Stephen Hawking and the 'Death of Philosophy'

The publication of interviews with Stephen Hawking, the prominent British physicist and cosmologist, on Radio Farda has received significant attention. Radio Farda examines Hawking's views, who is considered by many to be the most famous living scientist in the world. Hawking believes that philosophy is dead because it has failed to keep pace with science, especially physics. For Hawking, this is why philosophy can no longer answer questions such as whether the universe needs a creator, how we can understand existence, or where we came from. He sees only scientists as capable of answering these previously philosophical questions. Hawking's remarks about philosophy have faced severe criticism from many. John Lennox, a mathematics professor at Oxford, states that unlike Hawking, Albert Einstein believed that the philosophy of science should be taught to physicists. Lennox writes in his book 'Stephen Hawking and God' that Hawking's statements about philosophy are not scientifically theoretical but rather philosophical. Raymond Tallis, a philosophy professor in Britain, argues that 'philosophy is not dead and can help science, which is in a chaotic state.' Ramin Jahanbegloo, a philosophy professor in Canada, discussed the 'death of philosophy' and Hawking's thoughts with Radio Farda. Jahanbegloo believes that the question of whether philosophy is dead is itself a philosophical question. He notes that philosophy has been alive for three thousand years. When we talk about the death of philosophy, it means the death of thinking, and the death of thinking means the death of questioning reality. Therefore, as long as humans have the ability to think and critical thought can survive against utilitarian or positivist thinking, the spirit of philosophy will remain in human civilization. This reminds me of Pascal's statement that mocking philosophy is itself a form of philosophical thinking. Philosophy prevents the rationalization of faith, whether faith in God or faith in science. Jahanbegloo asserts that philosophy has survived due to its ability to prevent the great danger of fanaticism that has always threatened the world. Today, we see that philosophy prevents fanaticism and serves as a kind of idol breaker. As Wittgenstein said, philosophy itself is an idol breaker. Philosophy questions ideas rather than idol worship. I believe philosophy not only has the capability to question its essence but also to question the essence of science. How do you see the relationship between science and philosophy today? When we compare science and philosophy, we see that the scientific method is fundamentally an empirical method, involving theorizing, experimenting, observing, and concluding about reality. However, when we turn to philosophical methods, philosophical thinking is not just about reality, humanity, and the universe; it also involves thinking about when reality becomes a value. Einstein's statement about science and religion can also be applied to science and philosophy: science without philosophy is lame, but philosophy also needs science to avoid becoming superstition. Philosophy thinks about values and strives to determine the validity of the fundamental concepts of science, which science itself does not do. Science becomes a process of understanding reality but presents itself as a criterion of truth and cannot... Science, which has become technological today, suffers from thinking about its essence and cannot find answers about how it is scientific and the nature of technology. This is where I believe scientists should turn to philosophy to help determine the essence of science and the limits of scientific knowledge. However, the question that science does not pose about its essence is the one philosophy raises and challenges. Many, especially theists, accuse Stephen Hawking of being scientistic, meaning he sees science as the only way to approach truth and understand reality. Do you also believe this? I think many of our compatriots should know that Stephen Hawking himself faced criticism from many of his colleagues and other physicists when he wrote his last book, 'The Grand Design.' Physicists like Roger Penrose, Gerald Schroeder, and even his colleague George Ellis criticized him, believing he had fallen into a kind of scientism. Essentially, when he claims philosophy is dead, he leans toward this scientism. Interestingly, we should not forget that Hawking himself quotes philosophers in his books. For example, in 'A Brief History of Time,' he quotes Wittgenstein at the end of the book. Therefore, he has not entirely set philosophy aside. Even though he states that philosophy is dead, he discusses curiosity, which is fundamentally a matter that philosophy has dealt with since ancient times. However, how to avoid scientism and ensure that science does not become an idol is crucial, as philosophy can serve as an idol breaker. We must recognize that science provides practically useful descriptions, but we must also be aware of the difference between science and scientism. Scientism turns science into a calculative and counting thought that only addresses beings and not the entirety of existence. The main issue in scientism, which we do not even have in quantum science, is that from the perspective of scientism, science is seen as a knowing and aware subject that considers itself the source of all meanings in the universe and seeks to understand the objects and phenomena of the world.