DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: tjanuranus on May 16, 2011, 02:13:56 PM
-
https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/stephen-hawking-dismisses-idea-of-a-universal-creator-calls-heaven-a-fairy-story/
Stephen Hawking dismisses idea of a universal creator, calls heaven a ‘fairy story’
LONDON (AFP) – British scientist Stephen Hawking has branded heaven a "fairy story" for people afraid of the dark, in his latest dismissal of the concepts underpinning the world's religions.
The author of 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time" said in an interview with The Guardian published on Monday that his views were partly influenced by his battle with motor neurone disease.
"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the newspaper.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Hawking's stance on religion has hardened significantly in the nearly quarter century since the publication of his seminal work on the cosmos.
In "A Brief History of Time" he suggested that the idea of a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
But in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he said a deity no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series of developments in physics.
Hawking has achieved worldwide fame for his research, writing and television documentaries despite suffering since the age of 21 from motor neurone disease that has left him disabled and dependent on a voice synthesiser.
If i can add my own opinion here... One of the books i read while going through my period of discovery was A Brief History of Time which i loved and shared with a few people. Hawking is one of the most brilliant people to ever live and he's been a personal hero of mine for a long time. I even wrote about him in my psychology class this semester, the question was "Who is a hero to you and why?" So seeing that he EXACTLY agrees with my outlook on religion... Makes me ;D just a little bit!
-
Well now it's abundantly clear: God sent Hawking down to Earth to test our faith.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
or SHOULD be taken seriously. :tup
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
I guess this disproves the existence of black holes.
-
Well now it's abundantly clear: God sent Hawking down to Earth to test our faith.
:lol
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
:facepalm: At least Orcus was joking (I hope).
-
Well now it's abundantly clear: God sent Hawking down to Earth to test our faith.
:rollin
-
How interesting. He cites his physical condition as a partial cause of his disbelief.
-
I don't think I can particularly blame him. I'm not sure what God it would be that would condemn a man to such a life of physical misery.
rumborak
-
I don't think I can particularly blame him. I'm not sure what God it would be that would condemn a man to such a life of physical misery.
rumborak
Understandable. But it wasn't his extensive research alone that led him to atheism, but a base philosophical objection: the problem of evil.
-
I don't think I can particularly blame him. I'm not sure what God it would be that would condemn a man to such a life of physical misery.
rumborak
I'd assume one that doesn't get involved in things like that.
-
True. But once you chip away at those things it's not a big step to rejecting the whole thing in the first place.
rumborak
-
True. But once you chip away at those things it's not a big step to rejecting the whole thing in the first place.
rumborak
Only if god has prerequisites.
-
Not sure I follow, Adami.
rumborak
-
But in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he said a deity no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the universe in the light of a series of developments in physics.
I'd be interested in seeing exactly what developments he's talking about, but I'm too cheep to buy his book.
-
Not sure I follow, Adami.
rumborak
Well if god has to have a hand in every day life, that is a prerequisite to being god. If god doesn't have to have any involvement, then one could believe in god whilst being in such a condition as Dr. Hawking.
-
This might or might not be a non-sequitur to your post, but is it clear whether he simply rejects the existing notions of God (Christian, Islam, Hindi etc.), or whether he rejects all notions of a Creator? The wording "fairy tales" seems to indicate he's more talking about existing notions. Because as an astronomer I can't see him categorically rejecting the notion of something having put the universe into place.
rumborak
-
This might or might not be a non-sequitur to your post, but is it clear whether he simply rejects the existing notions of God (Christian, Islam, Hindi etc.), or whether he rejects all notions of a Creator? The wording "fairy tales" seems to indicate he's more talking about existing notions. Because as an astronomer I can't see him categorically rejecting the notion of something having put the universe into place.
rumborak
Good question.
-
@OP: Who cares?
-
@OP: Who cares?
me and i'm guessing other people who are replying in this thread.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
Brilliant
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
:lol
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
:lol
Pretty under-appreciated post.
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
Einstein was retarded. ::)
-
@OP: Who cares?
Who cares about any of the other religious threads on this board? Seriously. If you don't have anything to contribute don't post
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
This isn't true.
-
Just because he got neurosis he blames the one creator and not the devil character.
-
Just because he got neurosis he blames the one creator and not the devil character.
the guy who punishes bad people? :neverusethis:
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
This isn't true.
Yeah, that's one of the apocryphal stories that never happened. I think there's a similar story about Newton. All too common to try to claim someone influential for your own camp by saying he "defected".
rumborak
-
If steven hawking is so great let's see him do jumping jacks...
But in all seriousness it sounds like since he came on to one possibility he makes it out to be the only possibility. Of course I may be wrong but thats just what it looks like to me.
-
But in all seriousness it sounds like since he came on to one possibility he makes it out to be the only possibility. Of course I may be wrong but thats just what it looks like to me.
I'd be surprised if he did. Hawking is often misrepresented, due in large part to the fact that a lot of the people quoting him for their "mainstream consumption" articles are ignorant of the topics he's addressing. And there's always potential for confusion when trying to translate scientific opinions into layman's terms.
-J
-
Wouldn't be the first time that Hawking got misquoted, yeah.
rumborak
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
-
Because when an obviously intelligent person comes to a conclusion that appears to not make sense or comes across as simple "wishing away reality," looking at their reasoning could, at least, introduce you to a new way of looking at things even if you don't agree with their conclusion.
-
Wow.
In this thread we're reminded, once again, that everyone has different points of view.
I like to think our world is better with Stephen Hawking. He's the genius of our generation. He's overcome extreme physical handicap to do something productive with his life. He's influenced millions. And he's won awards for his understanding of how our universe works. But since he doesn't believe in the Christian God, I guess that makes him a joke.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Why should anyone take someone seriously who wishes for reality by reading an old book?
rumborak
-
It should be noted that there are more ways to look at Science and Religion, and how they relate, then the way that Hawking poses.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Your reality is not necessarily HIS reality. I suppose we could get into a debate about absolute/relative truths, but that'd be a bit off topic. Regardless, it comes across as an ignorant statement because you assert that your view is the only right view. I know we all think we're all right, but it doesn't bring good debate.
Being a-religious, I don't have an opinion either way about what Hawking's saying. If it's a fairytale, fine. If it's not, then I'll worry about that when I get to heaven.
-
Wow.
In this thread we're reminded, once again, that everyone has different points of view.
I like to think our world is better with Stephen Hawking. He's the genius of our generation. He's overcome extreme physical handicap to do something productive with his life. He's influenced millions. And he's won awards for his understanding of how our universe works. But since he doesn't believe in the Christian God, I guess that makes him a joke.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
It should be noted that there are more ways to look at Science and Religion, and how they relate, then the way that Hawking poses.
I don't think Hawking has all the answers or anything, and I am a Christian so obviously I disagree with him on this issue, but I just think it's a bit ridiculous to dismiss someone altogether because they don't believe in religion.
-
It should be noted that there are more ways to look at Science and Religion, and how they relate, then the way that Hawking poses.
I don't think Hawking has all the answers or anything, and I am a Christian so obviously I disagree with him on this issue, but I just think it's a bit ridiculous to dismiss someone altogether because they don't believe in religion.
I apologize if I was unclear, but that is not what I intended to say. I was merely lamenting the fact that this topic always debases into nonsensical Religion versus Science bullshit, when there are dozens of different views on how the two things relate that are completely unrelated to any discussion in this thread so far.
I was not taking a stance either way, and I was definitely not saying that anyone was wrong because they believed in Religion, or Science for that matter.
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
This isn't true.
Is so...
-
Na uh
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Since the afterlife and God are two very unproven things, I don't see why you can't take what he says seriously.
-
Wishes away reality? You're aware that as you define god, you immediately begin to disprove him, right? And if you leave your definition of god vague enough to avoid this, then you're left with an entity so vague that there's really no point in believing/worshiping it anyway(nevermind that the simple fact that if a god that needs worship, it is no god at all).
As far as Einstein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views Really, it's that simple. Any quote mining will lead you to mostly out of context crap or fabrications.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - actually expressed by him.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Nothing exists. Now listen to me.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Nothing exists. Now listen to me.
But if nothing exists, then you don't exist. And if you don't exist, how can I listen to you? Especially if I don't exist.
-
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
Repeated.... even on an obscure music forum's P/R section decades later!
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Nothing exists. Now listen to me.
But if nothing exists, then you don't exist. And if you don't exist, how can I listen to you? Especially if I don't exist.
I wrote a book on it, don't worry. It explains everything.
Especially the part about how it doesn't exist.
-
What a lot of hullaballoo.
-
He helped Joshua fight the battle of Jericho, he helped Daniel get out the lion's den, he helped Gilligaaaaaaaaaaaan get off the island AH!
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
Quite possibly either the dumbest thing I have seen you post or the most misinformed.
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
This isn't true.
Is so...
:facepalm:
-
And after a lifetime in physics Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Creator. Who to believe?
This isn't true.
Is so...
Einstein refferred to himself as an agnostic in letters from 1950. He also rejected the idea of a personal god throughout his life.
In any case, I always get annoyed when prominent scientists make these sort of claims. It undermines the scientific method.
-
How so?
-
They are making absolute statements about things that they have minimal data on. Making a definitive statement either way is premature. Never mind from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason whatsover to even address questions like the existence of god.
-
He helped Joshua fight the battle of Jericho, he helped Daniel get out the lion's den, he helped Gilligaaaaaaaaaaaan get off the island AH!
:clappingemotegoeshere.cheers.
-
They are making absolute statements about things that they have minimal data on. Making a definitive statement either way is premature. Never mind from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason whatsover to even address questions like the existence of god.
Absolute statements maybe I will concede to that. However if there is even the question of the existence of god or gods, science is the only thing to address it. God is supposed to exist (to some) and to be the creator and science is the study of all in existence. God falls exactly in the realm of science. So far it is not looking good for the claims of religions.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
>Someone has a viewpoint that disagrees with mine
>I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY AT ALL
Yeah, okay. But seriously, why should anyone take seriously someone who simply wishes away reality?
:rollin
-
As far as Einstein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views Really, it's that simple. Any quote mining will lead you to mostly out of context crap or fabrications.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - actually expressed by him.
OK, here's some quote mining:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
He did not believe in a personal God, but he also rejected Atheistic views with great ferver. Any "quote mining" or biographical research will show you that he believed there was an intelligent design to the universe. The point is, anyone can make a claim about God, Hawking, Einstein, political leaders, teachers, airplane mechanics, etc. It does nothing to prove nor disprove Gods existence.
-
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
https://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
Einstein referred to the universe as god more often then not, he was not a believer at all. You're right that it does not matter what he or anyone else believes in regards to the existence of god. All of those arguments are merely appeals to authority and bare nothing on reality.
-
Absolute statements maybe I will concede to that. However if there is even the question of the existence of god or gods, science is the only thing to address it. God is supposed to exist (to some) and to be the creator and science is the study of all in existence. God falls exactly in the realm of science. So far it is not looking good for the claims of religions.
Science can refute claims of religion, but not the existence of a god. God doesn't fall into the realm of science because it is impossible disprove the existence of a creator with scientific evidence.
-
They are making absolute statements about things that they have minimal data on. Making a definitive statement either way is premature. Never mind from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason whatsover to even address questions like the existence of god.
That's why I'm wondering which God he was addressing with his statement. A pantheist God is essentially impossible to prove or disprove (barring extraordinary evidence), whereas the specificities of the common deities have a lot of counter-evidence that could lead one to such a statement.
rumborak
-
...it is impossible disprove the existence of a creator with scientific evidence.
Strictly speaking, that isn't true. As with any number of things, we can and often do "prove" things, not necessarily by direct observation, but by observing other things that lead us to the conclusion that a phenomenon or thing exists or is true.
-
...it is impossible disprove the existence of a creator with scientific evidence.
Strictly speaking, that isn't true. As with any number of things, we can and often do "prove" things, not necessarily by direct observation, but by observing other things that lead us to the conclusion that a phenomenon or thing exists or is true.
Am I reading your post wrong or did you read mine wrong? Are you arguing that you can prove a creator does not exist or does exist?
-
Hasn't Hawking been saying this for years already, just with different words?
-
I am saying you can. Can we do so conclusively? No. Of course not. But, again, there are any number of things we "prove" to a fair enough degree of certaint without directly observing the thing we are proving. We prove it though indirect evidence and observation of a number of smaller proofs that lead to the conclusion that the bigger think is in fact true.
Example: we are taught that it is "proven" that over a VERY long period of time, though a VERY long series of changes, simple single-celled organisms evolved into more complex organisms such as, eventually, humans. We cannot duplicate this long series of changes from step one all the way through the final step in a lab. We have never directly observed that chain of events. But through putting together a lot of smaller proofs, we are taught that this evolutionary process is in fact proven and that this series of events did in fact occur.
-
Hasn't Hawking been saying this for years already, just with different words?
Yeah, that was kinda my initial point. :lol
-
They are making absolute statements about things that they have minimal data on. Making a definitive statement either way is premature. Never mind from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason whatsover to even address questions like the existence of god.
Absolute statements maybe I will concede to that. However if there is even the question of the existence of god or gods, science is the only thing to address it. God is supposed to exist (to some) and to be the creator and science is the study of all in existence. God falls exactly in the realm of science. So far it is not looking good for the claims of religions.
To be addressed scientifically, a question must a) present a coherent definition of the concept that is being investigated and b) must be falsifiable. The question of god's existence fails in both these respects.
-
They are making absolute statements about things that they have minimal data on. Making a definitive statement either way is premature. Never mind from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason whatsover to even address questions like the existence of god.
Absolute statements maybe I will concede to that. However if there is even the question of the existence of god or gods, science is the only thing to address it. God is supposed to exist (to some) and to be the creator and science is the study of all in existence. God falls exactly in the realm of science. So far it is not looking good for the claims of religions.
To be addressed scientifically, a question must a) present a coherent definition of the concept that is being investigated and b) must be falsifiable. The question of god's existence fails in both these respects.
Let me say first I agree with your points
A general god did it and masked everything to fool us into thinking it was natural is of course impossible. An arbitrary god will of course be impossible to disprove or prove. To disprove the god you need to merely disprove the religion or claims of the divine being. Once you have eliminated a sufficient amount claims of divine interaction. The god affectively becomes dead.
So if there is no divine intervention, no real trace of it's existence, there is no reason to worship it or pay any mind to it whatsoever. In this case science could not prove nor disprove it. We would just continue on like we are now, investigating existence from a realistic stand point. Where the evidence points us.
So really all that matters is proving people wrong. lol.
-
Well...actually, sort of, yeah. :lol
-
Here's a good summation of the issue:
https://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/much_ado_about_hawking-79018
So Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in Heaven. This is apparently a big deal. It's not that he is wrong, he is most likely right, though that the nature of faith is belief in defiance of any evidence so that doesn't matter, the important question is why anyone cares.
Everyone in the public has heard of Stephen Hawking, he is quite famous, but for what? I can't find a single thing where he has been correct - it's not like we have experimental evidence for his idea on how black holes emit radiation, we just don't have a better answer, which sounds a lot like religion. Most recently, he basically gave up and endorsed M-theory, which is a delightfully anthropomorphic hypothesis about fundamental physics but has a number of competitors so it tries to consume them all in a questionable framework. Hawking is not solving any mysteries any time soon and The Grand Design basically seemed to be phoned in, theoretically.
When he wrote A Brief History of Time, which is a terrific book, he made a metaphor about a theory of everything, writing "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."
Did atheists suddenly give up on atheism because he wrote that? Not at all, so why any of them are rushing to list Hawking as some sort of sage endorsement when he says there is no Heaven is beyond me. If Hawking came out and endorsed Mitt Romney for U.S. president in 2012, would it change any votes?
Stephen Hawking is to physics what Stephen Jay Gould was to biology - here is John Maynard Smith, Emeritus Professor at Sussex, on Gould, by way of reviewing Daniel Dennett’s 1995 book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
"Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists."
So it goes with Hawking; to many, he doesn't have to be right, he just has to be on the same side. A paleontologist can't be the preeminent authority on evolutionary biology any more than a well-versed theoretical physicist can be an authority on theology.
Alex Berezow at RealClearScience says Hawking is arguably as well-known as Einstein and laments that Hawking might be better known in the future for insulting religious people with quotes about fairy tales than his excellent early insights in physics. I don't agree, Einstein's later career was dismal and he was also cited by the religious and atheists for saying various things for and against religion, but he is best known now for his early work. Let's hope the same happens with Hawking.
One previous Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge said "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere" while another, who received a Nobel prize in physics, delved into the supernatural and numerology and was still a member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences along with being a famous scientist. If some questions were too big for Newton and Dirac to be considered authorities, it is unlikely Hawking can be considered one any time soon.
-
I think I basically said that about 70 posts ago. I was just more blunt and potentiall inflammatory about it. :lol
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
+1
the only man that has ever lived on this planet that I believe to be smarter than hawking is Einstein. he believed the exact opposite as hawking.
tbn
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
as is hawking's.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
as is hawking's.
Huh? That's who I was talking about.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
as is hawking's.
Huh? That's who I was talking about.
sorry man, i thought you meant einstein. still, the same point is made.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
Really?
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
as is hawking's.
Huh? That's who I was talking about.
sorry man, i thought you meant einstein. still, the same point is made.
I know, I just made it.
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
Really?
On heaven? Yes.
-
Yet another reason why Hawking cannot be taken seriously.
+1
the only man that has ever lived on this planet that I believe to be smarter than hawking is Einstein. he believed the exact opposite as hawking.
tbn
To be fair, there are people in history that were far more intelligent than Hawking; he's definitely one of the better living physicists, but his importance has been a bit exaggerated. It's almost criminal that most people only seem to think of Einstein and Hawking when asked about "smart people," while some of history's most important figures are virtually unknown to the public (Newton for more than the silly apple anecdote, Bohr, Planck, Fermi, Feynman, Heisenberg, Schrodinger).
Just me ranting. On topic, it is his opinion, and he's not wrong for having it.
EDIT: Also, Einstein's belief's were a bit too ambiguous to classify as being "the exact opposite of Hawking's."
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
Really?
On heaven? Yes.
I think the opinion of someone who's famous, even if they are not a well-respected and read scientist, carries more influence than my opinion or yours. How could it not?
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
Really?
On heaven? Yes.
I think the opinion of someone who's famous, even if they are not a well-respected and read scientist, carries more influence than my opinion or yours. How could it not?
Oh I wasn't measuring importance by relevance, but if you are then I guess you could be right. However, his statement won't change anything. Theists won't suddenly abandon their beliefs or anything. Atheists will just be like "YEAH!" which happens often enough anyway. So no, I wouldn't say his opinion on heaven is all that important. Now if the Pope declared that heaven is a fairytale, that would be much more interesting.
-
Well he's already declared Limbo doesn't exist. It's the next logical step.
-
Well, it's his opinion. Usually, opinions are only taken seriously if one happens to agree. If someone's controversial opinion is not in agreement with the popular majority, then it must be wrong. I disagree.
I agree. His opinion is no less correct or incorrect than yours or mine. Similarly, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
WAIT
this isn't something you can have an opinion on. Either God exists/heaven exists, or they don't. Hawking is either right or wrong. Just because we don't know if he is right or wrong doesn't make what he is saying an opinion. I'm sure he would agree that this is not his opinion - he believes it to be true, and a belief in what is absolutely true far transcends an opinion.
The first half of your statement is just silly, but I do agree that Hawking's belief is not more important than anybody else's just because his IQ is higher.
-
Beleifs about the unknown are opinions. Opinions are thoughts and judgments. I don't see why its silly to say that beliefs are opinions.
-
It is not my opinion that God exists. I believe that it is a truth that God exists.
It is my opinion that my ex-girlfriend looks better with her hair tied back. Her opinion was otherwise. Neither way is true or untrue.
It is not my opinion that John Coltrane plays out of tune. It is a fact. I've heard plenty of times "oh, that's just your opinion -- it sounds fine to me". That person is wrong.
Two opinions about an issue of subjective matter can co-exist peacefully.
Two beliefs about an issue of truth/untruth cannot. One person will be wrong (regardless of whether or not either person knows what in fact the truth is).
Let's say a shirt is red. I say "it is my opinion that the shirt is red." You say "it is my opinion that the shirt is blue." You are wrong and I am right, but that is obvious.
Let's say God exists (or doesn't exist). If two people disagree about what they believe, one of them is wrong, like I said before, regardless of whether or not either person knows what in fact the truth is.
Here is what I'm saying is silly:
person 1: "It is my opinion God exists!"
person 2: "It is my opinion that God doesn't exist!"
both agree that they are both equally right and equally wrong and it really doesn't matter! yay! we've gotten nowhere!
I say that is silly.
Two blind men are talking. One believes that Earth is flat, and the other believes that it is spherical (or close). Neither actually knows the truth but that doesn't change the fact that one of them is right, and one of them is wrong.
-
Stop arguing semantics, it has nothing in the slightest bit to add to the thread. Even though I disagree with you, I'll give up because....who really cares?
Stephen Hawkings beliefs are not any more important than yours or mine.
-
The way I see it is lay-persons who are atheists think something like this:
"well, the world's most famous (and thereby, in their minds, best) scientist believes there is no god, and so he must be right, because he is a scientist and scientists make these kind of assessments based on fact"
That isn't my view; I concur with alot of what has been said in the thread re: its an opinion. But the lay-person, or disengaged person, makes judgements based on what they are fed.
-
The way I see it is lay-persons who are atheists think something like this:
"well, the world's most famous (and thereby, in their minds, best) scientist believes there is no god, and so he must be right, because he is a scientist and scientists make these kind of assessments based on fact"
That isn't my view; I concur with alot of what has been said in the thread re: its an opinion. But the lay-person, or disengaged person, makes judgements based on what they are fed.
But they're Alrerady atheists. It's like the pope claiming something, only Catholics are going to care. Nothing the Pope says will say will convert an atheist to a theist, and nothing Hawking says will convert anybody into an atheist.
-
Stop arguing semantics, it has nothing in the slightest bit to add to the thread. Even though I disagree with you, I'll give up because....who really cares?
Stephen Hawkings beliefs are not any more important than yours or mine.
Of course it is adding to the thread. It seems that an issue in the thread is the idea that this is his opinion, and I am responding to that (and do the original post for that matter).
I just think people need to be careful to not to say someone is wrong when they just have a differing opinion, and people need to not be so scared of saying they believe someone is wrong, flat out.
We are in agreement about the relative insignificance of Hawking's opinion. :)
-
Nevermind.
-
Nevermind.
thanks for the response!
-
Nevermind.
thanks for the response!
I did a reply, but the whole belief/opinion thing is just not interesting, so I edited it to say nevermind.
-
The way I see it is lay-persons who are atheists think something like this:
"well, the world's most famous (and thereby, in their minds, best) scientist believes there is no god, and so he must be right, because he is a scientist and scientists make these kind of assessments based on fact"
That isn't my view; I concur with alot of what has been said in the thread re: its an opinion. But the lay-person, or disengaged person, makes judgements based on what they are fed.
But they're Alrerady atheists. It's like the pope claiming something, only Catholics are going to care. Nothing the Pope says will say will convert an atheist to a theist, and nothing Hawking says will convert anybody into an atheist.
That's my point though; they seize on his comments with a "haha suckers I was right all along!" kind of reaction.
-
Yes, but so what? I mean, why does that really matter? Doesn't everybody do that at an opportune time?
-
You keep reposting what I'm trying to say in a much more direct way lol.
-
You keep reposting what I'm trying to say in a much more direct way lol.
Oh sorry, I'll stop. :)
-
100th post in the thread, therefore God exists.
But yeah. It's his belief/opinion, but it really shouldn't be that big of a deal. And it's not really news, either.
-
So Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in Heaven. This is apparently a big deal.
It's not that he is wrong, he is most likely right, though that the nature of faith is belief in defiance of any evidence so that doesn't matter, the important question is why anyone cares.
I've only ever seen it be a big deal to theist. I have honestly only ever heard it briefly mentioned by atheists when he first wrote the book. Of course other may have different experiences. Appeals to authority regarding an unknown are useless, people who use them are not very good at debate.
Everyone in the public has heard of Stephen Hawking, he is quite famous, but for what?
I can't find a single thing where he has been correct - it's not like we have experimental evidence for his idea on how black holes emit radiation, we just don't have a better answer, which sounds a lot like religion.
Or we have observation and mathematical equations. Just the stuff we have been using to figure out everything else in the universe. Oh and Hawking has done this
Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942)[1] is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,[2] a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,[3] and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.[4]
Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009.[5][6] He is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is also a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge and a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.[7] He is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He has also achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; these include the runaway best seller A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times bestsellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.[8][9]
Hawking's key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as Bekenstein–Hawking radiation).[10]
Most recently, he basically gave up and endorsed M-theory, which is a delightfully anthropomorphic hypothesis about fundamental physics but has a number of competitors so it tries to consume them all in a questionable framework. Hawking is not solving any mysteries any time soon and The Grand Design basically seemed to be phoned in, theoretically.
Somehow by Hawking now endorsing a new point of view than he once held this makes him less credible? I can think of one competitor and that Quantum Loop Gravity, other than Google yielded nothing. Now maybe I didn't search properly but I think "M-theory competitors", "String theory competitors" and "M-theory contradictions" is not bad.
So fucking what if he does not solve any mysteries for the rest of his life. That says nothing of the work he has already done and his overall contributions to science and science education. Religion contributes nothing to the understanding of anything. This guy is trying really to degrade then dismiss Hawking.
When he wrote A Brief History of Time, which is a terrific book, he made a metaphor about a theory of everything, writing "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."
Physicists have to stop using the word god to describe the universe. I hate this so much, any physicist will confirm that they are referring to the majesty of the universe. Hawking would confirm, so would Einstein (if he were alive) and Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Tyson etc...
Also Hawking wrote this
Last lines. Hawking later wrote: "In the proof stage I nearly cut the last sentence in the book... Had I done so, the sales might have been halved.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Did atheists suddenly give up on atheism because he wrote that? Not at all, so why any of them are rushing to list Hawking as some sort of sage endorsement when he says there is no Heaven is beyond me. If Hawking came out and endorsed Mitt Romney for U.S. president in 2012, would it change any votes?
No atheists did not because not believing in god does not hinge on his opinion. If the sentence was making a logical argument for the existence of a creator, then yes maybe some would become theists. Some atheists might be listing Hawking as a "sage" endorsement because it is in a very small way convincing. Many people will say "hey if so and so's opinion is this then maybe I should look into it.". Religious people do this all the time and most of the time when it comes to science are stretching the truth.
Stephen Hawking is to physics what Stephen Jay Gould was to biology - here is John Maynard Smith, Emeritus Professor at Sussex, on Gould, by way of reviewing Daniel Dennett’s 1995 book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
"Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists."
I know nothing of Gould's work; but if I gather anything at all from the quote from Dennett. Hawking is not comparable in that his ideas are not confused and he is generally admired by the scientific community. Again this guy writing this article is trying really hard to make Hawking look bad.
So it goes with Hawking; to many, he doesn't have to be right, he just has to be on the same side. A paleontologist can't be the preeminent authority on evolutionary biology any more than a well-versed theoretical physicist can be an authority on theology.
A quick google search yields that Stephen J Gould IS an evolutionary biologist. Hawking is a physicist they study reality, as Hawking sees it a god is not part of that reality.
Alex Berezow at RealClearScience says Hawking is arguably as well-known as Einstein and laments that Hawking might be better known in the future for insulting religious people with quotes about fairy tales than his excellent early insights in physics. I don't agree, Einstein's later career was dismal and he was also cited by the religious and atheists for saying various things for and against religion, but he is best known now for his early work. Let's hope the same happens with Hawking.
The same will happen, no question.
One previous Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge said "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere" while another, who received a Nobel prize in physics, delved into the supernatural and numerology and was still a member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences along with being a famous scientist. If some questions were too big for Newton and Dirac to be considered authorities, it is unlikely Hawking can be considered one any time soon.[/quote]
Newton did not know much of anything about the universe as we know it now. Newton is a poor example. As for Paul Dirac he once said this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.[39]
I think I basically said that about 70 posts ago. I was just more blunt and potentiall inflammatory about it. :lol
And it was just as wrong as the guy who wrote the article.
The way I see it is lay-persons who are atheists think something like this:
"well, the world's most famous (and thereby, in their minds, best) scientist believes there is no god, and so he must be right, because he is a scientist and scientists make these kind of assessments based on fact"
That isn't my view; I concur with alot of what has been said in the thread re: its an opinion. But the lay-person, or disengaged person, makes judgements based on what they are fed.
On the other hand the average lay person who are theist use scientists in this manner.
"Newton and other scientist from hundreds and sometimes over a thousand years ago, believed in god so that automatically cancels any opinion of modern day scientists who clearly know leagues more than past scientists."
-
I understand what mrjazzguitar is getting at that opinion and belief are not defined the same way. As a Christian our belief in God is not an "opinion", it is an absolute truth like gravity, blue sky, and taxes. When something is labeled an opinion it connotes an aspect of relativity or subjectivity upon the subject of the opinion. But God is not considered relative to the beholder of the opinion, He is absolute in his being and whether or not we believe in his existence has no bearing on Him. Therefore you either hold the belief, not opinion, that He exists or that He doesn't.
It may seem like semantics but it does speak to an issue that is widespread when discussing faith. So many people want God to be a 'relative' being, one that we personally define then hold as some type of personal truth, and everyone's truth is just as valid as the next. This way of defining God is kind of like having an 'opinion'...it can change at any time and is tolerant of all other 'opinions'. But this is not how Christians view God, so saying it is an opinion seems not quite right.
Does this make any sense or did I argue in circles?
-
Well considering that different christians view certain aspects of god in different ways.....
-
Two blind men are talking. One believes that Earth is flat, and the other believes that it is spherical (or close). Neither actually knows the truth but that doesn't change the fact that one of them is right, and one of them is wrong.
If neither actually knows the truth, then they are both opinions.
-
Two blind men are talking. One believes that Earth is flat, and the other believes that it is spherical (or close). Neither actually knows the truth but that doesn't change the fact that one of them is right, and one of them is wrong.
They're actually both "wrong." Though neither absolutely.
-
Two blind men are talking. One believes that Earth is flat, and the other believes that it is spherical (or close). Neither actually knows the truth but that doesn't change the fact that one of them is right, and one of them is wrong.
If neither actually knows the truth, then they are both opinions.
This. One of the two might coincide with objective fact, but since that can not be known by either of the two, clearly both are plainly stating an opinion.
rumborak
-
They're also both wrong because the Earth isn't a sphere.
-
I've only ever seen it be a big deal to theist. I have honestly only ever heard it briefly mentioned by atheists when he first wrote the book.
This. The only articles I've read about this are from people who are offended by what he said and wish to call him a joke.
I'd also like to point out that the only people who might actually be swayed by Hawking's beliefs are so simple that they'll probably flip again based on Kirk Cameron's rebuttal. These people are irrelevant in any rational discussion. Maybe others will point to a very intelligent man who shares their beliefs, but that goes both ways. I have as much respect for Pascal (aside from that stupid wager bullshit) as I do Hawking.
-
I too have to say that I'm somewhat surprised at what low level Hawking is saying this. He's a top-notch astrophysicist, so you would would think in these realms he would tread very deliberately. Then again, maybe this is also a reaction to that he's become a playball of theists (like Einstein, see above), who are hoping to use his professional heft, plus out of context statements, for their own cause.
rumborak
-
This debate reminds of of the book I've been reading "Zen and the art of Motorcycle maintenance":
Being a scientist presumably means he excludes other realms of thought? Does he say anything about the zero-gravity or akashic field for instance? If they can't be demonstrated then this seems to underline the point - that philosophical concepts (often taken from religion) are a wider sphere of thought than science.
Science arguably can't address philosophy because it deals with dualism. Hyoptheses - yes or no. But there isn't always a yes or no. There's a "not relevant and you questioning needs to be revised".
When I say "religion" I mean these days some eastern religions and new thought movement (which originated out of christianity). I wonder if things have become more fundamental in recent years and decades compared to late 18th/early 19th century. Have we retreated into dualism like this news article seems to suggest.
Pirsig talks about subjective consciousness meeting the objective world in an undefinable concept called "Quality" that science cannot define. Perhaps that's related to the new thought concept of the universe being God's consciousness "knowing itself" through humans.
-
Does he say anything about the zero-gravity or akashic field for instance?
Luckily, he doesn't. Hawking is a physicist, not a new-age guru. One submits himself to peer review, the other doesn't.
rumborak
-
It appears that the two greatest minds of our generation are taking opposing sides on the matter;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology)
-
It appears that the two greatest minds of our generation are taking opposing sides on the matter;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology)
:rollin
I won't be convinced by Hawkings claims until he can debunk Cameron's banana argument.
-
Does he say anything about the zero-gravity or akashic field for instance?
Luckily, he doesn't. Hawking is a physicist, not a new-age guru. One submits himself to peer review, the other doesn't.
rumborak
Then you're not getting the full picture of reality, only dualism. In Pirsig's view, a "classical" view of the world.
-
Pirsig talks about subjective consciousness meeting the objective world in an undefinable concept called "Quality" that science cannot define.
Isn't marking a clear cut difference of "subjective consciousness" and "objective world" dualistic?
-
That's his point I believe yes.
-
Does that mean he sucks at zen? How is that book btw? I've read Alan Watt's book on zen and the motorcycle maintenance book seems to be the other big one from the mid 20th century.
-
No he's saying that there is a place for unifying classical and romantic, subjective and objective.
-
I don't believe there's a Stephen Hawking. ;D
-
Does he say anything about the zero-gravity or akashic field for instance?
Luckily, he doesn't. Hawking is a physicist, not a new-age guru. One submits himself to peer review, the other doesn't.
rumborak
Then you're not getting the full picture of reality, only dualism. In Pirsig's view, a "classical" view of the world.
I would say you are the one having the dualist view, not me. To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on. While Pirsig may tout he's showing an integrative approach, the fault I'd say lies in the idea that subjective and objective need to be separated in the first place.
rumborak
-
To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on.
So the objective is just a collective representation of all the subjective views in a given time, which also slowly changes as time moves on? Sounds pretty new age and groovy.
-
Does he say anything about the zero-gravity or akashic field for instance?
Luckily, he doesn't. Hawking is a physicist, not a new-age guru. One submits himself to peer review, the other doesn't.
rumborak
Then you're not getting the full picture of reality, only dualism. In Pirsig's view, a "classical" view of the world.
I would say you are the one having the dualist view, not me. To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on. While Pirsig may tout he's showing an integrative approach, the fault I'd say lies in the idea that subjective and objective need to be separated in the first place.
rumborak
Pirsig argues that it's science that does that, necessarily at first e.g. the Ancient Greeks to begin to understand their world. But the dilemma as he saw it coming out of the 60s was that people were rebelling against the classical view and there was a great danger to progress from subject and object dualism.
-
To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on.
So the objective is just a collective representation of all the subjective views in a given time, which also slowly changes as time moves on? Sounds pretty new age and groovy.
No, the objective is not the collective representation (the union, in set theory) of the subjective views, but the intersection of them. That is, the bare minimum (and not more) that all vantage points can agree on.
Pirsig argues that it's science that does that, necessarily at first e.g. the Ancient Greeks to begin to understand their world. But the dilemma as he saw it coming out of the 60s was that people were rebelling against the classical view and there was a great danger to progress from subject and object dualism.
IMHO, what happened was that people simply don't like the Copernican view of things, which on top of saying that we're not the center of the universe etc., also says that our personal, subjective perception of things is not the defining measure of reality. People want a view of things that gives heavy emphasis to their particular perception (plain old ancient human vanity at its best), and New Age gives them that.
From anything I've seen you post on this forum, you a very concerned with your subjective perception of things ("What do I get out of this?" is a common thread in your posts), so I'm not surprised this Tao/askashic etc. stuff that gives heavy weight to your perception resonates with you.
rumborak
-
To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on.
So the objective is just a collective representation of all the subjective views in a given time, which also slowly changes as time moves on? Sounds pretty new age and groovy.
No, the objective is not the collective representation (the union, in set theory) of the subjective views, but the intersection of them. That is, the bare minimum (and not more) that all vantage points can agree on.
That seems pretty different from what most people would consider "objective". Even a bare minimum of all subjective viewpoints is subject to change (unless you're including all future and past subjectivities, which would make "objective" 100% uncertain at all times) and objective usually means something that stays the same regardless of time, place or perspective.
-
It appears that the two greatest minds of our generation are taking opposing sides on the matter;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology)
:rollin
I won't be convinced by Hawkings claims until he can debunk Cameron's banana argument.
Fucking celebrities. They're all the same, no matter what their pet issues are.
-
To me, "subjective" just means a certain vantage point out of many others, with the "objective" one being one that all can agree on.
So the objective is just a collective representation of all the subjective views in a given time, which also slowly changes as time moves on? Sounds pretty new age and groovy.
No, the objective is not the collective representation (the union, in set theory) of the subjective views, but the intersection of them. That is, the bare minimum (and not more) that all vantage points can agree on.
Pirsig argues that it's science that does that, necessarily at first e.g. the Ancient Greeks to begin to understand their world. But the dilemma as he saw it coming out of the 60s was that people were rebelling against the classical view and there was a great danger to progress from subject and object dualism.
IMHO, what happened was that people simply don't like the Copernican view of things, which on top of saying that we're not the center of the universe etc., also says that our personal, subjective perception of things is not the defining measure of reality. People want a view of things that gives heavy emphasis to their particular perception (plain old ancient human vanity at its best), and New Age gives them that.
I thought quantum physics said that there isn't an objective measure as the act of observing changes things in uncertain ways. Besides, the point is is that subjectivity exists in human consciousness and the reactionary viewpoint is one that dichotomizes into right/wrong, subjectivity/objectivity. Pirsig said both were united.
-
It appears that the two greatest minds of our generation are taking opposing sides on the matter;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/kirk-cameron-criticizes-stephen-hawkings-there-is-no-heaven-comment/2011/05/19/AFSp266G_blog.html?wprss=celebritology)
:rollin
I won't be convinced by Hawkings claims until he can debunk Cameron's banana argument.
I'm still waiting for him to address the monkey argument.
-
Were you even here for the monkey argument?
-
I have no idea what the monkey argument even is, but it seemed like a fitting response.
-
I respect Stephen Hawking, as a scientist. But just because the man is a genius suddenly makes him a spokesman on religion? I don't understand the logic in that. You have a ton of brilliant scientists who were probably just as intelligent as Hawking, but the minute they start believing in a God is the minute they are exiled from the scientific community. Today science and the concept of God cannot mesh. This is the true disaster of modern science.
-
I respect Stephen Hawking, as a scientist. But just because the man is a genius suddenly makes him a spokesman on religion? I don't understand the logic in that. You have a ton of brilliant scientists who were probably just as intelligent as Hawking, but the minute they start believing in a God is the minute they are exiled from the scientific community. Today science and the concept of God cannot mesh. This is the true disaster of modern science.
You are very wrong. For the example the head of the human genome project Francis Collins is a Christian.
-
I respect Stephen Hawking, as a scientist. But just because the man is a genius suddenly makes him a spokesman on religion? I don't understand the logic in that. You have a ton of brilliant scientists who were probably just as intelligent as Hawking, but the minute they start believing in a God is the minute they are exiled from the scientific community. Today science and the concept of God cannot mesh. This is the true disaster of modern science.
Scientists that believe in god are exiled from the scientific community? Science and god cannot mesh? I was unaware that was the case. I am pretty sure both of those are pretty much false.
And Hawking isnt a spokesperson on religion...he is just stating his theory and/or belief. No biggie.
-
There's actually an organization of about 14,000 (forget the name atm) consisting of religious leaders and scientists who believe that religion and science need not be in conflict. I don't think a scientist believing in God would make him an "exile" in the community. His or her belief would have nothing to do with his or her research unless that research was "God exists because *blah*"
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
-
This thread hurts my brain, but I did enjoy Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when I read it in high school.
-
This thread hurts my brain, but I did enjoy Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when I read it in high school.
I've just finished it. It says a lot about trying to categorise things like science or following religious dogma without feeling whats true or quality inside. I liked the climax of the book about who was insane and who wasn't. There's a lot in there and I want to go through it again.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.
-
You have a ton of brilliant scientists who were probably just as intelligent as Hawking, but the minute they start believing in a God is the minute they are exiled from the scientific community. Today science and the concept of God cannot mesh. This is the true disaster of modern science.
.
There are not many people alpine today that are as smart as Hawking. There are plenty of scientists who are also people of faith. I read an article a while back that said something like 18% of scientists believe in God. (don't quote me on that, I read it a whie ago/just woke up)
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.
I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?
-
The thing is, unless you're a deist, there's always a certain amount of retconning to be done.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.
I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?
Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.
I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?
Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.
I dont see how they are mutually exclusive. Religion can be having faith in something that science is not able to observe and prove. Some religions may make assertions that fly directly in the face of proven science, but a basic belief in god is not one of them, right?
-
[I dont see how they are mutually exclusive. Religion can be having faith in something that science is not able to observe and prove. Some religions may make assertions that fly directly in the face of proven science, but a basic belief in god is not one of them, right?
If we are talking about what religion is and what science is, they are opposites. As I said many people live with the knowledge of science and the belief of religion. However at there base components they are not compatible. Regarding a god(s), since there is no evidence of the universe being created by an intelligent being it is a baseless assertion. Science philosophically will not make this assertion without evidence. If someone will look at everything with a scientific mind, they cannot also do so with a religious mind. They are not compatible as philosophies.
That being said; the human brain is very modular. One can be very skeptical with every faucet of their life save one or more. People do this with many thing ie Children; a parent may find something their child does acceptable but abhor when another child does the same thing. More-less an a-skeptical/illogical favourtism.
Even the deist position is not a valid position based on the science philosophy. There is no reason to assume a supernatural being was responsible for something that appears to be natural.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.
Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together. Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like. However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.
Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together. Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like. However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.
Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!
rumborak
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.
Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together. Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like. However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.
Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!
rumborak
Bazzinga
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.
Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together. Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like. However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.
Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!
rumborak
You are amazing. :D
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.
Hef is right. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It will adjust based on societal pressure in light of evidence, but not evidence.
-
What is science's position on what/who created the universe? What is the position on the soul and the afterlife?
Religion can give answers to things we have zero evidence for, but are extremely important to us, that one can accept on faith.
I dont see why they are mutually exclusive unless you are dealing with a specific teaching from a specific religion that contradicts accepted scientific facts.
A belief in god, to me, certainly does not contradict anything scientifically.
-
What is science's position on what/who created the universe?
Not known.
-
What is science's position on what/who created the universe?
Not known.
So where is the conflict then?
-
The claim of most religions that the divine intersects and interacts with the worldly.
rumborak
-
What is science's position on what/who created the universe?
Not known.
So where is the conflict then?
Creator religions is an assertion of knowledge/fact on something we do not know.
Edit: or know to be false.
-
Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately. I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence. I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.
I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion. Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.
I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict. I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive. Not specific teachings of religion.
-
Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately. I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence. I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.
I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion. Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.
I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict. I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive. Not specific teachings of religion.
Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.
-
Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately. I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence. I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.
I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion. Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.
I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict. I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive. Not specific teachings of religion.
Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.
I guess that is where our disconnect was. I say a BELIEF in god and science are not mutually exclusive. You were saying that an assertion of FACT that there is a god and science are mutually exclusive.
Is that about right?
In that case, I tend to agree.
-
Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately. I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence. I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.
I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion. Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.
I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict. I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive. Not specific teachings of religion.
Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.
I guess that is where our disconnect was. I say a BELIEF in god and science are not mutually exclusive. You were saying that an assertion of FACT that there is a god and science are mutually exclusive.
Is that about right?
In that case, I tend to agree.
Yes.
I guess you are more referring to agnostic theism.
-
Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion. Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.
-
Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion. Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.
Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.
-
Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion. Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.
Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.
So? It may not be scientific, but it isnt in conflict. People NEED that belief.
Science CANT explain it, so the human mind tries to come up with an explanation.
If science had an explanation differing from a deist one, then THAT would be conflict.
Science cant fully explain/predict human emotion...but most people believe in love.
It isnt scientific, but people need it. There really isnt a conflict.
-
Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion. Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.
Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.
So? It may not be scientific, but it isnt in conflict. People NEED that belief.
Science CANT explain it, so the human mind tries to come up with an explanation.
If science had an explanation differing from a deist one, then THAT would be conflict.
Science cant fully explain/predict human emotion...but most people believe in love.
It isnt scientific, but people need it. There really isnt a conflict.
It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.
Hef is right. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.
-
It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.
Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.
Hef is right. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.
Because many "creationists" arrive at their conclusions based on evidence.
-
Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily true. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.
Hef is right. This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.
How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.
Because many "creationists" arrive at their conclusions based on evidence.
hah hah hah
-
Are you trying to get banned from P/R (or the boards in general)? Because that sort of response is a quick ticket if that's where you're looking to go.
-
I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.
I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?
Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.
Nonsense. Christians are supposed to base their beliefs on reason.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD...
Explain how these verses fit into the dichotomy you have contrived. :\ Seriously, how anyone can believe critical thinking belongs only to one world view is beyond me.
-
Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).
-
Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).
It's annoying. They're so certain religion is unfounded but they know next to nothing about it.
-
I don't see how that is much different then you being certain in your disbelief in 99% of the other religions that exist in the world.
-
It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.
Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
Ummm neurobiology would like to have a word with you.
-
It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.
Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
Ummm neurobiology would like to have a word with you.
Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief.
-
Are you trying to get banned from P/R (or the boards in general)? Because that sort of response is a quick ticket if that's where you're looking to go.
No, sorry Bosk :heart
Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).
Do you mean to imply that science is a false paradigm?
-
Scientists claim to be open to speculation but only the scientific field. They will speculate on the universe, on specific areas of matter or whathaveyou, but the minute speculation turns to theology is the minute scientists shut the door. During early scholastism there was a movement to remove philosophy in the wake of theology. today there is a movement to remove theology in the wake of science. It has nothing to do with speculation or lack of evidence. It is removed from the discussion because it is theology. Then you have theologians who refuse to use reason and science. Thomas Aquinas made it a point to teach people that philosophy and science is necessary to complete theology but it cannot conquer theology. For if theology is based on truth it is impossible to conquer the truth but the truth must never be in conflict with science or else we can never know the truth. It is unfortunate that the anti-theology movement exists in the scientific world. It's only serves to limit our view.
-
Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).
Do you mean to imply that science is a false paradigm?
No, not at all. Sorry if that's how it came across. But the way some argue science (as well as how some argue religion, for that matter) is.
-
Well now it's abundantly clear: God sent Hawking down to Earth to test our faith.
That's a good joke :lol ... I hope
-
I don't see how that is much different then you being certain in your disbelief in 99% of the other religions that exist in the world.
It's very different. For one thing, I don't make claims about other religions that I can't backup, which is precisely what you did. And for another, arguing that one religion is correct over another is fundamentally different than arguing that science, a way of studying the natural world, is incompatible with religion. I think what you meant to say is that religion is incompatible with your naturalistic world view, and that I agree with.
-
Nonsense. Christians are supposed to base their beliefs on reason.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD...
Explain how these verses fit into the dichotomy you have contrived. :\ Seriously, how anyone can believe critical thinking belongs only to one world view is beyond me.
"Always be prepared to give an answer" says nothing about critical thinking or evidence based logic. As for Isaiah, I'm kind of surprised that you took that completely out of context. That passage is referring to sin not any type of critical thinking. Beyond that it goes on to threaten you with the sword for not believing. Great examples of critical thinking you have there.
I have not claimed that critical thinking only belongs to science. Merely that critical thinking is a central tenet of science and that science and religion at there base philisophical elements are incompatible. All religion asserts what we at this point in time cannot know; science makes reasonble predictions on the natural world based on evidence. I'll put forth a hypothetical scenario ; lets say all evidence points to a god. That still give no justification for the claim of heaven, hell, the devil or any other claims of religion. Unless this god appears to everyone and confirms those assertions it is not valid.
If science one day leads to the conclusion that there is a god thats fine. That will be the day they are compatible to whatever extent.
Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief.
Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.
For if theology is based on truth it is impossible to conquer the truth but the truth must never be in conflict with science or else we can never know the truth.
Here is the problem; right now most of religion is in conflict with science. From the evolution nay sayers to the creation myths. So I guess..Poor Thomas.
It's very different. For one thing, I don't make claims about other religions that I can't backup, which is precisely what you did. And for another, arguing that one religion is correct over another is fundamentally different than arguing that science, a way of studying the natural world, is incompatible with religion. I think what you meant to say is that religion is incompatible with your naturalistic world view, and that I agree with.
By take an asserted position you are making a claim about other religions.
-
Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief.
Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.
Sure, when two people are madly in Love with another, we could measure their heart rate, perspiration levels, pupil dilation, how much time they spend together.
But these things aren’t actually Love. They’re something we could measure when Love is or isn’t present. They are the objective characteristics that may change in the presence of Love, but they are not the subjective experience of Love. There’s a difference between a direct experience of the actual thing and a measurement of the results that happen in the presence of that thing.
-
Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief.
Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.
Sure, when two people are madly in Love with another, we could measure their heart rate, perspiration levels, pupil dilation, how much time they spend together.
But these things aren’t actually Love. They’re something we could measure when Love is or isn’t present. They are the objective characteristics that may change in the presence of Love, but they are not the subjective experience of Love. There’s a difference between a direct experience of the actual thing and a measurement of the results that happen in the presence of that thing.
Not sure what your point is then. You made the comparison between a creator and emotion, specifically love. We can test love, using brain patters. Yes people may feel love differently; most likely very much the same. God cannot be tested and the evidence is not in it's favour. Mere existence is not evidence of a creator.
-
Not sure what your point is then.
I have to be honest with you...at this point either do I! :lol I think the initial 'point' i was trying to make was just because you cannot prove scientifically that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't exisit. My opinion is that an entity and being as prolific as God..something that has 'created' everything from nothing would be first impossible for man to fully comprehend and understand, and second, most definately be a presence that wouldn't be detectable or explainable by the wisdom of man.
-
Not sure what your point is then.
I have to be honest with you...at this point either do I! :lol I think the initial 'point' i was trying to make was just because you cannot prove scientifically that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't exisit. My opinion is that an entity and being as prolific as God..something that has 'created' everything from nothing would be first impossible for man to fully comprehend and understand, and second, most definately be a presence that wouldn't be detectable or explainable by the wisdom of man.
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
I happen to be a believer who has no issue understanding the significance of science. I would think that a being like God when creating something as grand as the Universe would have to have an underlying commonality like science/math/physics etc. to tie and hold it all together.
But I do maintain that man rationalizes God in a way to make him understandable to our minds. Like when you sit and really try to grasp our universe...or God for that matter...it really is such an enormous concept to 'get' that I think man has to simplify it,.
I'd agree that as we progress we may locate and find scientific nuggetz (IMO as God sees fit) that may 'prove' God's existance. Aren't scientists close to proving the theory of anti matter or black matter or something like that? But, the core and essential cog in religion is Faith...and if you have faith like God instructs us to have in him....you do not require any type of tangible proof he exists. I for one don't.
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
I happen to be a believer who has no issue understanding the significance of science. I would think that a being like God when creating something as grand as the Universe would have to have an underlying commonality like science/math/physics etc. to tie and hold it all together.
But I do maintain that man rationalizes God in a way to make him understandable to our minds. Like when you sit and really try to grasp our universe...or God for that matter...it really is such an enormous concept to 'get' that I think man has to simplify it,.
I'd agree that as we progress we may locate and find scientific nuggetz (IMO as God sees fit) that may 'prove' God's existance. Aren't scientists close to proving the theory of anti matter or black matter or something like that? But, the core and essential cog in religion is Faith...and if you have faith like God instructs us to have in him....you do not require any type of tangible proof he exists. I for one don't.
That is my point science requires proof, belief in a god does not. Also i said nuggetz because i said "only a matter of time", as in the eighth song on WDADU. :)
-
Also i said nuggetz because i said "only a matter of time", as in the eighth song on WDADU. :)
That's what I get for cutting the grass in 95 degree heat then coming in and trying to hold an adult conversation......can't even see a simple nugget like that. :facepalm: :loser:
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.
-
this reminds me of Job 38-42. Job begins to get a little haughty until God approaches him with a tornado of questions. Suddenly he (and those who read) get a glimpse of the wisdom that far exceeds ours
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.
Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.
Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.
Why not? Is it easier to assume that all knowledge and wisdom can be learned and understood by the human race or that there exists knowledge and wisdom that cannot be known to mankind? To assume the former places humanity at the front of all knowledge in the entire universe. That's a rather large assumption to make. To assume the latter allows us to learn some but not all knowledge of the entire universe which seems a bit more realistic when it comes to how we understand ourselves. I dunno about anyone else but I have a feeling there is a lot more to our universe than what our human minds are able to perceive.
-
I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.
Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.
Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.
Why not? Is it easier to assume that all knowledge and wisdom can be learned and understood by the human race or that there exists knowledge and wisdom that cannot be known to mankind? To assume the former places humanity at the front of all knowledge in the entire universe. That's a rather large assumption to make. To assume the latter allows us to learn some but not all knowledge of the entire universe which seems a bit more realistic when it comes to how we understand ourselves. I dunno about anyone else but I have a feeling there is a lot more to our universe than what our human minds are able to perceive.
No one made that assumption and I did not say we would know everything. I just see no reason to assume that a universe creator is incomprehensible.