There are countless theories behind the story of everything, the story of how we exist and why. If one is not a believer in science, typically the next best choice would be religion, and the concept of a higher spiritual entity or "god". The article by Stephen Hawking unleashes a brilliant statement about how science is inherently progressive and religion is inherently conservative. Religion is relatively close minded and illogical, and is based on fundamental beliefs as opposed to empirical facts. Clearly we know that God or Gods is (are) not necessary to imagine the beginning of the universe, in our modern understanding science lays out the groundwork for what I believe to be the most viable explanation of the universe. Although, I am only a fraction of the percentage of humans who believe in these theories, as many of us do need some sort of higher entity or religion to put the universe into perspective. With so many different opinions and beliefs about the story of everything, we can start to understand the why and the how of these beliefs and empathize with the believers. In the last century alone we have begun to strung together more scientific facts about our existence than ever before, and are beginning to answer the questions that have perplexed our ancestors for so many years. Now here is the tricky part, we can understand the concept of molecules and the universe, but science states that all of this simply materialized out of nothing, otherwise known as "The Big Bang Theory". It's impossible to try and understand how this first molecule expanded into the universe, but the clues are all around us. For instance, in his book "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking talks about something called the Doppler effect. To put it simply, it defines that molecules moving towards us are a slight shade of blue, but molecules moving away from us are a slight shade of red. He claims that if one observes the cosmos surrounding the earth it will appear to be that slight shade of red, as it is perpetually expanding, like a balloon. Now it is said that what caused the big bang was an ultra hot fog of energy, but this does not explain the existence of this energy. This is why, technically, religion has not yet been proven wrong, and it is still useful in attempting to understand beyond what modern science has given us. Ultimately, science is very convincing and thought provoking, and generally the most logical argument to our existence, but there are many elements when taking an anthropologist's point of view that don't seem much more plausible than certain religions. Now we understand a little bit about science, and how atheists believe we came into existence. Science is logical, but also ethnocentric, in this next paragraph I will explain my own ethnocentric world view. Like I've explained before, Gods are not necessary to imagine the beginning of the universe. The reason they exist is because people are so petrified at the thought of any major life questions, that they find something to believe in and they cling to it. If we really take a minute to think about how the catholic religion was created, we can see that men are the ones who wrote the bible. My opinion might be offensive, but nonetheless, men are the ones who shamelessly invented this story of a two thousand year old god that will persecute you if you don't behave morally. A similar folktale comes to my mind when thinking about the structure of this belief, that would be the story of Santa Claus. Santa Claus is what we tell are kids when they are too young to know any better to get them to behave properly. I know that comparing god to Santa Claus is taking it a step too far, but if one really thinks about it, the ideals are the same; act righteous or face persecution. In this paragraph it seems I have strayed from a typical anthropologists point of view, so in an attempt to preserve some cultural relativism, I will explain why religion is still important in our society. When we think about whether or not God or Gods is (are) necessary to imagine the beginning of the universe, we know that for many, it isn't. Although, on the contrary, is religion necessary to advance society? In our modern society there is a very clear line between right and wrong, but historically speaking our moral compasses have always been a bit jumbled. Obviously all religions vary greatly, and just because most of them teach morals and values does not mean all do. What I am talking about in this next paragraph is those religions that are endowed with high moral fiber. Moreover, historically humans were barbaric, presently humans still are barbaric. We have a self destructive nature and without religion mapping out the proper way to behave we might cease to exist today. Growing up, my family wasn't all that religious, but they still made me go to church every sunday. If they didn't genuinely believe in the religion itself, what would coax them to force me to partake in the religious events, such as communion, confirmation etc.? Well, what they did believe in was the core principles of the catholic religion, and the morals and values it would bestow unto me simply by becoming involved with the church. To conclude, while there is a pretty clear cut explanation of how the universe began, religion still plays a massive role in advancing society, and many cultures would be irrelevant without it. People have been questioning religion since the dawn of it's existence, one influential theorist was Karl Marx. Marx, although critical of religion, believed that questioning the logic of religion would be a direct criticism toward society, as both are intertwined. Marx argues that religion is simply a "natural consequence of the human experience in distress." Marx also claims that it is a way of maintaining obedience and control of the people, which brings me back to my previous paragraph. If people truly believe they will achieve happiness through salvation, they will surrender to the rules of society and subject themselves to a higher authority. While this is very manipulative of governments, it is almost a necessary evil. It is not very anthropological to take an ethnocentric approach in understanding religion. I am entitled to any opinion I might have, but I try to understand the need for religion on a deeper level. To study anthropology in general, one must understand that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural entity. So far, I have been very broad in generalizing religion, but there are so many cultures and religions it takes a vastly open mind to become relative to all of them. One group that is particularly different than most is the Fore of New Guinea. The Fore of New Guinea were a group of "14,000 horticulturalists living in the eastern highlands of New Guinea". The Fore were notoriously known for suffering at the hands of an illness called kuru, which means "to tremble with fear" in Fore. Medical examiners found out that what caused kuru was an infectious agent called a prion. This prion was not sexually transmitted or airborne, what was most shocking to medical examiners was that fact that it was transferred through cannibalism. One of the Fore's religious practices was to actually eat part of their dead as a funeral ritual. While the medical community had put a finger on the cause of the disease, the Fore still believed kuru was caused by sorcery. Here is another case of faith trumping logic, and explaining the medical reasoning behind kuru to the Fore would be like explaining music to a dog. This brings me back to my main argument involving the necessity of Gods in imagining the beginning of the universe. The answer to this question is dependent on different cultural practices and beliefs of the group. I'm sure if you explained "The Big Bang Theory" to a member of the Fore, it would have a similar reaction to telling a scientist that sorcery is responsible for diseases. I'm still sticking to my guns in the sense that Gods are not necessary for humanity as a whole to imagine the beginning of the universe, but some cultures genuinely cannot perceive it differently. To piece it all together we've looked at the scientific perspective, the ethnocentric perspective, and finally an approach towards cultural relativism. Science deems Gods unnecessary to imagining the universe and offers quite the logical explanation. My own personal ethnocentrism tends to agree with science, and the belief that Gods only exist as a result of the fear of men. Finally, cultural relativism sheds some light on the necessity of the individual in a religious culture to believe in a God or higher power. Ultimately, imagining the reason or logic behind our own existence will always be unfamiliar territory, and the only necessity for a higher power therein lies with the illusion of salvation.