Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[Pleroma]

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

That's the reason why I hold this position otherwise I honestly would have proclaimed myself as a strong atheist.

 

[Storm]

That's the reason why I hold this position otherwise I honestly would have proclaimed myself as a strong atheist.

Yeah, that's totally convincing.

 

[otokage007]

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

This^

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I would point out, however, that intellectual honesty does not mean that you have arrived at a correct conclusion. It only means that you haven't cheated yourself along the way to your conclusion.

Look, I can make the same argument in all intellectual honesty: I was a Christian once, but, when all evidence was pointing to an atheistic view of our existence, I changed my mind and became a strong atheist... That doesn't mean that my conclusion was correct, just that I interpret the "evidence" differently from the way you interpret it.

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.

Listen carefully to D'Espagnat's argument. All he advances is a "God of Gaps" argument. That is, he affirms belief in a "superior entity", and that qualified him for his Templeton Award--an award given to prominent scientists or philosophers who espouse religious beliefs. He did not say how science drove him to his belief. It was more likely his early Catholic upbringing, not his later scientific insights, that drove him there. His religious views changed over his life, but he never really gave them up.

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

I haven't heard him make such a strong claim, but maybe you have. What I heard him saying was that his scientific insights did not rule out belief in a supreme entity. Science is methodological materialism. It doesn't rule out philosophical spiritualism, but it is also compatible with lack of belief in a superior entity. That is what Hawking was saying. Hawking could show that the existence of the universe was plausible even if no god created it. One can predict it from what one observes in natural phenomena. Supernaturalism is the extra and unnecessary hypothesis.

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 does not take a position on the existence of God, but individual scientists can take a position on whether belief in deities is plausible, given what they know about science. My point was that scientists really are no different from priests or shamans to people, in general. Unlike religious miracles, we can verify scientific miracles with our own eyes, so we tend to trust and revere scientists. People of faith are no less aware of the social credibility that science has, so they naturally try to associate their religious dogma with science at every opportunity. It lends credibility to their belief system, if they can attribute some kind of association between religion and science. To put it more bluntly, religion too often piggybacks off of the obvious credibility of science, and it does so disingenuously when it does.

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

If religion has anything to teach science, what is it? Scientific explanations never rely on religion.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
- Albert Einstein.

Poor Einstein. Even in the letter that that quote came from, he was unambiguous in his rejection of religion:

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.

But your out-of-context quote just supports the point I have been making. People of religious faith will go to great lengths to rub science's "halo" off on their religious beliefs. Einstein used religious references metaphorically, and he was quite clear about rejection of religion during his life. He publicly debated the first televangelist, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. It didn't matter. Long after his death, people still quote him as if he were a supporter of their religious belief. He should have steered clear of those metaphors.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Evidence actually shows that most proclaimed former atheists are actually consistent theists in disguise, attempting to badmouth atheism. Such liars seem totally unapologetic concerning their deceit.
This in fact has been borne out by your posts, as well.

 

[Pleroma]

I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I would point out, however, that intellectual honesty does not mean that you have arrived at a correct conclusion. It only means that you haven't cheated yourself along the way to your conclusion.

Look, I can make the same argument in all intellectual honesty: I was a Christian once, but, when all evidence was pointing to an atheistic view of our existence, I changed my mind and became a strong atheist... That doesn't mean that my conclusion was correct, just that I interpret the "evidence" differently from the way you interpret it.

This is not a religious scripture to interpret it subjectively and arrive at different conclusions, these are based on facts established from experiments and it applies to all irrelevant of your caste, creed or personal bias.

Listen carefully to D'Espagnat's argument. All he advances is a "God of Gaps" argument. That is, he affirms belief in a "superior entity", and that qualified him for his Templeton Award--an award given to prominent scientists or philosophers who espouse religious beliefs. He did not say how science drove him to his belief. It was more likely his early Catholic upbringing, not his later scientific insights, that drove him there. His religious views changed over his life, but he never really gave them up.

Its not a God of the gaps argument, its an argument which fills the gaps in our knowledge and in our scientific models, hence a god hypothesis is albeit necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

I haven't heard him make such a strong claim, but maybe you have. What I heard him saying was that his scientific insights did not rule out belief in a supreme entity. Science is methodological materialism. It doesn't rule out philosophical spiritualism, but it is also compatible with lack of belief in a superior entity. That is what Hawking was saying. Hawking could show that the existence of the universe was plausible even if no god created it. One can predict it from what one observes in natural phenomena. Supernaturalism is the extra and unnecessary hypothesis.

Bernard D'Espagnat is a theoretical physicist and a philosopher of Science and I quote:

"Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[60] In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.[61]"

He is talking of facts, this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this mind is the product of a divine God, someone in the Guardian asked "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" because even neurons fall under empirical reality and therefore even neurons don't exist independent of a human mind and therefore scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought and a God is necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

Science does not take a position on the existence of God, but individual scientists can take a position on whether belief in deities is plausible, given what they know about science. My point was that scientists really are no different from priests or shamans to people, in general. Unlike religious miracles, we can verify scientific miracles with our own eyes, so we tend to trust and revere scientists. People of faith are no less aware of the social credibility that science has, so they naturally try to associate their religious dogma with science at every opportunity. It lends credibility to their belief system, if they can attribute some kind of association between religion and science. To put it more bluntly, religion too often piggybacks off of the obvious credibility of science, and it does so disingenuously when it does.

That's why I am not attacking science, science doesn't in any way say a God doesn't exist, science deals in the realm of falsifiability and that's why I am attacking the scientific consensus, the atheistic scientists who say God is dead and also the atheists.

If religion has anything to teach science, what is it? Scientific explanations never rely on religion.

If there is ever a Law of both Religion and Science then this is it.

"What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

Poor Einstein. Even in the letter that that quote came from, he was unambiguous in his rejection of religion:

But your out-of-context quote just supports the point I have been making. People of religious faith will go to great lengths to rub science's "halo" off on their religious beliefs. Einstein used religious references metaphorically, and he was quite clear about rejection of religion during his life. He publicly debated the first televangelist, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. It didn't matter. Long after his death, people still quote him as if he were a supporter of their religious belief. He should have steered clear of those metaphors.

A lot of things have changed since Einstein died and the context of that statement by Einstein is no longer the same because we don't know what Einstein would have said after the experiments from Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger went against his beliefs.

Thank you!

 

[Pleroma]

Evidence actually shows that most proclaimed former atheists are actually consistent theists in disguise, attempting to badmouth atheism. Such liars seem totally unapologetic concerning their deceit.
This in fact has been borne out by your posts, as well.

Someone said to me, "Do you know who intellectually honest theists are? They are atheists"

All atheists have more curiosity over religion and they better understand religion than theists from orthodox religions.

 

[Storm]

Someone said to me, "Do you know who intellectually honest theists are? They are atheists"

All atheists have more curiosity over religion and they better understand religion than theists from orthodox religions.

Yes, there's bigotry on both sides. Doesn't make your claim of previous atheism any more believable.

 

[Pleroma]

Yes, there's bigotry on both sides. Doesn't make your claim of previous atheism any more believable.

I don't speak lies, however whether I was an atheist or a theist in the past is irrelevant. Someone assumed that I don't know how atheists think which turns out to be a very wrong assumption.

 

[Storm]

I don't speak lies, however whether I was an atheist or a theist in the past is irrelevant. Someone assumed that I don't know how atheists think which turns out to be a very wrong assumption.

Sorry, but your credibility has been seriously undermined here, since your posts reveal that you do NOT, in fact, "know how atheists think."

See, I went through an atheist phase, myself. It was a particularly infantile, poorly reasoned atheism, but it was enough that I can spot the bull in your posts. Plus, since then, I've actually conversed with many atheists, and listened to what they said instead of attacking strawmen.

So, no. I still don't believe you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't speak lies, however whether I was an atheist or a theist in the past is irrelevant. Someone assumed that I don't know how atheists think which turns out to be a very wrong assumption.

Actually, it is relevant if you introduced yourself as someone who has actually seen both sides, when you were instead being deceptive, and then made a play which was supposed to be informed and more authoritative based on your open-minded experience of both sides.

Liar in one thing, liar in all, really.

 

[Storm]

Actually, it is relevant if you introduced yourself as someone who has actually seen both sides, when you were instead being deceptive, and then made a play which was supposed to be informed and more authoritative based on your open-minded experience of both sides.

Liar in one thing, liar in all, really.

Yeppers.

 

[Copernicus]

This is not a religious scripture to interpret it subjectively and arrive at different conclusions, these are based on facts established from experiments and it applies to all irrelevant of your caste, creed or personal bias.

I have no idea what the subject "this" refers to in that sentence. All I did was point out that you and I interpret the data differently. What is your problem with that statement?

Its not a God of the gaps argument, its an argument which fills the gaps in our knowledge and in our scientific models, hence a god hypothesis is albeit necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

You seem to be denying that it is a "God of gaps" argument, except that you then describe it as if it were such an argument.

Bernard D'Espagnat is a theoretical physicist and a philosopher of Science and I quote:

"Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[60] In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.[61]"

I have never denied that he was a respected physicist, only that his science justified his belief in God. From what I have seen and read of him, he does not really claim that science proves the existence of God, only that it fails to disprove that existence. To make the kind of claim you attribute to him, he would actually have to say what it is about his experimental evidence that pointed to God. Merely declaring that certain particles are not "self-existent" and therefore Goddidit is not a scientific argument. It is just speculation.

He is talking of facts, this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this mind is the product of a divine God, someone in the Guardian asked "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" because even neurons fall under empirical reality and therefore even neurons don't exist independent of a human mind and therefore scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought and a God is necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

That is a string of non-sequiturs. D'Espagnat may be adept at physics, but he is not a specialist in the study of the mind or consciousness. He doesn't define what he thinks a "mind" is. And you've got things exactly backwards. Minds depend on brains for the existence, not the other way around. That's why your thought processes are affected when you get bashed in the head.

That's why I am not attacking science, science doesn't in any way say a God doesn't exist, science deals in the realm of falsifiability and that's why I am attacking the scientific consensus, the atheistic scientists who say God is dead and also the atheists.

I don't think that there is a consensus among scientists about the existence of God, but scientists do have a statistical tendency to be more atheistic than the population at large. That probably has something to do with the similarity between methodological and philosophical materialism.

If there is ever a Law of both Religion and Science then this is it.
"What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

That statement sounds more like a platitude than a "Law". What do you think D'Espargnat thinks it means? It is trivially true that all our knowledge of the world derives from subjective observation. Observation of quantum-level phenomena tells us only that we cannot precisely know a particle's position and its momentum at the same time. That doesn't get you to God, although you might think it does, if you don't care too much about logic.

A lot of things have changed since Einstein died and the context of that statement by Einstein is no longer the same because we don't know what Einstein would have said after the experiments from Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger went against his beliefs.

Based on what Einstein said about his religious beliefs during his lifetime, it is pretty safe to conclude that experimental results of that sort would not have turned him into a theist.

 

[ChristineES]

I am not sure why anyone would worry about the creation of the Universe- it happened very long time ago and no one could ever know how it happened. But...

Since no one knows how the Universe was created- all we have are theories and hypotheses, then how could anyone know if a God was needed or not. Don't get me wrong, I admire Mr. Hawking and other scientists, but we just don't know.

I learned about the Big Bang (in science class in 8th grade), I heard about creation, I heard about a combination of both and more. When I learned about the Big Bang, I was 13 years old and an agnostic- it sounded farfetched. Creationism in the Old Testament (taught from a literal point of view) didn't really make much sense either.

I don't know what I am trying to say. I'll stop here and hope someone understands my rambling thoughts.

 

[otokage007]

I am not sure why anyone would worry about the creation of the Universe- it happened very long time ago and no one could ever know how it happened. But...

Since no one knows how the Universe was created- all we have are theories and hypotheses, then how could anyone know if a God was needed or not. Don't get me wrong, I admire Mr. Hawking and other scientists, but we just don't know.

I learned about the Big Bang (in science class in 8th grade), I heard about creation, I heard about a combination of both and more. When I learned about the Big Bang, I was 13 years old and an agnostic- it sounded farfetched. Creationism in the Old Testament (taught from a literal point of view) didn't really make much sense either.

I don't know what I am trying to say. I'll stop here and hope someone understands my rambling thoughts.

I understand you and I agree to some extent. Although I think, or maybe I hope, that someday in the future some genious will say: the universe started because of this, and this is the evidence. I'm the "nothing is impossible to achieve" kind of guy

 

[1137]

I hate being late to parties. Hawking has not claimed there is no God here, he has claimed that God is not necessary. I am not sure about his argument that was presented in the OP, these days there seems to be evidence that there was a "before" the big bang. Time, space, etc relative to our universe did not exist before our universe existed, obviously. But either way, we get to a point where time and the laws we know no longer apply anyways. I am not sure how it is against pantheism, pantheism (all God) could include the entire cosmos, including whatever is not our universe, and still not need a magical agent to accomplish things. Nothing implies the existence of God, but that does not mean there is not one, simply no reason to think there is.

Who's to say there isn't just a natural flow of things that ended up with our universe existing?

 

[PolyHedral]

I am not sure why anyone would worry about the creation of the Universe- it happened very long time ago and no one could ever know how it happened. But...

Since no one knows how the Universe was created- all we have are theories and hypotheses, then how could anyone know if a God was needed or not. Don't get me wrong, I admire Mr. Hawking and other scientists, but we just don't know.

I learned about the Big Bang (in science class in 8th grade), I heard about creation, I heard about a combination of both and more. When I learned about the Big Bang, I was 13 years old and an agnostic- it sounded farfetched. Creationism in the Old Testament (taught from a literal point of view) didn't really make much sense either.

I don't know what I am trying to say. I'll stop here and hope someone understands my rambling thoughts.

We make inferences from available evidence.

 

[otokage007]

Its not a God of the gaps argument, its an argument which fills the gaps in our knowledge and in our scientific models, hence a god hypothesis is albeit necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

That’s still a God of gaps argument. You are stating: science doesn’t know, therefore God did it.

You really can not see what’s wrong with this, can you? :/

He is talking of facts, this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this mind is the product of a divine God, someone in the Guardian asked "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" because even neurons fall under empirical reality and therefore even neurons don't exist independent of a human mind and therefore scientists will never be able to simulate conscious thought and a God is necessary for the complete model of the cosmos.

Science doesn’t make statements based on “what’s necessary” to fulfill an hypothesis, only assumptions. And assumptions lack any scientific value.

That's why I am not attacking science, science doesn't in any way say a God doesn't exist, science deals in the realm of falsifiability and that's why I am attacking the scientific consensus, the atheistic scientists who say God is dead and also the atheists.

Well, science says that there’s no scientific evidences to believe that God may exist. You can draw whatever you want from that statement.

"What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

Maybe, but somehow, that “state of mind” has much more credibility value than any other. Epistemological methods that rely on the validity of an empirical reality are by far the most successful ever created.

 

[Pleroma]

Sorry, but your credibility has been seriously undermined here, since your posts reveal that you do NOT, in fact, "know how atheists think."

See, I went through an atheist phase, myself. It was a particularly infantile, poorly reasoned atheism, but it was enough that I can spot the bull in your posts. Plus, since then, I've actually conversed with many atheists, and listened to what they said instead of attacking strawmen.

So, no. I still don't believe you.

In an anonymous forum, its the content that only counts and also the arguments one makes and all ones credibility is assessed on that. I can not go to everyone and make them read of the latest findings and make them change their mind. Others have to decide for themselves whether their position is intellectually honest or not.

 

[Storm]

In an anonymous forum, its the content that only counts and also the arguments one makes and all ones credibility is assessed on that. I can not go to everyone and make them read of the latest findings and make them change their mind. Others have to decide for themselves whether their position is intellectually honest or not.

You're right, it is the content that counts. And your content is self-contradictory.