I am not an atheist nor am I religious. I believe things of the universe are far too complicated for us to even comprehend. Apparently I share this view with Stephen Hawking. In an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, Hawking said, “They [Religious people] 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.”

There is a difference between seeking science and disputing religion. The difference is intent.

Religion should be left at belief, not stated as fact. Science is fact once theory is proven, until then it’s just theory. Theory is a very important part of science. Once scientific theory is used as a weapon or tool to disprove beliefs of others it ceases to become science – if my Mother were still alive she would say it is just being hateful.

Stephen Hawking – 1, Atheists – 0

There is no room in science for anything other than facts and the search for facts to advance our knowledge and understandings. Attacking religion in the name of science is no different than attacking a fat man simply because he is fat. It might be true, that he is fat, but going out of the way to point that out is a step backward, not forward. Science is about moving forward. As brilliant as Stephen Hawking is, he is still just an infant in a universe beyond human comprehension. With that said, I do believe Stephen Hawking’s statements that the media has paraphrased as ‘God Did Not Create the Universe’ are legitimate disputes in seeking the truth in science. It’s all about his intent. Atheists using these statements to disprove organized religion is, well, just hateful.

Your thoughts?