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

[ehra]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

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.

[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?

Why should anyone take someone seriously who wishes for reality by reading an old book?

rumborak

[Quadrochosis]

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.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

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.

[Ravenheart]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

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.

[Quadrochosis]

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.

[reo73]

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...

[tjanuranus]

Na uh

[orcus116]

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.

[nfury8ing]

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.

[lateralus88]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[Rathma]

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!

[lateralus88]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

What a lot of hullaballoo.

[tjanuranus]

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!

[El JoNNo]

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...

[XJDenton]

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.

[El JoNNo]

How so?

[XJDenton]

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.

[sneakyblueberry]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[TheVoxyn]

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?

[reo73]

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.

[El JoNNo]

“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.

[lordxizor]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[bosk1]

...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. 

[lordxizor]

...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?

[Chino]

Hasn't Hawking been saying this for years already, just with different words?

[bosk1]

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.

[bosk1]

Hasn't Hawking been saying this for years already, just with different words?

Yeah, that was kinda my initial point. 

[XJDenton]

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.