Monday, April 26, 2010

Questioning Assumption of Benevolence

Here's one prominent scientist, Stephen Hawking, who agrees with the scientific probability that aliens may exist, but is extremely nervous about contact with them.

This viewpoint underscores my concern with the benevolence portion of The New God argument, which assumes humans will advance through scientific progression to become powerful  "posthumans" who are benevolent, and create future worlds for benevolent means.

Surely, the elimination of evil and the rewarding of good in the eternities to come will require some kind of dramatic, external power and judgement from a loving Heavenly Father, beyond what is realistic through natural, scientific progression.

Scientists such as Hawking recognize the realistic possibility that life can evolve into serving selfish or even sinister means.


  1. Stephen Hawking is an excellent physicist, but his credentials in sociology probably are no better than yours or mine. The technology that enables a crusader to cross oceans and conquer continents has a far lower natural benevolence barrier than the technology that enables a posthuman to cross galaxies and conquer worlds.

  2. Thanks for sharing the thought, Vblogger. I have elaborated here:

  3. Good point. Hawking's expertise in this area and his argument is speculative. But so is the benevolence argument. I just brought it up as a minor a counterpoint to the idea that just because a civilization has managed to advance and survive necessarily means it is benevolent.