thinks that by crafting this fairy tale he can comfort himself that he won’t have to give an account of his life to his creator. He is a sad, sad man, and not because of his disability. I hope he repents and trust in Jesus before he dies. Eternity is a might long time, even for a really smart physicist.
Also, Hawking may be good at physics but he is lousy at philosophy and logic — examples here and here.
Then the commenter replied with this:
Neil, you criticize Stephen Hawking for claiming the universe came into being from nothing. Please explain how your God came into being.
God is eternally existent, so it is illogical to ask how an eternally existent being came into being. Please see the Kalaam Cosmological argument. It is a perfectly logical and coherent explanation for a “first cause.”
Then he asked this interesting question:
Do you sometimes wish Stephen Hawking’s mother had had an abortion while she was pregnant with him?
Of course I’m glad Hawking’s mother didn’t have an abortion. I wouldn’t wish an abortion on any of my ideological enemies. Why would you ask that question? Do you wish that the mothers of your ideological enemies had killed them? Do you wish they would be killed now that they are outside of the womb?
Sadly, the pro-legalized abortionists cheer when disabilities are discovered in utero so that the (potentially) disabled people can be killed in the womb (see former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders’ comments about how Down Syndrome cases were “reduced.”). But we don’t kill disabled people outside the womb (yet). We rightfully give them parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, Special Olympics, etc.
Over 90% of people would have killed Hawking, just like over 90% kill those with Down Syndrome. Would you have wanted to abort Hawking if you knew about his physical issues? I wouldn’t have.
What would you have recommended to Hawking’s mother if his physical problems would have been discovered in utero — whether or not you knew that he would become a famous physicist? I’d vote for life in either case.
It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception. Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.
Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.
16 thoughts on “Would you have killed Stephen Hawking?”
I’d let the baby be born and let God decide whether the baby should survive with such defects. It isn’t our place to decide such things.
Nice satire… this is satire, right? No one is this ignorant, right?
Sadly, many people are this ignorant. Or, more accurately, many people are this morally bankrupt. They often have relatively high IQs, but they think it is morally permissible to destroy innocent human beings for any and all reasons — Down Syndrome, cleft palate, economic issues, career issues, just plain-old-unwanted, etc.
Those were real comments and the commenter speaks as many do.
Consider that 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted. How sick is that? Why not just kill them all outside the womb as well?
I don’t think it is. I wouldn’t have chosen to get an abortion as it is a physical defect, not a mental one. Back to the point:
-1st of your replies-
First Cause Argument, also known as the Cosmological Argument. Who created god? Why is it your god?.
-Carl Sagan on the topic.
-BBC Horizon – What happened before the big bang?
And of course it seems fine tuned to us, we evolved in it. We cannot prove that some other form of life is or isn’t feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory. Also, the Copernican Principle.
The Teleological argument is non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god (especially YOUR particular God that you happened to have been brought up into). See BBC Horizon – The Secret Life of Chaos for an introduction to how complexity and order arise naturally.
Wow, I hope your kids don’t get brain injuries after being born — or that you don’t discover their defects until then. Would you kill them outside the womb?
If you ask that question, you don’t understand the argument.
It is a two step process, as I have noted elsewhere. The cosmological argument (and many others) point to God, then we examine other evidence to see if the real God revealed himself to us. He did, in Christianity.
Carl Sagan was lousy at logic and philosophy — even his catch phrase was an embarrassment — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/carl-sagans-catch-phrase-bad-philosophy-not-science/ .
That is a complete non sequitur. If we evolved as Darwinian philosophy says, then natural selection was done based on survivability, not on the ability to discern truth. It seems fine-tuned because it is fine-tuned, by any measure. You should read Antony Flew’s “There is a God.”
I never made those claims. I have never seen evidence for that type of life, either.
Massive amounts of highly ordered information do imply design. That is an intuitive concept that you live out all day, every day. You should read Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell.”
That’s ironic. Nothing personal, but it appears you have been raised in a secular echo chamber and are unfamiliar with the most basic arguments against your worldview. I mean, anyone saying “but who created God” in response to the cosmological argument could not have even read the brief argument.
The worldview I was brought up into was indeed Christian parents and a Christian church, neither of which offered any facts or logic for their views. Not that there weren’t facts, just that they didn’t have them or didn’t bother to offer them. I rejected the whole thing.
My education was completely secular, including rabidly pro-Darwin science teachers. I dismissed the whole thing growing up, and that conveniently left me to do as I wished, morally speaking. In my later 20’s I came across massive amounts of evidence and logic for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.
I encourage you to keep an open mind. Eternity is a mighty long time to be wrong.
Wow, you are right! Believe it or not, those two comments that just appeared with my name by them came from nothing, without a cause and without design. I didn’t type them. I guess if you have an infinite number of universes, there is bound to be one where you write a comment on a blog and then answers just like mine appear from nothing.
I realize that the odds of them appearing in (generally) complete, properly punctuated sentences are absolutely staggering — although the tiniest fraction as likely as a protein molecule self-organizing — but you’ll just have to take it on faith.
What is this ‘evidence’ you speak of? I am interested to see what made you change your mind. Also, I regret what I said about abortion. If it is conscious and self-aware, it is a human being.
You can visit any of the apologetics blogs to the right. Start with Stand to Reason or Please Convince Me. I’d write more myself, you’d have to convince me first that you are a sincere seeker — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/advice-for-real-skeptics-and-authentic-seekers/ . Ironically enough, right now I’m a little skeptical of you. Prove me wrong!
Please tell me you aren’t one of those anti-science types who lets his personal philosophy trump the facts. I hope this is just a case of a misinformed person who is seeking the truth. Because any mainstream embryology textbook (and even a bunch of pro-aborts) will tell you that a new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e . I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. If it’s not a human being, she’s not pregnant.
I am curious especially since you are calling the worlds most intelligent men and the majority of scientists illogical, and this must be some pretty secret and amazing evidence if to not be understoof by them.
The majority of people were born into a religion whether they became Atheist or not, so it’s not a safe assumption to make that I wasn’t either.
You are tipping your hand. The evidence isn’t secret, it has been around for millenia. You should study the Bible in detail to better understand what you are trying to critique. And yes, the evidence was amazing: A man was crucified and rose again.
People can be logical on some topics and completely illogical on others. High IQ people do and say stupid things all the time. My guess is that you are well educated, yet you didn’t know that the unborn were human beings — a rather basic fact of science and something that should be transparently obvious (what else would two human beings create?).
“Professing to be wise, they became fools….” Intellect doesn’t mean truth-seeking.
I was born into a non-religious family, but research led me to conclude the Christian faith is true. Everyone has the chance to study for themselves, and the evidence for God is everywhere around you.
Once on my blog, I once pointed out that I was very passionate about two subjects, Homosexuality and abortion. One commenter snidely asked, “If you knew a child would be born homosexual before it was born, would you elect to abort it?”
That is a stupid question because it could never happen since no one is born a homosexual, however, if I somehow knew my child would someday decide to be a homosexual, I still would not abort him. Since homosexuals choose to be homosexual, they can likewise choose to return to heterosexuality. Taking a child’s life while still in the womb robs him of that choice.
Good for you, Mark. Great reply. I love when they ask questions like that. They think they are tripping us up, pitting abortion vs. homosexuality. The truth is that most pro-“same-sex marriage” heteros would abort their potentially gay kids just like they abort their Down Syndrome kids. They are the inconsistent ones. We choose life. We don’t propose capital punishment for a sin someone might commit. We just tell them they are violating God’s law and that they should repent and believe.
A while ago, one of your long-time commenters snarked that the logic behind killing babies conceived to young parents, or babies with genetic abnormalities or physical disabilities, would apply to Stephen Hawking. I think this lady’s line was, “Killing Stephen Hawking – it’s science!”
Funny to see that rearing its head again.
For the record, pro-lifers don’t think that babies should be killed if they are gay, disabled, mentally impaired, liberal (but I repeat myself), black, mixed-race, or anything. Our sole criteria for determining whether or not someone has the right to life, that others should respect, is being a member of the human race. Homo sapiens? Right to life. It’s unconditional – and abortion is, in so many ways, a sign that those advocating for it are only capable of the most conditional of loves. Their questions about aborting gay babies are just projecting onto us their own limitations.
Wow, we have a winner for the coveted COW (Comment Of the Week) and it is only Tuesday morning!
Awww, thank you!