Inheritance of biological information—part III — Williams Book reviews Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist holes. Even though her Ph.D. was not in science, but Spanish poetry, Review of she explains modern cosmology with Music to Move the Stars almost the same elegance, fluidity, by Jane Hawking precision and accuracy as that of her McMillan, New York, 2004 world-famous husband. The book provides much insight on the age-old conflicts between science and religion, a subject that Jane discusses in depth. Jane also provides much insight into Jerry Bergman the minds of the world’s leading scientists, especially cosmologists. Jane Hawking was, for a quarter Jane married Stephen Hawking century, the wife of Stephen Hawking, knowing that he had an incurable disease, but, believing that his life one of the most famous living scientists existence in a Creator God’ (p. 46). would be short, they hoped to jam as of today. Stephen Hawking, now With candid insights into her private much love and fulfilment into what an international celebrity, has sold spiritual experiences, Jane draws her millions of books, and draws huge they thought would be only a few own conclusions regarding God’s role crowds wherever he speaks. Cited years together (Stephen outlived all in the universe. by Time as the heir to Einstein, only expectations, and they were together Jane also discusses in detail the Darwin and Einstein are arguably for over 25 years). They married fairly anthropic principle, which she calls better known among the public. The young, and soon had three children. ‘an important cosmological principle first American edition of his best seller, For years, Jane was an astounding of the twentieth century’ (p. 153). A Brief History of Time, had a press run care giver, dealing with Stephen’s of ten thousand copies—typical press progressive physical decline and She observed that the strong version runs are five hundred to two thousand heavier demands. She managed the has a ‘close philosophical affinity to copies.1 A professor at Cambridge, household, reared the children, and the medieval cosmos’ where humans he occupies the same Lucasian chair hauled him around for years before were at the center of creation (p. 153). that Isaac Newton filled two centuries a serious respiratory incident forced She then concluded that the anthropic earlier. Hawking is not only famous them to hire full-time professional principle places humans in a ‘special as a physicist, but also as one who nurses. She also recounts her battles place at the centre of the universe’, just has overcome obstacles due to the with the British health care system, as did the Ptolemaic system, and that, severely disabling neuromuscular and with Cambridge University for ‘for the medieval populace, this special disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis access. position was a strong statement of the (ALS), commonly called Lou Gehrig’s unique relationship between human Disease. Jane’s theism vs Stephen’s beings and their Creator’ (p. 153). The atheistic faith main intent of early philosophers was Courtship and marriage to reconcile the One factor that was central to their ‘existence of God with the rigours The book contains much relationship—and eventual divorce— of the laws of science, towards background about Jane’s courtship was religious conflicts. Jane notes that unifying the image of the Creator with Stephen, their marriage, and the ‘Stephen had no hesitation in declaring with the scientific complexity problems in their marriage due to the himself an atheist despite the strongly of His Creation. … Conversely, domestic friction that one would expect Methodist background’ of his family (p. their intellectual heirs, some when a family member is seriously 46). She concluded that his reasoning 800 years later, seemed intent handicapped. Stephen’s pioneering was, ‘as a cosmologist examining the on distancing science as far as research is clearly explained in simple laws which governed the universe, he possible from religion and on terms for those lacking a Ph.D. in could not allow his calculations to be excluding God from any role in the mathematical physics of black muddled by a confessed belief in the Creation. The suggestion of the TJ 19(3) 2005 29 Book Reviews presence of a Creator God was an Jane notes, and disputing our right to ask the awkward obstacle for an atheistic ‘at the end of the twentieth question “Why?” in relation to scientist whose aim was to reduce century, religion finds its the origins of the universe and the the origins of the universe to revelationary truths threatened by origins of life. They claim that the an unified package of scientific scientific theory and discovery, and question is as … inappropriate, as it laws, expressed in equations and retreats into a defensive corner, would be to ask why Mt. Everest is symbols. To the uninitiated, these while scientists go into the attack there. They dismiss the suggestion equations and symbols were far insisting that rational argument that the question ‘Why’ is the more difficult to comprehend than is the only valid criterion for an prerogative of theologians and the notion of God as the prime understanding of the workings of philosophers rather than scientist mover, the motivating force behind the universe’ (p. 200). because, they say, theologians are Creation’ (pp. 154–155). She concludes that the engaged in the “study of fantasy”: She adds that, as a direct result complexity of the cosmologist’s belief in God can be attributed to of the focus of modern cosmologists on calculations and the admiration their “a shortage in the oxygen supply mathematics, the concept of a personal discoveries have caused some people to the brain”. Their theories reduce God became irrelevant for these ‘to fall into the trap of believing the whole of Creation to a handful scientists because, in their mind, their that science has become a substitute of material components. They calculations diminished ‘any possible for religion and that, as its great complain with a weary disdain of scope for a Creator’, and high priests, they can claim to the stupidity of the human race, ‘they could not envisage any other have all the answers to all the that human beings are always place or role for God in the physical questions. However, because of asking “Why?” Perhaps they universe. Concepts which could their reluctance to admit spiritual should be asking themselves why not be quantified in mathematical and philosophical values, some of this is so. Might it not be that our terms as a theoretical reflection them do not appear to be aware of minds have been programmed of physical realities, whether or the nature of some of the questions’ to ask “Why?” And if this is the not the actual existence of those (p. 200). case they might then ask who physical realities was proven, were She is especially disheartened programmed the human computer. meaningless’ (p. 155). with attempts to extrapolate animal- The “Why” question is the one behaviour rules to human behaviour, which, above all, theologians The nihilism of atheism as illustrated by the evolutionary should be addressing’ (p. 201). psychology field. After noting that She concludes by opining Her major concern is that she evolutionary psychologists ascribe that, since the modes of thought by perceives—and discusses extensively altruism solely as a result of natural scientists why, based on discussions with her selection, she adds that ‘are dictated by purely rational, husband and the leading physicists of ‘scientists still cannot satisfactorily materialistic criteria, physicists the world—that the result of the goals explain why some human beings cannot claim to answer the of science would eventually result in are prepared to give their lives questions of why the universe the situation where for others. The complexity of exists and why we, human beings, ‘Human reactions in all their such anomaly lies far outside the are here to observe it, any more complexities, emotional and scope of their purely mechanical than molecular biologists can psychological, would one day ... grasp. Nor can they explain satisfactorily explain why, if our be reduced to scientific formulae why so much human activity actions are determined by the because, in effect, these reactions operates at a subliminal level. The workings of a selfish genetic were no more than the microscopic spiritual sophistication of musical, coding, we sometimes listen to the chemical interactions of molecules’ artistic, politic, and scientific voice of conscience and behave (p. 156). creativity far exceeds that of any with altruism, compassion and The result was that ‘in the primitive function programmed generosity’ (p. 200). face of such dogmatically rational into the brain as a basic survival arguments, there was no point in mechanism’ (p. 200). Their marriage deteriorates raising questions of spirituality and Although scientists offer religious faith, of the soul and of a God explanations, they ‘acknowledge that In the latter days of their marriage, who was prepared to suffer for the sake they are still very far from reaching’ her ‘attempts to discuss the profound of humanity—questions which ran the goal of answering ‘why’, noting matters of science and religion with completely counter to the selfish reality that many scientists Stephen were met with an enigmatic of genetic theory’, evidently referring ‘arrogantly even aspire to become smile’ (p. 465). Stephen usually to the work of Richard Dawkins and gods themselves by denying the ‘grinned’ at the ‘mention of religious others (p. 156). rest of us our freedom of choice faith and belief, though on one historic 30 TJ 19(3) 2005 Book Reviews occasion he actually made the startling assert the blunt positivist stance She adds, ‘They were much more concession that, like religion, his which I found too depressing aggressively competitive than the own science of the universe’ also and too limiting to my view of relaxed, friendly relativists with whom required a leap of faith as did theism the world because I fervently we had associated in the past’ (p.