To be or not to be

It will be interesting to read Stephen Hawking's latest book The Grand Design which will no doubt create yet another furore in the science v. God debate. (see a couple of good articles here and here)

Basically he seems to suggest that Newton's idea that the world shows order must infer the existence of God.

Hawking's present thinking seems to be that the laws of the universe work of their own accord and therefore do not require an initial impetus (big bang). I am sure it is much more sophisticated than this!

I just don't think that this is where the dialogue of modern faith and modern science is centred. It may be where Newton was, it is not where we are.

Indeed, Garth Barber a cosmologist and member of the Society for Ordained Scientists said: 'I don't believe in a God of gaps but in the creator of the laws of science. The laws of science are God's laws of creation.'

That, I would have to say is where I sit. This way, which in Hawking's opinion does not require God, seems to me to have all the characteristics of the depth and profundity of God given creation.

That good science reporter, Robyn Williams, suggests on the news today that straight-forward intelligent people on both sides of the discussion (theology and science) don't see any conflict between science and belief in God. Me neither!!