Most recently, my hero and international man of legitimacy, the scholar N.T. Wright posted a great piece in the Washington Post's "On Faith" section. He, along with many, are disappointed in Hawking and others's weak Biblical intellect and simple Christian worldview:
"It’s depressing to see Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds in his field, trying to speak as an expert on things he sadly seems to know rather less about than many averagely intelligent Christians...You can read the whole thing here. N.T. Wright is the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England and is the author of several scholarly works, most notably his take on the resurrection entitled, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is freaking huge. His best, most accessible work is called, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense and I think most of you should look into reading it. Maybe. Ok. Do it.
...Hawking is working with a very low-grade and sub-biblical view of ‘going to heaven’...Of course, the old set-up of the ‘science and religion’ debate was itself deeply influenced by this same worldview, and needs realigning. In fact, the ancient Christians would have been shocked to see their worldview labelled as a ‘religion.’ It was a philosophy, a politics, a culture, a vocation... the category of ‘religion’ is part of the problem, not part of the solution."
2 comments:
Can't read Wright without giving him a right British accent. What a money short opinion piece he wrote; the man can pack a whole book into 250 words.
Especially liked his barb about considering the Resurrection:
"But I wonder if he has ever even stopped to look properly, with his high-octane intellect, at the evidence for Jesus and the resurrection? I doubt it -- most people in England haven’t. Until he has, his opinion about all this is worth about the same as mine on nuclear physics, i.e. not much."
And about Hawking's ahistorical viewpoint:
"The depressing thing is that Hawking doesn’t seem to realize this and so hasn’t even stopped to think that there might be quite sophisticated critiques of Epicureanism, ancient and modern, which he should work through. Not least the Christian one, which again focusses [sic] on Jesus."
Thanks for posting this.
When examining with a critical lens. The bible has never been very accurate in terms with historical evidence.
Post a Comment