In today's Guardian there is an exclusive interview with Stephen Hawking. The headline reads: "There is no heaven or afterlife...that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark". -I'm not going to argue for or against an afterlife, but please note the certainty with which the scientist expresses his opinion. The article goes on with further quotes and extracts from a talk Hawking is to give tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London:-In the talk he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life, emerged. "Science predicts that many kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.-Note that science doesn't tell us that many kinds of universe have been spontaneously created out of nothing. Here we have a subtle combination of past, future and present, making it quite impossible to gauge how much of this is scientifically sound and how much is pure fantasy. The insertion of "spontaneously" is another subtle device ... as if science were somehow able to come up with evidence of spontaneity.-Hawking's talk is going to focus on M-theory, which "demands a universe with 11 dimensions, including a dimension of time and the three familiar spatial dimensions. The rest are curled up too small for us to see. 
Evidence in support of M-theory might also come from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern..."-What is this "also" doing here? No evidence has been cited. Note the use of "might", and link it to the following:-"One possibility predicted by the M-theory is supersymmetry, an idea that says fundamental particles have heavy ... and as yet undiscovered ... twins, with curious names such as selectrons and squarks."-It's a possibility, but the twins are as yet undiscovered! Hamlet talked of death as the "undiscover'd country from whose bourn / No traveller returns" (he'd forgotten about the ghost). Hamlet's undiscover'd country is a fairy tale, but Hawking's undiscovered twin particles are a scientific "possibility". And the scientific possibility is strengthened by the fact that "Confirmation of supersymmetry would be a shot in the arm for M-theory and help physicists explain how each forces [sic] at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time." -Confirmation of an afterlife would be a shot in the arm for believers, and would help to explain how all the forces at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time ... and believers would call it God. Since when did "would be" endow a theory with scientific respectability? If one unproven hypothesis (the afterlife) is a fairy tale, why are two other unproven hypotheses (M-theory and supersymmetry) scientific? And even if science were to find evidence of 11 dimensions, supersymmetry, selectrons and squarks, these still wouldn't prove "spontaneity". As an agnostic, I expect believers on both sides of the fence to apply the same standards. At least theists acknowledge that their belief requires faith. If a scientist dismisses their faith, that is his own affair, but it seems to me that any theory reliant on "possibility", "might", "would", "as yet undiscovered" remains a fairy tale until someone comes up with evidence. There have been countless experiences relating to some kind of afterlife, and yet Hawking dismisses them all. Does anyone even claim to have experienced the 7 unknown dimensions, the selectrons, the squarks? -In fairness to Hawking, he was asked certain questions, and so of course he was obliged to answer. The sensational headline is unquestionably the choice of the Guardian editor, and one can hardly blame Hawking for that. But I'm not so sure about the double standards.