Hawking Said There Is No God....

[ER]

....and in my diary I responded.


Wednesday October 17, 2018 So I’m told Stephen Hawking’s last book declares there is no God. Whoop-dee-do, so what did the little bastard do, scoot his wheelchair out into the multiverse and look under every rock and not find God there? Hey, here’s a thought, perhaps God sneaked off to another location while Hawking was looking for him, Bugs Bunny behind Elmer Fudd-style, like we used to do as kids playing hide and seek. Strictly against the rules but wonderfully effective.

For a scientist in the 21st century to declare he doesn’t believe in God is as de rigueur as a Mormon boy in Salt Lake City becoming a Boy Scout. (Except I think they’ve now got their own organization in response to the gay policies…oh, and my friend Mandy tells me they don’t like being called Mormons anymore.)

Actually I was never captivated by Hawking, though that is kind of a cool last name, or for that matter degrasse Tyson, and thought they were both Sagan-wanna-bes. I sometimes thought how easily it would be for Hawking to make up his claims, which frankly often consisted of him speculating after deep thought, and rarely being challenged. What is the difference in a sci-fi writer advocating for infinite universes, no weight of supporting evidence, and Hawking declaring these grand ideas must be true because he felt that was a logical extension of the big bang?

The public rarely seemed to challenge anything Hawking said any more than Medieval peasants challenged the Church, but the difference is Medieval peasants probably weren’t as snooty about riding the Church’s coat tails as modern people are when they defend Hawking and his colleagues without once likely ever evaluating their claims for themselves.

Okay, so you’ll call someone ignorant for casting any doubt on Stephen Hawking’s work, yet have you ever bothered to put it to the test yourself? No? Well guess what, that’s called taking something on faith, so how do you differ from those Medieval peasants who also believed what they were told? You got a copy of A Brief History of Time gathering dust mite poo on your bookshelf, but ever actually read it through? Probably not.

But if you did you might come away noticing it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Well not to me, you tell yourself, Hawking was far more brilliant. Brilliant, yes, but infallible? Thomas Aquinas was also among the most intelligent humans ever born and equally capable of writing long intertwining, confusingly dense paragraphs, but did that staggering intelligence alone mean his thirteenth-century ideas were right? Ever wondered one step farther and dared think, maybe Hawking’s copious jottings don’t always quite cross the finish line?

Oh, Hawking speculated about beautiful things, and for that I salute the man, especially since he worked against such, well, handicaps, but I don’t take everything he said as a given, and if you do you’re betraying science by making laws out of theories.

Personally I find it difficult to believe in God. My default setting is not faith, never has been. I base my sometimes shallow acceptance of God on what I see as evidence, and how that evidence can be dismissed in its entirety, as Hawking apparently did, mystifies me. To save you time, his argument runs as follows: life is hard and unfair, the indifferent universe is largely empty, ergo, Godlessness is the answer, because HE THINKS SO. Yep, that's about it, Hawking says there is no God because that's his opinion.

Question: might a man stuck in a wheelchair maybe, just maybe have been a little bitter about why if God exists he drew the bad hand he did? Scientists are human too and just as given to the frailties of their points of view. Surrounded as he was by fellow scientists wouldn't it have been more remarkable, newsworthy and downright courageous if Hawking's legacy had been a declaration that it's at least possible God exists?

Nope, he chose to go out on a predictable note.

Since following a trail of evidence is one of the things science is about, to declare an absolute from within a negative is hazardous at best, since how can a negative be proven? It can’t. To say you don’t know there is a God is fine, even logical; to declare there is not one slides you down into the realm of faith where most believers dwell. Such strange bedfellows extremes of thought can sometimes make, right?

Is there a God? I don’t know, but I think it is likely that something best described that way is hinted at by a lot in nature and even in recorded history, though its reasons for its anonymity are as puzzling as its apparent unwillingness to intervene to save sick children, or still an earthquake, or halt a plague. Why if God is real doesn't God give us a better, more equal life? I have no idea. But does human suffering alone mean a higher being is impossible? No.

No it does not.

Instead of scientific open-mindedness in this era we have two extremes as dogmatic as the other: science versus religion. Of the two, to my shock, it’s actually religion these days that is the easier of the pair to crack open and find license inside to let your thoughts freely roam on the idea of God, since in religion there is a central concept behind it of “it could be” but science’s mandate of “it’s not possible” shuts down all analysis of even the chance that the engine of creation may be other than what we think it is.

Science draws to it the most intelligent people among us, true, yet religion attracts those who trust instinct, and instinct is often a better guide and survival mechanism than cold logic, and should not be dismissed. I know a few times I've relied on my gut feeling and come out better than if I had stopped to reason something out. Instinct is important. Instinct speaks of a deep Gnostic knowledge within our species. Instinct tends to testify to their being a God.

The Church abandoned inquisitions long ago, but science still holds its own version, and woe to those who fail to spew forth the required answers to questions that define loyalty to science as it is in the 21st century. (Doubt me? Look up the case of the heretic Matti Leisola just for starters. Scientists who ask the wrong questions get excommunicated faster than a Lutheran at Saint Peter’s circa 1550.) Could even one so grand as Hawking have fallen to the Inquisitors? Of course, but in declaring at the end that there is no God, he left his legacy safe in adoring hands.

(Unlike Carl Sagan, who spoke of other possibilities near the end of his life. Look at his final interview with Charlie Rose sometime, him speaking of possible contact with dead relatives.)

And ultimately religion and science meet in the end, both declaring all that is once arose from nothingness. The state of the universe a microsecond before the big bang meets Genesis’ description of how “in the beginning” all was lightless void. If both independently arrive at the same conclusion, perhaps it’s wise to look into the further claims of both sides. If something did arise from nothing, which is likelier then, Aquinas’ uncreated creator argument of the Age of Faith, or the constantly re-tooled theory of a blind universe creating itself out of a state of total non-existence?

Personally I think Aquinas was onto something, as were the ancient Greeks, who unknown to him, advocated the same ideas 2,000 years earlier.

But that’s just me.

[indianasmith]

You are a marvelous writer, and this displays your talents very well!

[Svengoolie 3]

Through history there have been numerous cases of science and religion in conflict.  The church ordered gallilleo to recant his heliocentric theory or be tortured. The church declared street lights were  blasphemy because god separated the light and the dark so it was wrong of man to light the dark.  The church held that illness was from god and vehemently fought the germ theory.  The church said god did nit intend man to fly because he didn't give man wings.

The church attacked evolution and even tried a man for teaching it.

In every case where science and religion have clashed,  religion has been proven wrong.  The earth isn't flat and mounted on pillars,  it goes around the sun,  there is no firmament above the earth,  germs cause diseases like leoporsy,  modern science can cure leoporsy,  we can fly,  evolution happens.

[Allhallowsday]

You are a marvelous writer, and this displays your talents very well!

Yes, especially when she's in your corner.  "Gnostic knowledge"?  What's that?  I think she's long winded, haughty, and self absorbed.  A thoughtful and talented writer, but, she's unkind.  

I do not believe in condemning the faithless.  Faith is personal.  I think THOMAS AQUINAS was a great and brave man.   In a universe without God, history has proven AQUINAS a fool.  Yet, for many of us, his faith is admirable, a tower of strength.  History does prove that faith is personal.  We cannot truly know one another, or even ourselves.  We cannot know God in life, only strive to.  

[indianasmith]

Through history there have been numerous cases of science and religion in conflict.  The church ordered gallilleo to recant his heliocentric theory or be tortured. The church declared street lights were  blasphemy because god separated the light and the dark so it was wrong of man to light the dark.  The church held that illness was from god and vehemently fought the germ theory.  The church said god did nit intend man to fly because he didn't give man wings.

The church attacked evolution and even tried a man for teaching it.

In every case where science and religion have clashed,  religion has been proven wrong.  The earth isn't flat and mounted on pillars,  it goes around the sun,  there is no firmament above the earth,  germs cause diseases like leoporsy,  modern science can cure leoporsy,  we can fly,  evolution happens.

In every case you cite, you either get the details wrong or disregard the fact that "the church" is not a monolithic entity, and that many within the church not only took the side of science but did much to advance it.  Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and Linnaeus were men of science who also devoutly believe in God.  Faith, like science itself, is a broad spectrum that contains many different beliefs and shades thereof.

[Svengoolie 3]

if we want to get religious, here's a video about a christian, muslim and atheist who die and meet god. https://youtu.be/ttevamkS6gw

[Alex]

Although I do not personally accept the existence of a single all powerful god I don't object to others having faith that there is. Well unless someone tries to push their beliefs on me, and that opens a whole other can of worms when its been tried, until the day science definatively proves that god doesn't exist I am at least open to the posibility. As the Dali Lama is reported to have said "If science can prove something about Buddism wrong, then Buddism must change."

As human beings it is in our natures to look for proof that supports what we want to believe (equally in science and religion, 'tis a failing common to both disciplines), rather than look for the evidence that challanges us.

I know when Lilly died, science offered absolutely no comfort to me, whereas Kristi drew a lot of strength from her faith. I don't mock her or try to ridicule her for this, it is part of who she is and if it helped her, then it can't be all bad. Religion has had its mistakes in the past, present and will do more so in the future, but no less than science.

If someone wants to believe something and it does no one else any harm, leave them to it.

[RCMerchant]

He seemed like a pretty smart guy to me.
If folks want to believe in God- that's fine. I don't care.
When I see any iota of real evidence that somebody is up there oiling the cogs of the universe...
There's more evidence of UFO's and Bigfoot than there is of God.
And some folks are obsessed with those beliefs.
That's all fine.
Until, of course, those beliefs include mass murder (which war is) and power .
Science has never started a war.  Religion (which most politics is based on) uses science when it suits them. They don't believe in global warming-but boy- they need those bombs!

[ER]

I have almost zero understanding of the concept of faith and don't praise faith be it focused on religion or science. To believe without any foundation of evidence? I have never understood that. What I faulted Hawking with is closed mindedness. What I fault many of his....fans for is having a messianic faith in him tinged with the arrogance of pretending their support is anything but faith, since they have rarely investigated his ideas, just embraced them. So often those who claim to revere the empiricism of science are in fact people of blind faith in what they have been told, and that's dangerous.

[RCMerchant]

I have read Hawking. I don't understand 80% of it- but I ain't a scientist.
Your defense of religion is defending your Faith. That's what I read.
Yet those whose Faith in Science who don't understand it is any better or worse than yours?

Do you believe in God? You said you don't know the concept in faith. They how can you have a belief that you have no faith in?
That's contradictory.

What was the whole point of this thread?  

[ER]

I don't think faith plays much of a role in my life in anything, RC. I don't understand faith at all. I think evidence points to a higher power and religion may not define this power at all. Evidence for God is what I focus on.

My point was that scientists should not close their minds, and people should investigate science and not turn it into a new faith-based religion.

[RCMerchant]

I don't think faith plays much of a role in my life in anything, RC. I don't understand faith at all. I think evidence points to a higher power and religion may not define this power at all. Evidence for God is what I focus on.

My point was that scientists should not close their minds, and people should investigate science and not turn it into a new faith-based religion.

If they focus on science, and not killing one another- then make science a New Religion...can't hurt us any worse than the ones we have now.
I don't think there would be a war over hot or cold fusion.  (Though cold fusion is being studied-it's been impossible for us to achieve).
I would rather see man go into space peacefully than sit on this rock arguing about Jesus or Mohammad.
Of course, that will never happen.

Oh-and yes- I DO have faith in science-because it shows results. The Bible did not take us to Mars.

[RCMerchant]

Indy, on the other hand, has Faith.
He Believes in his Faith.
You don't. Yet you attack science- but you don't attack Christians.
I think your just boiling a pot.

If you don't have Faith- let's hear your discourse on the bad points of  Christianity. I mean- lets be fair here.

Your attacking followers of Steven Hawking, calling they're beliefs "DANGEROUS"?
Are you kidding?

[El Misfit]

A wrll known scientist was an atheist? Who would have guessed. /S

[Alex]

I think what ER is saying (and apologies if I am misrepresenting you here) is that she doesn't have faith because she feels she has found proof of the existance of her god and therefore doesn't have to "take it on faith". As I mentioned above though, we look for evidence that supports our views, not ones that contradict or challange it. I don't want to believe in god so I find evidence that he doesn't exist, oddly enough in the same places that people like ER and Indy find proof.

Science has actually caused wars. It was a belief in science for example that drove Hitler's desire to wipe out what he saw as inferior races. True it is a perverted and corrupt version of science, but then I'd level that same accusation at most religious wars. Relligion has brought war onto us more than science, but you are talking about the most devistating conflict in human history being down to science. Science has also took many attrocities to brand new heights never imagined by religion so it is not clean and pure belief. Ever heard of the eugenics program in the US that was only finally ended in the 70's or 80's? How many lifes were ruined by that? Nothing to do with religion, all science.

Anyway, I think this post is about to descend into an argument amongst people I like and would rather not see arguing so if you'll excuse me, I'll not read it anymore. If anyone does want to continue this conversation without arguments, feel free to PM me though as I do find it an interesting topic.