But in 2010, Hawking told Diane Sawyer that "science will win" in a battle with religion "because it works."
Now by what epistemology does he start to know that science works? Or to put in Christian terms, by what source of revelation does he know what he claims to know about science? Well, I have no doubt he would give some sort of pragmatic answer. But you see, he gets to assume presuppositions and never has to defend them. He is making claims of knowledge that he can't possibly know within a merely scientific framework because there is no such thing as a merely scientific framework.
Believe it or not, Christians like science. But hey, even those who have never heard of Christianity or atheism have used science for millennia. So this statement is just pure arrogance. The next paragraph quote Hawking's real thought about religion.
"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
Now let's break this down. First, how does he get the authority to tell us anything about his views of God. To put it another way, if he believes religion is just merely man-made, then isn't this just another version since he is a mere man? Simply because he has a brilliant mind about scientific matters, does not mean he has the answers. He is presupposing quite a bit to get to his conclusions.
The last statement is a far stretch. Why is it impossible to say that God cares for man simply because he lives on a tiny blue ball? Who are we to tell the Creator how He is to function or how He creates the universe? Yes, even the Psalmist stated, "Who is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" But this is in a far greater context than the mere creation. David is comparing his sinful self to an Almighty Creator. But the middle sentence is a claim he makes due to his atheistic worldview.
They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship.
He simply assumes yet another revelatory power of knowing that all religions make God in the image of man. As true as that may be, how does he know this? Did he scientifically verify this? By what methods did use to come to this conclusion? It should be obvious that he assumes that anyone who lives outside of his modern scientific world (which is really a philosophically driven world) is an outdated moron.
Hawking's latest book, "The Grand Design," challenged Isaac Newton's theory that the solar system could not have been created without God. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going
Again, how does he know spontaneous creation accounts for the creation around us? This is the biggest problem with atheism. It simply has to assume that things may come into existence due to an a prior commitment to its anti-God starting point. No one lives their lives in this fashion. When Hawking saw the first wheel chair, it never dawned upon his fertile mind that it spontaneously generated. In fact, he never even questioned it has a designer and builder. He simply assumed it. He could nothing else. It is not even something he may argue for or against. He has to just assume it. Yet when it comes to his own hands or eyes or DNA, all of a sudden he abandons the world in which he must live to one that is man-made. In other words, he leaps to a world invented by his own creative man-made revelation. The only thing that connects these worlds together or at least holds his schizophrenic thoughts together is the truth that he must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make his imaginary world work at all.
It is a shame that Hawking and the rest of mankind seeks revelation outside of God's Word. In doing so, he has abandoned the only source to true meaning in this life and the next. In the last paragraph he answers the "meaning of life" question and offers what in essence is nothing.
So if everyone is destined to power-down like computers at the end of their lives, what should humans do to lend meaning to their experience?
"We should seek the greatest value of our action," Hawking told the paper.
There you have it. Your life will mean something because the prophet Stephen Hawking has said so, if you will but follow his revelation and commands. Nothing plus nothing still equals nothing. Hawking, who by his own admission is a nobody in this universe, has given us nothing in order for us to feel something of value.