Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[Storm]

Its wrong to think that Science and Religion are diverging, in fact they are converging and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos. Scientists and atheists don't even have a clear clue as to what the nature of Reality actually is.

And believers do?

I agree that the two fields are as likely to be complementary as antagonistic, but the cheap shot at atheists (which does not imply all scientists, btw) was unnecessary, hypocritical, and served only to undermine your argument.

I am with Bernard D'Espagnat not with Stephen Hawking because Bernard is more intellectually honest than Stephen Hawking.

On what grounds do you claim Hawking is intellectually dishonest? His atheism?

 

[Copernicus]

Its wrong to think that Science and Religion are diverging, in fact they are converging and we need both for a complete model of the cosmos. Scientists and atheists don't even have a clear clue as to what the nature of Reality actually is.

To be able to make such a claim, you have to be in a position to know what all of them think and to have a better clue. I don't think you are in that position.

I am with Bernard D'Espagnat not with Stephen Hawking because Bernard is more intellectually honest than Stephen Hawking.

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

- Bernard D'Espagnat.

This man is projecting his own view of how atheists view life. It is an old argument that confuses atheism with hedonism, and it uses the word "purpose" under the gratuitous assumption that life has an engineered "purpose" of some sort.

Then he goes on to espouse belief in the existence of a "superior entity", having finessed the existence of that entity with his concept of "purpose". That is a very human perspective on reality. Just as human society is stratified into levels of social status, he thinks that even those of the highest status among us must owe allegiance to yet another social stratum above them. He conceives of reality in terms of this social dominance-submission hierarchy, and he conceives of "purpose" as some kind of service to a higher level in the hierarchy. God is the "monarch", and we are his "subjects". We can then enter into a social contract with the superior entity that is similar to the one we have in ordinary human society. That is, we perform services for that being and take directions from it. We get things in return--security, compassion, protection, miraculous interventions, etc.

Science is not religion, although scientists are arguably like a priest class in our society. That is they have such high status that even real priests and fervent believers like to claim compatibility with science in order to lend more credibility to their religious claims. For that reason, they will quote every scientist who ever says anything that sounds vaguely sympathetic to religion. They will tell us "it is wrong to say that science and religion are diverging."

 

[Storm]

This man is projecting his own view of how atheists view life. It is an old argument that confuses atheism with hedonism, and it uses the word "purpose" under the gratuitous assumption that life has an engineered "purpose" of some sort.

Then he goes on to espouse belief in the existence of a "superior entity", having finessed the existence of that entity with his concept of "purpose". That is a very human perspective on reality. Just as human society is stratified into levels of social status, he thinks that even those of the highest status among us must owe allegiance to yet another social stratum above them. He conceives of reality in terms of this social dominance-submission hierarchy, and he conceives of "purpose" as some kind of service to a higher level in the hierarchy. God is the "monarch", and we are his "subjects". We can then enter into a social contract with the superior entity that is similar to the one we have in ordinary human society. That is, we perform services for that being and take directions from it. We get things in return--security, compassion, protection, miraculous interventions, etc.

Eh, with no context provided, I figured the quote was attacking consumerism, not atheists.

Until that context is provided, there's no way of knowing whether your assumption or mine is correct.

 

[Copernicus]

Eh, with no context provided, I figured the quote was attacking consumerism, not atheists.

Until that context is provided, there's no way of knowing whether your assumption or mine is correct.

I thought that the quote stood on its own. There were two interesting themes in it that I thought wrong-headed:

1) atheism = hedonism
2) Allegiance to a deity (or another human being) can stand as a "purpose of life"

 

[George-ananda]

Well I think some people are reading too much into Hawking's statement.

I think all he's saying is that science does not REQUIRE a God concept to understand the universe. But at no point is he saying God couldn't exist. I think even he will admit that question is above his pay grade.

 

[Storm]

I thought that the quote stood on its own. There were two interesting themes in it that I thought wrong-headed:

1) atheism = hedonism
2) Allegiance to a deity (or another human being) can stand as a "purpose of life"

I didn't see a reference to atheism. And I just reread the quote.

I'm not saying you're incorrect. I am withholding judgment until you support it with more than an assumption of bigotry on his part.

 

[Storm]

Well I think some people are reading too much into Hawking's statement.

I think all he's saying is that science does not REQUIRE a God concept to understand the universe. But at no point is he saying God couldn't exist. I think even he will admit that question is above his pay grade.

That's my take, yeah.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't see a reference to atheism. And I just reread the quote.

I'm not saying you're incorrect. I am withholding judgment until you support it with more than an assumption of bigotry on his part.

That quote came from an interview in which D'Espagnat was accepting the Templeton Prize. It came in the context of his discussion about his religious beliefs. If you read the quote carefully, you don't need to actually put it in that context, because the quote juxtaposes a complaint about materialism against belief in a "supreme entity". The implication is that one wouldn't have those hedonistic tendencies without belief in allegiance to a supreme entity. When he speaks of a "purpose" with respect to that entity, what do you think he has in mind? I interpreted it as a relationship between an inferior being--himself--and a supreme being--a deity of some kind. I don't see any other reasonable interpretation, but I'll certainly consider your take on it, if you have one that is different from mine.

 

[Storm]

That quote came from an interview in which D'Espagnat was accepting the Templeton Prize. It came in the context of his discussion about his religious beliefs. If you read the quote carefully, you don't need to actually put it in that context, because the quote juxtaposes a complaint about materialism against belief in a "supreme entity". The implication is that one wouldn't have those hedonistic tendencies without belief in allegiance to a supreme entity. When he speaks of a "purpose" with respect to that entity, what do you think he has in mind? I interpreted it as a relationship between an inferior being--himself--and a supreme being--a deity of some kind. I don't see any other reasonable interpretation, but I'll certainly consider your take on it, if you have one that is different from mine.

Thank you for the information. For a clinical paranoid, I do tend to to be overly charitable at times.

I did have a very different interpretation, but considering the context debunked it, I see no point in defending, unless you're just obsessively curious.


ETA: Hey! Isn't debating interpretation when you know the larger context beforehand kinda cheating?

 

[Pleroma]

And believers do?

Theists just don't believe, they experiment with reality and they know what the ultimate truth is, that this empirical reality doesn't exist independent of the human mind. So of course we know what the ultimate reality is existing independent of the human mind which is not embedded in space-time.

I agree that the two fields are as likely to be complementary as antagonistic, but the cheap shot at atheists (which does not imply all scientists, btw) was unnecessary, hypocritical, and served only to undermine your argument.

I am sorry, the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism. Atheism is dead.

On what grounds do you claim Hawking is intellectually dishonest? His atheism?

Yes, all evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence and the only thing existing out there in the exact physical world is the human mind and the human mind is the product of a divine God. A God hypothesis is reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos. God is not dead. God is albeit necessary for a complete model of the cosmos.

 

[Pleroma]

To be able to make such a claim, you have to be in a position to know what all of them think and to have a better clue. I don't think you are in that position.

Of course I am, because even I was an atheist once but when all evidence was pointing to a theistic view of our existence I changed my mind and become a strong theist and that's called being intellectually honest.

This man is projecting his own view of how atheists view life. It is an old argument that confuses atheism with hedonism, and it uses the word "purpose" under the gratuitous assumption that life has an engineered "purpose" of some sort.

He is not projecting any atheists views, he is speaking the truth, Bernard D'Espagnat is well known for his works on Quantum theory and Reality and his life time research in quantum mechanics has convinced Bernard that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind. This is a fact.

[youtube]MRhMWC94xp0[/youtube]
Can scientific research encourage spirituality? - YouTube

Then he goes on to espouse belief in the existence of a "superior entity", having finessed the existence of that entity with his concept of "purpose". That is a very human perspective on reality. Just as human society is stratified into levels of social status, he thinks that even those of the highest status among us must owe allegiance to yet another social stratum above them. He conceives of reality in terms of this social dominance-submission hierarchy, and he conceives of "purpose" as some kind of service to a higher level in the hierarchy. God is the "monarch", and we are his "subjects". We can then enter into a social contract with the superior entity that is similar to the one we have in ordinary human society. That is, we perform services for that being and take directions from it. We get things in return--security, compassion, protection, miraculous interventions, etc.

As I said earlier, this is not a personal opinion, he is talking about facts established from experiments. Get that through your head.

Science is not religion, although scientists are arguably like a priest class in our society. That is they have such high status that even real priests and fervent believers like to claim compatibility with science in order to lend more credibility to their religious claims. For that reason, they will quote every scientist who ever says anything that sounds vaguely sympathetic to religion. They will tell us "it is wrong to say that science and religion are diverging."

LoL, we don't need any justification from science, religion stands on its own and its based on a completely different epistemology. If its anything its the belief of working scientists which are at stake because scientists are still holding on to classical notions of realism when all evidence is against realism.
Physicalism is dead.


Science can learn from religion and religion can learn from science.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

- Albert Einstein.

 

[otokage007]

Science can learn from religion

:sarcastic... For example?

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course I am, because even I was an atheist once but when all evidence was pointing to a theistic view of our existence I changed my mind and become a strong theist and that's called being intellectually honest.



He is not projecting any atheists views, he is speaking the truth, Bernard D'Espagnat is well known for his works on Quantum theory and Reality and his life time research in quantum mechanics has convinced Bernard that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind. This is a fact.

[youtube]MRhMWC94xp0[/youtube]
Can scientific research encourage spirituality? - YouTube




As I said earlier, this is not a personal opinion, he is talking about facts established from experiments. Get that through your head.




LoL, we don't need any justification from science, religion stands on its own and its based on a completely different epistemology. If its anything its the belief of working scientists which are at stake because scientists are still holding on to classical notions of realism when all evidence is against realism.
Physicalism is dead.


Science can learn from religion and religion can learn from science.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

- Albert Einstein.

I agree with you that which I have coloured in magenta.

 

[Pleroma]

:sarcastic... For example?

Scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought because mind and intelligence is the product of a divine God. It solely belongs to the realm of theologians.

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."]

 

[TashaN]

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

His statement is definitely arrogant.

EDIT: .... and ignorant, lol. Yes, i said it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought because mind and intelligence is the product of a divine God. It solely belongs to the realm of theologians.

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."]

Neither Godel's Theorem or Platonic math has anything to do with the nature of mind.

 

[otokage007]

Scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought because mind and intelligence is the product of a divine God. It solely belongs to the realm of theologians.

The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."]

If that's what you have to say, then I fear science has absolutely nothing to learn from theology, as I suspected.

 

[Pleroma]

Neither Godel's Theorem or Platonic math has anything to do with the nature of mind.

Nope, everything is connected, Penrose is right we need non-computable physics to have a complete model of our world.

Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger on Unreality

Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established that if you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.”

Be clear what is going on here. Quantum mechanics itself is not crying out for such experiments! Quantum mechanics is doing just fine, thank you, having performed flawlessly since inception. No, it is people whose cherished philosophical beliefs are being threatened that cry out for such experiments, exactly as Einstein used to do, and with exactly the same hope (we think in vain): that quantum mechanics can be refined to the point where it requires (or at least allows) belief in the independent reality of the natural world it describes.

Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, “We have no need of that hypothesis.” Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality⎯and already does exclude any reality that resembles our usual concept of such (Aspect: “it implies renouncing the kind of realism I would have liked”). Non-local causality is a concept that had never played any role in physics, other than in rejection (“action-at-a-distance”), until Aspect showed in 1981 that the alternative would be the abandonment of the cherished belief in mind-independent reality; suddenly, spooky-action-at-a-distance became the lesser of two evils, in the minds of the materialists.

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.

 

[Pleroma]

If that's what you have to say, then I fear science has absolutely nothing to learn from theology, as I suspected.

Oh, then go ahead and come up with a machine capable of strong AI until then science need religion and it needs a divine God.

 

[Storm]

Theists just don't believe, they experiment with reality and they know what the ultimate truth is, that this empirical reality doesn't exist independent of the human mind. So of course we know what the ultimate reality is existing independent of the human mind which is not embedded in space-time.



I am sorry, the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism. Atheism is dead.



Yes, all evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence and the only thing existing out there in the exact physical world is the human mind and the human mind is the product of a divine God. A God hypothesis is reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos. God is not dead. God is albeit necessary for a complete model of the cosmos.

Yeah..... I don't see much point in trying to reason with you, to be frank.