Well, the myth-believers are already voicing their angst about Stephen Hawking’s declaration that God was not necessary for the origin of the universe. And they’re predictably missing the mark. Even better, Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks has said Hawking’s statements contained “elementary fallacy of logic”. So, then are we to assume that the heavily substantiated theory of gravity is less logical and more fallacious a cause than a divine entity who made everything in 6 days - I guess even himself?

This bastion of intellect goes even further (with my italics for emphasis):

There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn’t interested in how the universe came into being.

I’ll get to the “explanation” versus “interpretation” bit in a moment, but I first want to respond to the Bible’s lack of “interest” in how the universe came into being. While that book may not care about instant “being” or a big bang like process, I would dare say that only accepting the universe coming into being by a divine power, something which the very beginning of the book tells, more than once (with slight discrepancy, no less) kind of lends me to think that maybe the book does care. Well, except that the book isn’t alive and doesn’t think or have interest in things. 

Now, on to the science versus religion bit with another quote (with more italics for emphasis):

But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science.

All right, firstly, except for the Discovery Institute types who hijack the word “science” for their beliefs, I don’t know any serious people who masquerade science as religion. Science is based on thinking things to be a certain way because of testable evidence. Religion is based on belief, i.e., thinking something to be a certain way without any knowledge. One requires logic. The other requires faith. 

Secondly, I don’t know any real science that ever bothers to explain the deeper “why” things happened, outside of actual processes. For example, science explains why stars eventually die (e.g., running out of fuel). It doesn’t ever try to explain why stars came to be. And it sure as hell doesn’t try to tell people how to live their lives. Sure, you get some cause and effect guidance for empirically testable things, like “You shouldn’t smoke because it heightens your chances for emphysema and lung cancer”. But that is a far cry different from “You should close your eyes and pray / wish for that lung cancer to go away”.

If you want to take Lord Sacks’ approach of contrasting science and religion in just a few words, here is what I would say instead:

Science gives us a set of tools to help guide us on how to think, expecting dead ends and new directions. Religion gives us a set of rules to tell us what to think, ignoring dead ends and moving in only one direction.

If anyone was guilty of using “elementary fallacy of logic”, it was the Chief Rabbi. Maybe he should try to avoid masquerading passionate belief with logical debate.

At least he tried to keep things a bit civil. The rest of the Bible thumping internet, on the other hand, are being far less gracious - and Christ-like. “I’d say there was no God if I was still in diapers, too.” Classy.