Pondering on this portion of an interview with Stephen Hawking by Diane Sawyer …

But exploring the origins of time inevitably leads to questions about the ultimate origins of everything and what, if anything, is behind it all.

“What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God,” Hawking told Sawyer. “They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.”

When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

I always find it interesting to read comments from atheist scientists, continually trying to show science’s triumph over religion.  What I find interesting is that the converse — religion seeking to triumph over science — does not particularly exist; since most — at least most Christian faiths — embrace scientific discovery right along with their religious beliefs.

Yet, we must keep in mind the reality: that for all that science answers, it can only answer the question of “what?”, not “why?”  It is limited to observations in space and time.  Such finite constraints severely limit science, to the point that despite all the answers it gives (which those of faith rightly embrace), those never seem to satisfy the question that burns within us: Why do I, or does anything, exist?

Unless it can answer that question, science can never “win”.