Hawking Says "There is no God. Heaven is a fairy tale."

[GuineaPig]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[Quadrochosis]

They're also both wrong because the Earth isn't a sphere.

[El Barto]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[AndyDT]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[eric42434224]

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

[Big Crouton]

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

I won't be convinced by Hawkings claims until he can debunk Cameron's banana argument.

[AndyDT]

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.

[Rathma]

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?

[AndyDT]

That's his point I believe yes.

[Rathma]

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.

[AndyDT]

No he's saying that there is a place for unifying classical and romantic, subjective and objective.

[Durg]

I don't believe there's a Stephen Hawking.   

[rumborak]

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

[Rathma]

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.

[AndyDT]

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.

[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.

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

[Rathma]

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.

[William Wallace]

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

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.

[AndyDT]

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.

[Sigz]

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

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.

[hefdaddy42]

Were you even here for the monkey argument?

[Sigz]

I have no idea what the monkey argument even is, but it seemed like a fitting response.

[Vivace]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[eric42434224]

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.

[skydivingninja]

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*"

[rumborak]

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

[chknptpie]

This thread hurts my brain, but I did enjoy Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when I read it in high school.

[AndyDT]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[Chino]

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)

[eric42434224]

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?