What Stephen Hawking really thought about God. What Stephen Hawking Really Wrote About God in His New Book

Arthur Charles Clarke: Professor Hawking, in the very last paragraph of your book, you said that if we discover a complete theory of the Universe, then over time it should become accessible and understandable to everyone, and not just a handful of scientists. And when this happens, we can all begin to discuss not the question of “how”, but the question of “why”. And the quote: “If we find this answer, it will be the highest victory of the human mind, because then we will read the mind of God.” Do you think that God can interfere in the affairs of the universe as he pleases, or is he also bound by the laws of science?

Stephen Hawking: The question “is God bound by the laws of science” is reminiscent of the question “can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it.” I think it is inappropriate to speculate about what God can and cannot do. It is better to study what exactly it does to the Universe in which we live. All our observations indicate that he operates within the framework of clearly defined laws. Perhaps these laws are prescribed by God, but one way or another he does not interfere with the structure of the Universe in order to break them, at least since the existence of the Universe. However, until recently it was believed that at the point of the beginning of the Universe the laws would certainly be violated. This would mean that God had unlimited freedom in exactly how to create the universe.

For recent years we realized, however, that laws can be true even at the beginning of time. In that case, he had no freedom. Exactly how the universe began was predetermined by the laws of science.

Arthur Charles Clarke: Carl Sagan, you commented on this in the introduction to the book. You said that, among other things, this book is about God, or perhaps the absence of God, because Hawking left the creator without a job. Of course, God means very different things to different people. What kind of god are we talking about when we talk about reading God's thoughts?

Carl Sagan: I think this is a great question. And I'm very interested to hear Stephen Hawking's answer. But just to highlight the range of possibilities, imagine two options. The first is the concept, common in the West, that God is a huge old man with a long white beard, sitting on a throne in the sky and watching the flight of every swallow. Contrast this with the idea of God, according to the views of, say, Spinoza or Einstein, which in meaning is very close to the totality of all the laws of the Universe. It would be foolish to deny that there is a set of definite physical laws in the Universe. And if this is what you mean by God, then without a doubt he exists. But this is a god far from business, what the French call roi fagnond - a useless king. If we take the model where he intervenes every day, as Dr. Hawking said, there is no evidence of this.

In my personal opinion, it is better to show modesty in such matters. We must realize that we are dealing, by definition, with the most difficult things to understand because they are the furthest from human experience. And perhaps we can delve a little deeper into these mysteries.

Stephen Hawking: I use the concept of "god" in the same sense as Einstein, as the reason why the universe exists the way it does, and why the universe exists at all.

Arthur Charles Clarke: Because, as I understand it, at the dawn of civilization, the priests were precisely those whom we now call scientists. Those who knew astronomy and could predict the eclipse and everything else. Can scientists once again assume an almost sacred position, or am I exaggerating?

Carl Sagan: I hope you're exaggerating. In my opinion, the basis scientific method- this is the willingness to admit that you are wrong, the willingness to abandon an idea that does not work. But the basis of religion is not to change anything, that the so-called truths are communicated to you by some revered figure. And no one should make any progress, because the truth is already known. I believe that the scientific way of thinking and doubting is a subtle combination of supporting new ideas and the most careful and skeptical examination of old and new ideas. I think this is the way to the future, not only for science, but for all humanity. We must be willing to challenge because we are desperate for change.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” Albert Einstein.

Carl Sagan: We are desperate for change.

Arthur Charles Clarke: Politics and religion are outdated, the time has come for science and spirituality.

Stephen Hawking: I don't think physics teaches us how to treat others, but physics can determine who those people are and what planets they live on.

Articles and books with a look at myths and legends, rituals and traditions of religions through the prism of biology, medicine, physiology, anthropology, paleontology.

Why? Questions of the Universe.
Is there a Creator?

Stephen Hawking

Unfortunately, the video has been removed from the public domain.

Hello, I'm Stephen Hawking. I am a physicist, cosmologist and a bit of a dreamer. And although I cannot move and have to talk through a computer, I am free to think. I am free to seek answers to the most difficult questions about our Universe. The most mysterious of them is whether there is a God who created the Universe and controls it. Did He create the stars, the planets, me and you? To find out, we will have to turn to the laws of nature. In them, I am sure, lies the solution to this age-old mystery of the creation and structure of the Universe. Shall we check?

Why? Questions of the universe. Is there a Creator?

My book was recently published, which raised the question of the creation of the Universe by God. She caused some excitement in society. People were offended by a scientist who decided to speak out about religion. I don't want to tell anyone what to believe. But for me the question of the existence of God has the right to be considered within the framework scientific research. And, in addition, the question of the creation and management of the Universe is fundamental.

For many centuries there was always one answer to this question: God created everything. The world was a sacred place, and even harsh people like the Vikings believed in supernatural creatures. This is how they explained natural phenomena. For example, lightning and storms. The Vikings had many gods. Thor was the God of Lightning. Aegir could send a storm to the sea. But most of all they were afraid of Skol. He could cause such a terrifying natural phenomenon as solar eclipse. Skol was a wolf god and lived in the sky. Sometimes he ate the Sun, and on this scary moment day became night.
Imagine how eerie it is to see the Sun disappear without scientific explanation. The Vikings found an explanation that seemed reasonable to them. And they tried to scare and drive away the wolf. The Vikings believed that as a result of their actions the Sun was returning. We understand that the Vikings could not influence the eclipse in any way. The sun would have returned anyway. It turns out that the Universe is not as mysterious and supernatural as it seems. But to find out the truth, we will need even more courage than the Vikings had. Mere mortals like you and me can understand how the Universe works.
And people came to this conclusion long before the appearance of the Vikings, back in Ancient Greece. Around 300 BC, Aristarchus was also fascinated by eclipses, especially lunar ones. And he dared to ask the question: were they really called by the Gods?
Aristarchus was a true pioneer in science. He began studying the sky and came to a bold conclusion. He found out that an eclipse is actually the shadow of the Earth as it passes by the Moon, and not a divine phenomenon at all. After this discovery, he was able to study what was above his head and draw diagrams that reflected true relationship between the Sun, Earth and Moon.
So he came to even more important conclusions. He established that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, as was believed at that time. On the contrary, it revolves around the Sun. Understanding this pattern explains all eclipses. When the Moon's shadow falls on Earth, it is a solar eclipse. And when the Earth covers the Moon, it lunar eclipse. But Aristarchus went even further and suggested that in fact the stars are not holes in the floor of the heavens, as his contemporaries believed, but other Suns. The same as ours, only very, very far away. It must have been a stunning discovery: the universe is a machine governed by laws that man can easily understand.
I believe that the discovery of these laws is the greatest achievement of mankind. And these Laws of Nature, as we now call them, will tell us whether we need God to explain the structure of the Universe or not.

Why? Questions of the Universe.

For centuries it was believed that people like me, that is, people with disabilities, cursed by God. I think that I will upset someone now, but personally I think that everything can be explained differently. Namely, the Laws of Nature. So what are the Laws of Nature, and are they so powerful?
I'll show you using the example of tennis. There are two laws in tennis. The first is established by man - these are the rules of the game. They describe the size of the court, the height of the net and the conditions under which a ball counts or does not count. Perhaps these rules will someday change if the head of the Tennis Association wants it. But other laws that apply to the game of tennis are immutable and constant. They determine what happens to the ball after it is hit.
The force and angle of the racket impact determine what happens next. The Laws of Nature describe the behavior of an object in the past, present and future. In tennis, the ball always goes where the law tells it to go. And there are many other laws at work here. They establish the order of everything that happens. From the energy produced in the player's muscles to the speed at which the grass grows under his feet. But the most important thing is that these laws of physics are not just immutable, they are universal.
They apply not only to the flight of the ball, but also to the movement of the planet, and to everything else in the Universe. Unlike human laws, the laws of physics cannot be broken. And that's why they are so powerful. And if you look at them from a religious point of view, they are also controversial. They can be brought up for discussion. For discussion. If you, like me, accept the immutability of the Laws of Nature, then you will immediately ask: what is the role of God in it? This is the biggest part of the confrontation between science and religion. And while my views have recently made headlines, this is actually a very ancient conflict.

In 1277, Pope John XXI was so frightened by the idea of the existence of Natural Laws that he declared them heresy. Unfortunately, there was nothing he could do to stop gravity. A few months later, the roof of the palace collapsed on the Pope's head.

But religion soon found a solution to this problem. For the next few hundred years, it was believed that the Laws of Nature were nothing more than the work of God. And God could break them if he wanted. These views were reinforced by the belief that our beautiful blue planet was the center of the Universe, and the stars, the Sun and the planets revolved around it like a precise clockwork. Aristarchus' ideas were forgotten for a long time. But man is inquisitive by nature. And Galileo Galilei, for example, could not resist looking at the clock mechanism created by God again. This was in 1609. And then the results of his research changed everything.
Galileo is considered the founder modern science. He is one of my heroes. He, like me, believed that if you look closely at the Universe, you can see what is really happening. Galileo wanted this so badly that he invented lenses that, for the first time, could magnify the view starry sky 20 times. After some time, he made a telescope out of them.
From his home in Pandua, using the Galileo telescope, he studied Jupiter night after night and made an amazing discovery. He saw three tiny dots next to the giant planet. At first he decided that the dots were very dim stars. But after watching them for several nights, he saw that they were moving. And then the fourth point appeared. Sometimes some points disappeared behind Jupiter and later appeared again. Galileo realized that they, like the moon, revolved around a giant planet. This was proof that at least some celestial bodies do not revolve around the Earth. Inspired by this discovery, Galileo decided to prove that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and that Aristarchus was right.
Galileo's discoveries sparked revolutionary thoughts that subsequently weakened the power of religion over science. However, in the 17th century, Galileo received only serious problems with the church. He escaped execution by admitting his views were heresy, and was sentenced to house arrest for the remaining nine years of his life.
According to legend, despite the fact that Galileo admitted his sin, after his renunciation he whispered: “And yet she turns.” Over the next three centuries, many other Laws of Nature were discovered. And science began to explain the most various phenomena: from lightning, earthquakes, storms to why the stars glow. Each new discovery pushed the role of God further and further. Still, if you know that science explains a solar eclipse, then you are unlikely to believe in wolf gods living in the sky. Science does not deny religion, it simply offers an alternative. But mysteries still remain. Even if the earth is spinning, can God be the cause? And could God create the Universe?

Why? Questions of the Universe.

In 1985 I attended a conference on cosmology in the Vatican. Pope John Paul II was present at the meeting of scientists. He stated that there is nothing wrong in studying the structure of the Universe, but we should not wonder about its origin, since it was the work of God.
I'm glad I didn't take his advice. I can't just turn off my curiosity. I believe that it is the duty of a cosmologist to try to find out the origin of the Universe. And, fortunately, it is not as difficult as it seems. Despite the complexity of the device and the diversity of the Universe, it turns out that to get what you need, you only need three ingredients. Imagine that we could list them in some kind of Cosmic cookbook. So, what are these three ingredients that can be used to make the Universe?

To build the Universe, we need:

First, we need matter, some substance with mass. Matter surrounds us, it is under our feet. And in space. These are dust, stones, ice, liquid, gas vapors and constellations - billions of stars located at unimaginable distances from each other.

Secondly, you will need energy. Even though we never think about it, we all know what energy is. This is what we face every day. Look at the Sun and we will feel it on our face. This is the energy produced by a star located 150 million kilometers from us. Energy permeates the Universe. It controls the processes that make the Universe a dynamic, endlessly changing place.

So we have matter and we have energy. The third ingredient for creating the Universe is space. Lots of space. You can choose many epithets for the Universe: delightful, beautiful, cruel. But you can't call it cramped. Everywhere you look there is lots and lots and lots of space, in every direction. There's a lot to see.

To build the Universe, you will need...

Where did matter, energy and space come from in this case? No one knew this before the 20th century. One person gave us the answer. Probably the most outstanding of all who have ever lived on Earth. His name was Albert Einstein. Unfortunately, I will never be able to meet him. Because I was 13 years old when he died. Einstein came to an amazing conclusion. He found out that the two main ingredients for cooking the Universe - matter and energy - are essentially the same thing. Two sides of the same coin, if you will. His famous equation "E=mc 2" means that mass can be considered a form of energy and vice versa. Therefore, we can now say that the Universe consists not of three components, but of two: energy and space.

So, how were energy and space formed? After several decades of hard work, scientists found the answer to this question. Energy and space were created as a result of the so-called Big Bang. At the moment of the Big Bang, the Universe was formed, full of energy and space. But where did they come from? How could the Universe, free space, energy, and celestial bodies come out of nothing?
For some, God comes into play at this point. People believe that it was God who created energy and space. Big bang was the moment of creation. But science tells a completely different story. At the risk of getting yourself into trouble. I think we can learn a lot more about natural phenomenon, which so frightened the Vikings. We may understand even more about matter and energy than Einstein. We can use the Laws of Nature that governed the formation of the Universe and try to find out whether the existence of God is really the only way to explain the Big Bang.

I grew up in England in the post-war period, and it was a harsh period. We were taught that you can't get anything for nothing. But now, having spent my whole life studying this issue, I think that you can get the entire Universe just like that. Main mystery The Big Bang - how did an incredibly huge Universe, full of energy and space, materialize out of nothing? The answer lies in the strangest fact about our Cosmos. According to the laws of physics, there is so-called negative energy.

To introduce you to this strange but critically important phenomenon, let me give you a simple analogy. Imagine that someone wants to build a hill on a flat landscape. Hill means the Universe. So, to build this hill, a person digs a hole and uses this earth. But he not only makes a hill, he also makes a hole. A hole is a negative version of a hill. What was in the hole has now become a hill, so the balance is completely preserved. Our Universe was built on this principle. When, as a result of the Big Bang, a huge amount of positive energy was formed, at the same time, absolutely the same amount of negative energy was formed. The amount of positive and negative energy is always equal, this is another law of physics. So where is all the negative energy today? It is in the third ingredient from our Cosmic Cookbook, that is, in space. This may sound unusual, but according to the laws of physics, taking into account gravity and movement, the oldest of known to man laws, space is a repository of negative energy. And there is enough space in it for this equation to come together.

I must note that even if mathematics is your strong point, it is difficult to comprehend. But, nevertheless, it is so. An endless web of billions and billions of galaxies that are attracted to each other thanks to universal gravity, this web functions as a giant storage facility. The universe is a battery in which negative energy accumulates. Positive side things - matter and energy that we see today - are like that hill. And the negative side, or the hole that corresponds to it, is space.

And what does this mean for our study of the question of God? And, if it turns out that the Universe came from nothing, then God could not have created it. The universe is the ultimate, ultimate and perfect free lunch. Why?

Why? Questions of the Universe.

So now we know that negative plus positive equals zero. All that remains for us to do is to dare to find out what started this process. What caused the sudden appearance of the Universe? At first glance, this question seems very difficult. In our everyday life things don't just appear out of thin air. You can't snap your fingers and make a cup of coffee appear whenever you want, right? To make coffee you will need coffee beans, water, milk and sugar. But if you travel through that very cup of coffee, and go down through the particles of milk to the atomic level, and then to the subatomic level, then you will find yourself in a world where witchcraft is a very real thing. This is because at this level particles, such as protons, operate according to the laws of physics known as quantum mechanics. They suddenly appear, exist for a while, and then disappear. And they appear again.
As far as we know, the Universe was originally very tiny, smaller than a proton. And this means that it is incredibly huge and complex universe it simply arose without violating the Laws of Nature known to us. And, starting from that moment, huge amounts of energy were released as space expanded. Places to store all negative energy and maintain balance. And again the same question arises: could God not have created the laws of quantum mechanics, according to which the Big Bang occurred?
That is, was it really God? Did God really orchestrate everything in such a way that the Big Bang happened? I don't want to offend anyone, but I believe that science has a more convincing explanation than stories about a divine Creator. This explanation is possible due to the strange fact of cause and effect relationships. We are convinced that everything that happens happens because of something that came before. Therefore, we accept the proposition that someone, perhaps God, created the universe. But when we talk about the Universe as a whole, this is not necessarily the case.
Let me explain to you. Imagine a river flowing down a huge slope. How did the river appear? Perhaps it was the rain that fell over the mountains. But where did the rain come from? The correct answer is from the Sun. The sun shone over the ocean, water vapor rose into the sky and formed clouds. Why does the Sun shine? The sun shines thanks to the so-called fusion process, as a result of which hydrogen atoms combine to form helium. And with this reaction, a huge amount of energy is released.
Not bad. But where did hydrogen come from? The answer is as a result of the Big Bang. And this is the most important point. The Laws of Nature themselves tell us that not only the Universe appeared as a proton, out of nothing. But also that the Big Bang was caused by nothing. Nothing. The explanation for this fact lies in Einstein's theories and his understanding of the interaction of time and space in the Universe.
It was Albert Einstein who explained this fact. Something remarkable happened at the Big Bang: time began. To understand this incredible idea, imagine a black hole in space. A black hole is a star so massive that it consumes itself. It is so massive that even light cannot escape it. That's why it's completely black. Its gravitational field is so strong that it absorbs and distorts not only light, but also time.
To understand this, imagine a watch that has fallen into a black hole. As they approach it, they walk slower and slower, and time slows down. It practically stops. Imagine a watch falling into a black hole. Of course, if we assume that the clock can resist the monstrous gravity, its hands will stop. They will not stop because of a breakdown, they will stop because time does not exist inside the black hole. And so it was at the birth of the Universe. I believe that the formation of time in the creation of the Universe is key point, to put aside the need for a Creator and reveal how the Universe created itself.
If we travel back in time to the Big Bang, the Universe will get smaller and smaller. Until it reaches the final point, where it will be absolutely tiny, the only black hole. And just like in the case of modern black holes, the Laws of Nature dictate something extraordinary here. That here time, too, by itself, must stop. You can't go back in time to the Big Bang because it didn't happen. We finally found something for which there was no reason, because there was no time to create this reason. For me this means the impossibility of the existence of the Creator, because there was no time for this.
Since time began at the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been created by anyone or anything. Thus, science has given us an answer that took more than 3,000 years of enormous human effort to find. We learned how the Laws of Nature, controlling the mass and energy of the Universe, launched the process that created you and me. Those sitting on our planet and happy that they finally learned this.

So when people ask me if God created the universe, I tell them that their question doesn't make any sense. There was no time before the Big Bang, so God did not have time to create the universe. It's like asking: in which direction is the edge of the Earth? The earth has the shape of a ball, it has no edge, it is useless to look for it. Of course, everyone is free to believe what they want.
Everyone is free to believe what they want. But, in my opinion, the simplest explanation is that God does not exist. No one created the Universe, and no one controls our destiny. And this brings me to the realization that there is no Heaven and no life after death. We have only one life to appreciate the greatness and beauty of our world. And for that I am very grateful.

Almost all messages contained the statement that Hawking had changed his point of view, since in the book “ Brief history time,” he assumed the place of God in the creation of all things.

“If we discover a universal theory, this will be an absolute triumph of human thought, because in this case we will know what the mind of God is,” the scientist wrote then.

“The report that Stephen Hawking claims in his new book that God did not create the Universe is not at all the sensationalism that the media makes it out to be,” he said. editor-in-chief popular science magazine New Scientist Roger Highfield.

"In fact, Hawking's position on the existence of God remains unchanged," says Highfield. “Hawking always looked at God in a figurative sense, much like Albert Einstein. God does not play dice with the Universe,” Einstein wittily noted, who also said: “I want to know how God created the world.”

But these words do not mean that Einstein was religious. He noted that “the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept that I cannot take seriously.” And when asked directly whether he believed in God, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who manifests himself in the ordered harmony of what exists, and not in a God who cares about the fate and activities of man.”

“In 2001, when I interviewed Hawking, he made an additional comment emphasizing that he was not religious,” Highfield continues. – If you believe in science, like I do, then you believe that there are certain laws that have always been followed. If you like, you can say that these laws are the work of God, but that would be a definition of what God is rather than a proof of his existence.”

Highfield reports that in the new book, Hawking describes M-theory, which could possibly answer questions about the creation of the Universe.

“According to M-theory, our Universe is not the only one. M theory predicts that many worlds were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of a supernatural being or God,” Highfield quotes new book Hawking.

According to a senior researcher at the SAI MSU, Sergei Popov, “science proceeds from the working hypothesis that the Universe, from some fairly early moment, develops according to objective laws, and this hypothesis does not encounter insurmountable obstacles. Without reading the book, it is difficult to comment on it, but, judging by news, Hawking’s position is not very different from Laplace’s statement: “I don’t need this hypothesis.”

“However, the transition from “I don’t need this hypothesis” to “this hypothesis is wrong” requires serious argumentation or faith,” the scientist continues. “Now, before reading the book, it is difficult for me to say whether Hawking really makes such a transition and, if he does, then how he argues for it.”

“There is a scientific community. These are people, each of whom can have their own opinion,” says Vyacheslav Zhuravlev, a researcher at the State Inspectorate of the Moscow State University. – If I try to speak carefully, I personally believe that to the question of whether God exists or not, science, at least now (and I hope never later), cannot give an objective answer that would follow from (even) the most fundamental physical theory, which is a unified description (albeit) huge number repetitive and firmly established physical phenomena. This is a question, with the exact answer to which, either positively (yes, there is a God), or negatively (no, there is no God), no matter how strong it may sound, you yourself become God. Having determined that, let’s say, he exists, you will most likely already know where he is, in what form he is, you will know what his goals are, how God differs from matter, what he is free to do, etc.

Having accurately determined that it does not exist, you will reach a verdict that you know absolutely everything about the world around you. Because there will be no more inexplicable entities behind which God may be hiding.

There will be no more metaphysics, in a word, and science will become dead at the same moment. There will be no more need to write scientific articles, not to mention everything else.”

“Popularity has positive and negative sides,” says the scientist. “But, even leaving aside the generally reassuring fact that thanks to his popularity, Hawking’s life has hopefully become and is becoming less difficult (both simply because the fees make it possible to provide better medical care, and due to the fact that, let me remind you, the first expensive instruments that helped Hawking were donated to him by the developers, thanks to his scientific and popularization successes), I would say that science is lucky with such a symbol, and we should be grateful to Hawking for his work and life".

Let us remember that in his early twenties, while working on his dissertation, Hawking was almost completely paralyzed due to the development of an incurable form of atrophying sclerosis and remained in this condition all his life. Only his fingers move right hand, with which he controls a moving chair and a special “talking” computer.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking manages to combine family life (he has three children) with research, books and articles on theoretical physics, as well as numerous trips and public lectures.

Nikolay Podorvanyuk

The great physicist Stephen Hawking was only 21 years old when he was diagnosed with a rare form of motor neuron disease. Doctors said he only had a few years to live.

Today Hawking, 73, is one of the world's leading physicists, a professor at Cambridge University and the author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time.

We have selected 10 quotes from the great scientist about how he views science and life in general. Only with humor!

About disability

My advice for people with disabilities is to focus on the things your disability doesn't stop you from doing well, and don't feel bad about the things you can't do. Don't extend disability to your spirit.

About priorities

My goal is simple. This is a complete understanding of the universe: why it is the way it is, and why it exists at all.

Film "Stephen Hawking's Universe"/film.ru

About fate

I have noticed that even people who claim that everything is predetermined and that there is nothing we can do to change it, always look both ways before crossing the road.

About humor

Life would be very tragic if it weren't so funny.

About your IQ level

I have no idea. People who brag about their IQ are complete losers.

What does he think about all day?

About women. They are an absolute mystery.

About the moment of rediscovery

Of course, I wouldn’t compare it to sex, but it also lasts longer.

Advice for your three children

First, look at the stars, not at your feet. Secondly, never quit your job. Work gives you meaning and purpose, and life will be empty without it. Thirdly, if you are lucky and you have found your love, remember it and take care of it.

Stephen Hawking and Benedict Cumberbatch/

About God

God may exist, but science can explain the existence of the universe without the participation of a Creator.

About obstacles

Don't get angry if you get stuck on something. In such cases, I continue to think about the problem while starting to work on something else. Sometimes years pass before I find a solution. In the case of the problem of information loss and black holes, 29 years have passed.

The day before, a huge number of British newspapers and electronic media were vigorously reporting that God does not exist. This statement was said to be contained in the new book by the famous British physicist Stephen Hawking, “The Grand Design,” co-authored with the American scientist Leonard Mlodinow. In the book, which is published only on September 9, Hawking refutes Isaac Newton's claim that the universe could not have arisen from chaos. According to him, the Big Bang, which led to the emergence of the Universe, is a consequence of the work of physical laws, and not at all a unique coincidence that occurred due to a combination of fantastic circumstances.

Almost all messages contained a statement that Hawking had changed his point of view, since in the book “A Brief History of Time” he admitted the place of God in the creation of all things.

“If we discover a universal theory, this will be an absolute triumph of human thought, because in this case we will know what the mind of God is,” the scientist wrote then.

But in fact, Hawking's position on the question of the existence of God remained unchanged, asserts editor-in-chief of the popular British science magazine New Scientist Roger Highfield. “Hawking always looked at God in a figurative sense, much like Albert Einstein,” Highfield says. “God does not play dice with the Universe,” Einstein wittily declared, who also said: “I want to know how God created the world.” But these words do not mean that Einstein was religious. He noted that “the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept that I cannot take seriously.” And when asked if he believed in God, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who manifests himself in the ordered harmony of what exists, and not in a God who cares about the fate and activities of man.”

“In 2001, when I interviewed Hawking, he made an additional comment emphasizing that he was not religious,” Highfield continues. - If you believe in science, like I do, then you believe that there are certain laws that have always been followed. If you like, you can say that these laws are the work of God, but that would be more a definition of what God is than a proof of his existence.”

Highfield reports that in the new book, Hawking describes M-theory, which could possibly answer questions about the creation of the Universe.

When asked by a Gazeta.Ru correspondent to comment on the news entitled “Hawking: God did not create the Universe,” Sergei Popov, a senior researcher at the SAI MSU, a member of the editorial board of the Troitsky Variant newspaper, replied: “I would say that science proceeds from the working hypothesis that From some fairly early moment, the Universe develops according to objective laws, and this hypothesis does not encounter insurmountable obstacles. Without reading the book, it is difficult to comment on it, but judging by the news, Hawking’s position is not very different from Laplace’s statement: “I don’t need this hypothesis.”

However, moving from “I don’t need this hypothesis” to “this hypothesis is wrong” requires serious argumentation or faith. Now, without reading the book, it is difficult for me to say whether Hawking really makes such a transition and, if he does, then how he argues for it.”

“There is a scientific community. These are people, and everyone can have their own opinion, says. — If I try to speak carefully, I personally believe that to the question of whether God exists or not, science, at least now (and I hope never later), cannot give an objective answer that would follow from (even) the most fundamental physical theory, which is a unified description of (albeit) a huge number of repeating and firmly established physical phenomena. This is a question, with the exact answer to which, either positively (yes, there is a God), or negatively (no, there is no God), no matter how strong it may sound, you yourself become God. Having determined that, let’s say, he exists, you will most likely already know where he is, in what form he is, you will know what his goals are, how God differs from matter, what he is free to do, etc.

There will be no more metaphysics, in a word, and science will become dead at the same moment. There will be no more need to write scientific articles, not to mention everything else.”

Speaking about Stephen Hawking, one cannot help but recall that in at a young age he began to show signs of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which eventually led to paralysis. For several decades now, Hawking has been chained to wheelchair, he only moves index finger right hand, with which he controls his chair and a special computer that speaks for him.

It is impossible not to admire him, even if a person does not share some of his views (scientific or philosophical).

Popularity has positive and negative sides. But, even leaving aside the generally reassuring fact that thanks to his popularity, Hawking’s life has hopefully become and is becoming less difficult (both simply due to the fact that the fees make it possible to provide better medical care, and because -due to the fact that, let me remind you, the first expensive instruments that helped Hawking were donated to him by the developers, thanks to his scientific and popularization successes), I would say that science is lucky with such a symbol, and we should be grateful to Hawking for his work and life "