Heaven: Perhaps Stephen Hawking is a Fairy Story.

Stephen Hawking, the eminent theoretical physicist, says that Heaven is a 'fairy story' made up by those who fear death. One wonders where the scientific proof of that may be found, because, seeing as science depends on observation and testing, with empirically measurable results, it is fair to ask for his empirical proof that Heaven does not exist.

But let's take his assertion one step further just the same. What should we do with our lives without Heaven or an afterlife? We should, 'fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives.' Okay, well, how do we, Mr. Scientist, scientifically determine what is good? Why, empirically, of course, because you are a scientist, should we do good? What, solely in terms of empiricism, is good? Good speaks of virtue; it is a statement of value. What value is found by mere scientific observation?

In a word, none. Not one atom of good can be found in the Big Bang theory which itself is brought out by the Big Bang theory. Science, in and by itself, only tells us that things happen, perhaps even how they happen. But science never tells us why they happen, or offers even the least bit of evidence for why even science itself is good. Science as science, though a great and useful tool in our universe, is only that: a tool. Finding the value in what it discovers requires us to take the next step and analyze philosophically what, if any, good there is to it. We must use Reason for that, and the standard of evidence becomes different. It becomes rational rather than empirical.

Hawking and his cohorts will assert that God was not necessary to the creation of the universe, and as such, there is no God. They ignore the simple question: why should we be shocked that a God, in the act or acts of creation, would ensure that the science necessary for creation would be part of the equation from the start?

Hawking may well be the preeminent scientist of his generation. Yet we have come to venerate science so much that we have stopped requiring that scientists remain scientific. What Mr. Hawking has become, to use a term coined by the old newsman Edward Newman, is an anything expert. Because he is so well known as a great scientist, the popular notion is that he must know a great deal about everything.

Would you ask Stephen Hawking for advice on car repairs? The stock market? Dog grooming? Raising emus? Repairing your plumbing? No? Then why ask him what is good? He may well know the answers to all that, but not because he is a scientist. It would be because he would also be a mechanic, stock trader, vet, expert in animal husbandry, plumber, and philosopher.

As it is, he is none of those things. He is only a scientist. He may be very well versed in that. Yet that in itself fails to qualify him to speak on non-scientific matters. His recent statements attest to that very well.

On the Nature of Knowledge.

And looking out on high I saw Aristotle, the Master of Those Who Know, ringed by the great souls of philosophy.
-Dante, The Inferno

The exact translation of the line I paraphrase above seems in some dispute; what Dante is saying precisely is beyond my poor academic powers to determine. But the gist is reasonably accurate: the poet was speaking of Aristotle, and Aristotle was being commended for seeking and holding and teaching real knowledge.

Not, of course, that Aristotle's knowledge was perfect; no one's is. The overriding point is that we can know; we can hold a real knowledge of and appreciation for persons, things, and events.

Many thinkers today do not accept this preposition. My professors of education (I will not call them teachers) were very open in that they did not believe that there were any things true for all time and all places. In that light, should we be surprised that so many schools do such a poor job of education?

Questions of religion are tossed off as little more than personally interpretive systems which, at best, only help individuals cope with the traumas of this world. Could this be a reason that reverence for anything beyond the person involved has paled lately?

In politics, issues are little more than vague platitudes which help people get elected. Perhaps that is why men and women of depth and understanding eschew elective offices, for they understand that real things are at stake and are too busy actually dealing with them in real time?

Moral virtue is now all too often seen as a myth; should we wonder why there is so little respect for people and institutions?

All of this and far greater errors are based on the idea that we cannot really know anything. The fact is, if that axiom is right (please ignore such irony this moment, for we all know it's there but isn't the point here and now), if there is no universal knowledge which we can all, if we wish, understand, then there is no meaning in the world or to life.

Do not fear. That cannot be the case. Aristotle and all the dead white guys, and a great many others of varying races and creeds (for truth is eternal and thus widely spread across cultures and peoples) have shown us that we can know. Forget the liberal academics who have no respect for that tenet; it shows only their ignorance. Ignore the science trumps religion tribes; they will not accept that knowledge has different tests in different areas. In science, the test of truth is empirical. In philosophy, the test is Reason. With Theology, the standard of evidence is Faith. In the end, all knowledge compliments itself across these three major branches of her, that goddess we call Wisdom.

We can know. Therefore we can act. We can act for the greater good of ourselves and our world. We can do what we must with the clarity that truth is with us, that it dwells among us and at all levels. In the end, that is why we will win and the liberal elements across the spectrum will lose. We have something to stand on. They have a bedrock of air.