Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Accent

Do you think Steven Hawking's has an American accent? Why hasn't his voice improve with all the technology out there? Seems that Brits should have British accents generated by computers.203.131.210.82 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)April 27,2009

Direct copy & paste from the article: Rror (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The DECtalk DTC01 voice synthesizer he uses, which has an American accent, is no longer being produced. Asked why he has still kept it after so many years, Hawking mentioned that he has not heard a voice he likes better and that he identifies with it. Hawking is said to be looking for a replacement since, aside from being obsolete, the synthesizer is both large and fragile by current standards.

B4 V2

The article states that
"Though Hawking's parents were living in North London, they moved to Oxford while Isobel was pregnant with Stephen, desiring a safer location for the birth of their first child (London was under attack at the time by the Luftwaffe). According to one of Hawking's publications, a German Wehrmacht V-2 missile struck only a few streets away. After Stephen was born, the family moved back to London.."
However, Hawking was born in 1942. That's two years before the V-2 became operational. I know the quote is sourced to one of Hawking's own books but he simply can't be right. Or am I missing something? Yintaɳ  19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple error for a V-1, possibly? Britmax (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for appearance in Discovery Channel commercial

Appearance can be seen at the 53 second mark of this youtube video: Boom De YaDa Stephen Jay (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested minor amendment

The following seems to need mild amendment:

"He enrolled at University College, Oxford with the intent of studying mathematics, although his father would have preferred he go into medicine. Since mathematics was not offered at University College, Hawking instead chose physics"

Students have to apply for a specific subject when applying to UK universities, so Hawking would have applied to Univ intending to read physics from the outset. If he'd actually wanted to read maths, he could have chosen another college at Oxford that offered maths - Univ was apparently his father's old college, so it seems that he was more interested in attending his father's old college than in reading maths. I'd also suggest someone with closer links to Univ should check whether maths was in fact offered - it seems unlikely that they didn't offer that basic a course (particularly as it's one taught via the Maths Institute rather than relying on college tutors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.82.253 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New voice synth?

I'm not sure how reliable the source is, and the text reads suspiciously like a press release anyway, but Gizmag reports that Hawking has indeed chosen a new voice synthesiser. On which note, the "Hawking is said to be looking for a replacement..." passage as it stands is unsatisfactory, being both weasel words (said by whom?) and unsourced. Loganberry (Talk) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking & the Doomsday Clock

"Nukes, climate push 'Doomsday Clock' forward": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16670686/

"'Doomsday Clock' Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight: http://thebulletin.org/content/media-center/announcements/2007/01/17/doomsday-clock-moves-two-minutes-closer-to-midnight

Photo caption: Stephen Hawking, left, and other scientists announce at a London press conference Wednesday that the Doomsday Clock has moved two minutes closer to midnight. Google video of Hawking's speech: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8647599857530220991

Atomicgurl00 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tryst with the Pope

It may be useful to include his 2008 meeting with the Pope regarding the GPD, and the purported impact this meeting had on Hawking's physical and emotional health. I realize that this is nothing more than speculation, so I will be perusing the Internet for reliable sources. CurtisJasper (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A tryst is a lovers meeting,what,exactly,are you suggesting took place at this encounter?94.196.39.81 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My theory

Im not a scientist or a scolar but i have a theory! ive listend to proffessors scientist and your self talking about the uivers and the theory of everything, but this has always left me asking questions? what was there before the universe.

My theory in its simplest form is i belive that there have been meny universes all of which have started with a big bang and from that moment expand creating life {exc} but i think this has to stop at some point and when it does i belive that it emploads on its self back to the singular and in the same instant exploads{ the big bang } creating the univers life {exc} basicly what im saying is life is a circle theres a start a midle and a end birth,life,death but its always constant so why not a universe?

what do you think of my idear?

thank you for reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.140.49 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to read more on this theory (or, ideally, to help improve the encyclopedia by editing it), an article already exists at Big Crunch. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Date of picture doubtful?

Anyone noticed that the picture in the box has in the background an IBM PC or XT monitor of 1981-83 vintage, but the text states the picture is from 1999? Also to me Hawking looks much younger than in other pictures from that era.

Where does the date 1999 come from anyway? The picture looks like it has been lifted from an old directory of pictures (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/StarChild/scientists/) on NASA's site, where most files have a datestamp of 1999 or 2001. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the picture wouldn't actually be from much earlier. -- D64 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks older. I've removed the year from the article, and also modified the Commons image description. FWIW, the starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov file directory has two apparently more recent photographs of Hawking next to what look like two SGI Origin 2000 units. See also http://web.archive.org/web/20041020210813/nitrd.gov/pubs/blue00/local_images/x_blue_mountain.jpg -84user (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead? (2)

rumours on the internet says he's dead. http://twitter.com/fimoculous http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=164158763549&v=wall&ref=search etc... Helpsloose 14:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What convinced you that this was the correct place to spread rumours, exactly? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Such ongoing 'rumors' over years are exactly the reason why this article has been indefinitely semi-protected a few days ago... Rror (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Honours

Maybe this is not the appropriate place to mention it, but of all the honours Hawking has received, I am very surprised that he has not been knighted (yet?). 68.200.98.166 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Technologies of his wheelchair

Not only is important the knowledge of J.Hawkins, also it's very interesting the development of his wheelchair and interfaces. ¿Any reference about the wheelchair of J.Hawkins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.137.157 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 5/GA3

Please delete Henry Schaefer-quote in "Religious views"

Why is that in there? The source might contain an amusing anecdote about Animal Rights, but the man's opinion is as biased and unimportant as it gets. 95.209.215.7 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree and deleted the quote (indeed unencyclopedic) leaving his opinion though. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The source is unreliable and should be removed entirely. Schaefer read his book and used his name in a sermon. For comparison: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/lectures.html). 79.138.165.55 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Calculating prodigy?

I noticed that Hawking has been put in the category for calculating prodigies. If it's true, I'm surprised; I'd never heard that before. I wonder if this is not merely flattery. 70.247.160.102 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit in NHS Paragraph

In the last paragraph of the section titled "Illness" where Hawking is quoted about NHS - "Hawking personally replied that, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said" - 'he said' should probably be removed. You may want to link this sentience to the next using 'adding' or 'adding that'. --Billymuyo (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked, a bit differently though. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Since he has been incapable of signing his name for most of his life, perhaps having a graphic of his signature on this page is redundant.

Since signatures are included in biographies of both living and dead individuals, his inability to write his signature doesn't detract from the article. GaussianCopula (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Hawking's computer interface

It seems to be a minor inaccuracy regarding the physical interface Dr. Hawking uses with his computer. The article mentions his cheek but according to his own Website he presses a switch with his hand. Please refer to .

--67.224.239.218 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Fernando Vega April 30, 2010 (jfernando.vega@upr.edu)

Cambridge University in those days did not have disciplines for particular science subjects. They were all "Natural Sciences". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.7.99 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reference for the fact and "those days"? Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Illness also referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease)

I would like to make a suggestion that it be clarified that his illness is also referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Validating one of the statement in the article for the following documentary title is needed......

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/master-of-the-universe/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1 --222.64.211.179 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please expand "Religious views" section of Stephen Hawkings

Stephen Hawking in his new book says "God did not create the universe" , he is an atheist. There isn't an uncertainty as implied in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.190.103 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the "metaphorical meaning" insetion because it implies what Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion is saying that these men "didn't mean it" when they use the word God.

Instead keep the quote about him not being religous in the typical sense. Leave the quote about "God does not intervene" to break those laws" and be sure to illustrate that Stephen Hawkins use of the word God is philosophical and not related to any traditional sense of the word, especially to that of his christian ex-wife.

Also include some quotes from A Bried History of time to illustrate how he uses them, esp to include his famous ending to the book:

"But if the universe is completely described self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator" Page 190, A Bried History of Time.

"Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have been all that much of a choice; thre may well be only one, or a small number, of complete unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God" Page 190, A Bried History of Time.

Especially include his conclusion with its ending because that is his most famous use of God:

"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find that answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God". Page 191, A Bried History of Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.175.135 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

please stop spamming your religious nonsense. Just because you believe in a blue woman with 4 arms doesnt mean the smartest man in the world does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.151.177 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I and my friends love science and want to become cosmologist. I have not understood the word "worm holes", I cannot understand that no one has seen worm holes we have just imagined it than how can we predict that it takes us to other dimension/time/place,etc. Worm holes are imagined from many years as they are part of movies from many years,than also we believe in it. Does it really exist? Do we have any proof of it? Is it only imagination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.180.122 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

about the projects performed by my brother

i nead some help for my brothers project n i"l be thankful if you have some time for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shraddha gomase (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From Archive 5

B4 V2 The article states that "Though Hawking's parents were living in North London, they moved to Oxford while Isobel was pregnant with Stephen, desiring a safer location for the birth of their first child (London was under attack at the time by the Luftwaffe). According to one of Hawking's publications, a German Wehrmacht V-2 missile struck only a few streets away. After Stephen was born, the family moved back to London.." However, Hawking was born in 1942. That's two years before the V-2 became operational. I know the quote is sourced to one of Hawking's own books but he simply can't be right. Or am I missing something? Yintaɳ 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple error for a V-1, possibly? Britmax (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The V1 was in service from 1944 to 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.126.193 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp on Photo

The caption says "Stephen Hawking at NASA in 1999." Can someone verify this? It seems much earlier than 1999, and that computer in the background looks like it's from the early 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.220.226 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Physical Condition

Why isn't Mr. Hawking's physical malady referred to as the commonly recognized "Low Gehrig's Disease". The description makes it appear as if he has a unique condition. My source is a practicing board certified physician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiaroscuro (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean LOU Gehrig's disease. As one of the few Australians interested in baseball, I do know who and what you're talking about, but I would hope that you would understand that the disease is not named after an American sports hero in other parts of the world. It has a name which more correctly describes what it is from a medical perspective. Hawking is British. Let's not use the American name please. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

NASA Picture

This picture is of unknown date and is obviously years if not decades before 1999. How does one fix this mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.69.189 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

criticism

The information in this article is, like most media coverage I have seen and heard about Hawking, purely positive almost to the point of being adulatory. There must be scientists who are critical of his work. I came to this article precisely to get a more nuanced view of Hawking, but was sadly disappointed. I hope there are people out there in a position to provide an overview of criticism of Hawking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenstad (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"There must be scientists who are critical of his work." See: Begging the question. If you feel that this article lacks something valuable to an encyclopedia, by all means, include criticism with the appropriate sources WP:V from credible, reliable independent outlets. Be prepared to defend your editing, of course, should someone find it problematic. Also remember that the burden will be on you in that case. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kenstad - I'm interested in what kinds of criticism of Hawking you have in mind. You say you are disappointed to find none. That implies that you, at least, think that some of his work is unsatisfactory. Can you share that information with us? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is the place to discuss criticism about the article and improvements to it. WP:FORUM dictates that you discuss your own positions on his work on your own user talk pages. Thanks and happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neospeech

The articles claims it was in 2009 but other sources put it as 2004 [1] [2]. My impression is that he asked to keep the same voice even with a new engine but the refs claim he selected a new voice yet I don't think I've ever heard any great difference. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Who abused whom?

"In October 2006, Hawking filed for divorce from his second wife[49] amid claims of abuse by his wife from former nurses."

This is a confusing sentence and I had to look it up to figure out who was the abuser and who was making the claim. For clarity, it should be changed to:

"... amid claims by former nurses that she had abused him."

I can't edit this protected article so can one of you please do it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.242.96 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not agnostic

In none of the cited articles does Hawking "describe himself as agnostic", as is stated in the article. This statement is a fraudulent deception. If you can argue that he is agnostic, that is your opinion, but he has not described himself as such. Jasonid (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed that claim. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like out of the sake of public interest, that it would be fair and reasonable (and proper) to describe him as an atheist now. After all, he is now being attacked for exactly that by the Discovery Institute and other religious organizations on those grounds, and it is being reported in the media as such. It's pretty clear from his new book that he is an atheist, so why must we keep skirting the issue? There's no particular reason not to present this fact; it seems entirely relevant and important for a WP article. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You have made the reason pretty clear there yourself. Most people who want an article to say that someone is atheist or agnostic want it there so that the article really says to other believers "Look, a non-believer. We must condemn him, He should go to Hell." It is almost always intended as a negative, i.e. obvious POV. This is a biography of a living person, and WP:BLP says it can really only contain things from reliable sources. For a person's religious beliefs, the only truly reliable source is what they say about themselves. If there is no evidence existing that says Hawking has said it himself, you are drawing a conclusion yourself. Obviously that is allowed in your head, but you cannot tell others in Wikipedia. It is WP:SYNTH and quite unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- reporting a fact about whether or not someone is an atheist is not POV. However, your attempt to keep this article sound is admirable (semi-barnstar worthy at least). Reliable sources such as the AP, Telegraph (UK) and Yahoo! News (possibly reliable) have reported that he is an atheist (and used the word). Also, I have no idea why you would assume the atheist description is necessarily negative...maybe in America. In Sweden, 85% of people are atheists; in Berlin, it's 68%. Among prominent scientists, globally, it's 97%. Also, that's a non-sequitor -- the fact that something is a weapon for defamation doesn't mean it is non-reportable. Thanks for your input. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, it has been reported that he has said it himself, then please go ahead and use those references to add it to the article. Otherwise, with no new sources, you are not justified in changing the article. Please discuss your proposed changes here first. HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued input, and I agree with the general spirit of your comments. The need for improving the section comes from this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html

We really need a better "religious views" section here. I'm going to give a better effort on this next try to make sure it's all factual -- let me know what you think. If it still fails, just go ahead and revert it and discuss the changes you recommend here. Otherwise, please allow others to opine. Thanks Obamafan70 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of the Atheist Wikiproject here...Stephen Hawking is listed as an atheist under our lists. This is not a controversial point, so an editor is welcome to include that here if it improves the article and she sees it fit to include.PalindromeKitty (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph reported he's an atheist. It's the most reliable newspaper in the -- wait for it -- world. Therefore, it's not synthesis. Stop trying to obscure the issue and discuss **here** next time, "HiLo". You're not following procedure. I'm sick and fed up with people coming on Wikipedia and deleting references to people about being atheists. If the Telegraph reported that he was a marxist and wrote a book about it, I doubt anybody on here would be deleting that mention. But when it comes to God, if any authoritative figure doubts She exists, then believers start trying to come up with ways to make it seem like oh wait, actually she does believe...or...in this case (even when we have credible sources) -- oh wait the jury is out! PalindromeKitty (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop making assumptions about other editors' goals and perspectives here. I can assure you that you are completely wrong about mine. While I haven't read all the sources, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the article that says that The Telegraph says that Hawking (or anybody else) has said that he has said that he is an atheist. (Yes, you need to read that carefully.) This is a biography of a living person. It should not include conclusions drawn by others about that person, if that person has not confirmed that point themselves. Hawking's recent words about the creation of the universe simply said that, in his view, God wasn't required in the process. He said nothing about whether or not he believes God exists. If we're not getting it from Hawking himself, we're synthesing it. (And please note that my views on the existence of God, which I have not expressed her, are irrelevant in all the above.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, you're right -- we should all do our best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, but PalindromeKitty is correct that you're not following protocol when you fail to discuss relevant changes here first. Remember that the primary criterion here is WP:BLP, although your criticism using WP:SYNTH is still possibly valid. As far as I can tell, you may not have read WP:BLP because the burden is on you for adding/removing or content. I'm sorry to be so frank, but you strike me as very poorly read and uninformed on Hawking. He has written in the Grand Design that he is (at least) a weak atheist -- "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." In the extract to the book, Eureka asked Hawking, "Did the Universe need a creator," and Hawking's answer was a "resounding no". The extract then continues -- that the personal god creator theory is redundant and replaced by 'm theory'. In the "Genius of Britain", he sets the question up as a dichotomy which proves the point, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." I believe that settles it.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I have breached some protocol in the reverting I did. That wasn't my intention. I truly felt that the sources and rest of the article did not justify including the atheism claim. However, if there is a good source (his own writings would be excellent) showing that he has declared himself to be "(at least) a weak atheist", then I have no problem with the article saying the same thing AND using that source. But, that he has said that God was not needed to create the universe, is not proof that he is an atheist. He may still be open to the idea of the existence of a god who doesn't go around creating universes. I truly have no idea if that is his view, and I doubt it, but it's possible. I think he appears to have chosen his words quite carefully in that area. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, thanks for your continued comments. It seems like the real issue here is that you seem to be interpreting atheism to encompass only strong atheism (an equivocation). The fact that he is open to the possibility of God's existence is perfectly consistent with atheism. In fact, as Richard Dawkins (and I agree) has argued, any true scientist should always remain open to contradictory evidence. To my knowledge, most atheists fall under the weak atheist demarcation. Dawkins himself only lists himself as a 6.0 on the atheism scale (through 7), though he has at times given himself a 6.8. Also, just a disclaimer -- I'm not a member of the Wikiproject, and I don't know anything about it. The atheist project may also have their own rules about classification. Obamafan70 (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few quotations. Edit, revert if necessary. Then we will discuss here (the burden will then be on me for the changes). I don't see how you could object here, though, since I pulled quotes straight from the sources.Obamafan70 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop pulling conclusions out on BOTH SIDES of this. For one, someone who does not believe god created the Univere does NOT mean that the person does not believe in said god. This is like saying that Since I'm not a republican, I must be a democrat. Buddhism, for example, does not hold that a creator god exists, but they are agnostic as to whether or not a god or some gods exist. Regardless, what does it matter? His contributions to science have NOTHING to do with whether or not he believes in a god. It has to do with his science. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, what does it matter? His contributions to science have NOTHING to do with whether or not he believes in a god. It has to do with his science. Did you read the article? The discussion pertains to Hawking's religious views...under the section "Religious views". Your argument ignoratio elenchi fails. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts, though. Obamafan70 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that many people do seem interested in Hawking's religious beliefs, our IP editor's logic is valid. When Hawking says that no god was needed to create the universe, he is actually saying absolutely nothing about whether he personally believes in a god. Editors must not draw conclusions about his personal beliefs from that statement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is beating a dead horse; the issue was resolved. The article uses the exact quotation from Hawking that he does not believe in a personal God -- with 3 sources.Obamafan70 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Atheist" and "agnostic" are mere speculations; unless Hawking explicitly identifies himself in a book or in an interview, an encyclopedia can only tag him as a "religious skeptic". My personal view (which I would not turn into an edit, for the aforementioned reason) is that he's still an agnostic. He didn't say that "there's almost certainly no God", like Dawkins does. Hawking simply states in "Grand Design" that God is not necessary to be invoked as an explanation in physics, that's quite different. In fact, even religious (but no creationist) scientists would say the same. Yes, he doesn't believe in God, but who agnostic does? As for the Daily Telegraph article, it begins with a journalist's conclusion on the book, not a Hawking's quote. The word "atheist" is used twice only, for Dawkins and for a reader in comments.--85.72.207.230 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Stephen Hawking is listed as Agnostic and not Atheist. How can there be any confusion about this? He has written a book, The Grand Design explaining that God is not required at all for creating Universe or anything after that. He has told that he doesn't believe in personal god. His wife has written in her book (Music to Move the Stars : A Life with Stephen Hawking) that he is an atheist. There are lots of WP:RS which confirms these and also lists him as atheist. Below are some of the sources. So it would be accurate to put him as Atheist and not agnostic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religion.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/sep/03/god-stephen-hawking-m-theory?intcmp=239 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawking-science-makes-god-unnecessary/story?id=11571150 -Abhishikt 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)