The beauty of science - why Hawking reflects modern thinking

In the past week or so, there has been somewhat of a media furore surrounding Stephen Hawking's comments about the role of God in explaining the universe. "The Grand Design", co-authored by Leonard Mlodinow - whose name is a few font sizes smaller than Hawking's on the cover - attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life, with the support of what physicists call M theory. An extension of super-string theory, its supposed to have 12 dimensions and multiple universes. For laymen like myself, these assumptions are a bit crazy and makes me wonder whats wrong with the 4 dimensions we have now.

Is this what M theory looks like?

Predictably when such controversy erupts, the most erudite religious leaders and the most extreme atheists do battle to try and stab the intellectual knife into their enemies' chests. Of course Richard Dawkins gets a phone call - the renowned biologist did write the "The God's Delusion" after all. As a sort of agnostic, it is hard to come to terms with someone who is so assuredly atheist, and makes it his mission to make rather cringing documentaries in America's Bible Belt about how they are all indeed deluded. This guy is surely not human, right? He looks a bit evil doesn't he?

Dawkins of course has to dominate my treasured Comments pages of The Times, seemingly going round in circles arguing about how religious leaders misunderstand science and misframe their intellectual enquiries. Then come the likes of Ruth Gledhill and Jonathan Sacks hitting back arguing, religion is still relevant, etc. I think they all have a degree in linguistics and philosophy, especially when they come out with things like, 'what do you mean by meaning?' Seriously...

But I think there is a more subtle point to be made here. Hawkings, as an all-encompassing sort of physicist, is trying to come up with a set of 'scientific' laws which govern our reality. His theory is not readily provable in a laboratory, nor is it universally accepted among physicists, who argue that his ideas are pushing towards philosophy and ethics. Sadly this is not a cue for those weird creationist people. How I interpret this, is that with M theory - a universal set of laws which govern the world, much like fundamental religious principles - God or any higher being no longer has a role in explaining the beauty of science. For some, the beauty of science is essentially what life means.

It is perhaps a little too extreme to say that atheists do not think there is meaning in life. In our modern, secular world, people do find their own meanings of their existence - similarly some scientists are inclined to think that the beauty of science is a meaning in itself. I remember at one house party during university, a maths boff wrote this extraordinary set of squiggles and letters that made up this complex formula with a marker pen on the fridge. "That's beautiful, isn't it?" He enquired enthusiastically with a can of beer in his hand.

Of course at the time I thought, "bloody hell, what a fruitbat... why does the water-polo team attract oddballs like these?" But now I kind of get it. And I can also smily wryly at another maths boff who would explain how he ate his jam sandwiches: two slices of white bread, with jam spread evenly on one side making sure it doesn't go over the edges, cut the bread diagonally to get two triangular pieces, consider it as an isosceles triangle and eat the two corners with the same angle first, and then the other corner.

Indeed life is beautiful, I really wish I could appreciate jam sandwiches in that way...!

Trusted links from the Beeb:
Hawking: God did not create universe
Profile of Jonathan Sacks - if you have access to BBC iPlayer, you can watch his 'A Case for God'
Dawkins, Christianity's not best friend