Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What we must recognise then is that most people have opinions and should state it thus instead of making absolute statements that can neither be proved nor disproved.

Actually, I think he did just that, for the most part:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

Note how he began: "I regard..." IOW, he is qualifying his view on Heaven as an opinion.

The second part, "that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark", doesn't actually speak to the existence or non-existence of Heaven. As has been thrashed out in this thread, there's not really any evidence for the existence of Heaven. While this doesn't mean that it absolutely, necessarily, cannot exist, it does leave us with the question of where the idea came from.

It didn't come from following the evidence, since there isn't any evidence. So did it come from fear of death? I think that assumption's at least as reasonable as any of the other possible explanations I've encountered.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually, I think he did just that, for the most part:


Note how he began: "I regard..." IOW, he is qualifying his view on Heaven as an opinion.

The second part, "that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark", doesn't actually speak to the existence or non-existence of Heaven. As has been thrashed out in this thread, there's not really any evidence for the existence of Heaven. While this doesn't mean that it absolutely, necessarily, cannot exist, it does leave us with the question of where the idea came from.

It didn't come from following the evidence, since there isn't any evidence. So did it come from fear of death? I think that assumption's at least as reasonable as any of the other possible explanations I've encountered.

I can't argue with you comments, well said :bow:

 

[Magic Man]

It is a bit amusing that some people take everything a scientist says as gospel truth, even if it is just an opinion. But I am having fun on this thread, as I doubt it was ever supposed to be taken too seriously.

That's true. That is a bit amusing, although I haven't seen anyone do it in this thread, so I'm not sure why it's brought up here.

 

[Magic Man]

But that doesn't necessarily follow. Wasn't their a time when there was no evidence for many things, and they existed just the same?

Like what?

If you mean it would be irrelevant, i can't see why it has to be. It may be relevant, and it may be not. Depends on each person's view of the thing in question.

What I mean is that if something lacks any evidence at all, and we have nothing to make us believe it exists, what is the difference between that thing and something that just doesn't exist?

Now of course its extremely more likely he's not who he claims he is. Chances that he is are pretty small. Which means whoever chooses to believe he's Brad Pitt is even less justified in his choice, and probably wrong.

Due to the fact that he could've proved he is who he claims he is, its reasonable here to assume that he's not, since for some reason he didn't prove it, although he tried. But even here, we still can't say there is no chance whatsoever that he is Brad Pitt.

No one is trying to say there is no chance whatsoever. What we're saying is exactly what you're saying here. We have no evidence for the claims made about heaven, and we have good reason to believe the claims are made up for the purpose of making people feel better and less afraid of death. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that heaven does not exist, even if there's the tiniest possibility that it does.

I almost agree, just not with the probably false part. To know something, you would need evidence. Otherwise it would be making an assumption, or having faith etc...

So, of course i don't know that there is a heaven. But saying that there isn't a heaven, is also doing the same thing, assuming knowing. It could exist and it could not. Saying which probabilities are higher can be appropriate or not depending on each situation.

The lack of evidence here in heaven's case does not necessarily point against the claim, due to the chance of it being untestable, now or always. Or that we just failed to find any evidence for it, so far, which could happen due to the complication of such issue.

Rejecting a claim based on the fact that it has no supporting evidence and we can see a reason why it would have been made up is not equivalent to believing that claim because we have been told it's true by our mentors. The second one takes faith, while the first one does not.

I see what you're saying. The only problem is that us not observing anything so far or ever to suggest this, doesn't necessarily mean that things are just as they appear. As its not necessary that such thing can be observed right now, or ever.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it sure points in that direction. A person holding a smoking gun over the body of a person who has just been shot isn't necessarily the killer, but the fact that he's holding the smoking gun sure points in that direction.

So while the comparison doesn't accomplish much in this department, it also fails to recognize that we aren't actually close to fully understanding the brain. Unlike computers, which we ourselves created.

Actually, we're not that far off, but that's irrelevant. We understand it enough to put it in the context of everything else we know about the universe.

 

[lunamoth]

The difference between humans and computers is that we have no problem unplugging and discarding computers when they no longer meet our needs.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The difference between humans and computers is that we have no problem unplugging and discarding computers when they no longer meet our needs.

Interesting that you say that.

 

[lunamoth]

Interesting that you say that.

Why??

 

[ChristineES]

That's true. That is a bit amusing, although I haven't seen anyone do it in this thread, so I'm not sure why it's brought up here.

I just can't believe that people are seriously debating it, including me. I find myself amused by that.

 

[Magic Man]

I just can't believe that people are seriously debating it, including me. I find myself amused by that.

Seriously debating what?

 

[ChristineES]

Seriously debating what?

About whether Mr. Hawking is qualified to answer the question "is there a heaven". I thought that was what the thread was about.

 

[Magic Man]

About whether Mr. Hawking is qualified to answer the question "is there a heaven". I thought that was what the thread was about.

Anyone is qualified to answer the question. Hawking is qualified to give a more authoritative answer than most, though. I would say someone who has spent his life investigating how the universe works and is clearly brilliant would be a very good person to ask questions about how the universe works.

But you still seem to be implying that people here are just taking his word as gospel. No one is doing that. Some of us agree with his conclusion, but, for instance, I'm not saying there's no heaven because Hawking said so. I say there's no heaven because there's no evidence for one and it makes more sense that it was just made up to make people feel better. It seems that Hawking has come to the same conclusion for much the same reasons.

 

[ChristineES]

Anyone is qualified to answer the question. Hawking is qualified to give a more authoritative answer than most, though. I would say someone who has spent his life investigating how the universe works and is clearly brilliant would be a very good person to ask questions about how the universe works.

But you still seem to be implying that people here are just taking his word as gospel. No one is doing that. Some of us agree with his conclusion, but, for instance, I'm not saying there's no heaven because Hawking said so. I say there's no heaven because there's no evidence for one and it makes more sense that it was just made up to make people feel better. It seems that Hawking has come to the same conclusion for much the same reasons.

It is just my opinion, but I feel that a few people think :"If a scientist says it, it must be true". I am not saying it was said here on this thread, but I know there are some who are thinking it.

 

[Magic Man]

It is just my opinion, but I feel that a few people think :"If a scientist says it, it must be true". I am not saying it was said here on this thread, but I know there are some who are thinking it.

You know there are some on this thread who are thinking it? How do you know that?

I think it's much more likely that the people are just agreeing with Hawking because they came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence.

As I said before, I'm sure there are people out there who think that, but I haven't seen any reason to believe anyone here is thinking it.

 

[ChristineES]

You know there are some on this thread who are thinking it? How do you know that?

I think it's much more likely that the people are just agreeing with Hawking because they came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence.

As I said before, I'm sure there are people out there who think that, but I haven't seen any reason to believe anyone here is thinking it.

What I meant to say is that it is my opinion that there are at least a few people thinking it. I know nothing for sure.

 

[Badran]

Would you consider it to be speaking against a claim to say that while it's unfalsifiable, there's no good reason to believe it's true?

Yes, i would. But i don't think thats the case here. We should recognize that whether there are good reasons or not in that case would be possibly subjective.

Because that's what I think is the case when we have an assertion about a factual matter that isn't supported by evidence.

But that assumes that any factual matter can be supported by evidence right now, or ever.

BTW - when confronted with an idea that isn't supported by evidence, what are your criteria for accepting it? I mean, I'm sure you don't accept every unsupported idea, but it seems that you say you accept at least this one, so you must have some way of deciding which ones to accept and which ones not to, right?

Yes, i do.

Basically i like to remain open to possibilities. My usual position would be neutral on matters such as this, or sometimes moving between being inclined for or against.

In this case, the concept of heaven or afterlife in general is related to other issues, concerning god, religion etc.. My position on that matter in general, including this particular part, is based on both my personal experience, and on the fact that in the end i'm choosing between choices that are all not assured, or proven.

Its a matter that we have no knowledge of, so any choice, except remaining neutral is unsupported. When we add my personal experience like i said, that makes me choose the unsupported accepting position.

 

[Badran]

Like what?

Bacteria for example.

What I mean is that if something lacks any evidence at all, and we have nothing to make us believe it exists, what is the difference between that thing and something that just doesn't exist?

There is still the difference of the existence of the possibility, unlike the thing that has been demonstrated to not exist.

However, also thats not the case here. Because there are reasons to believe in it for some people, and no reasons for others.

No one is trying to say there is no chance whatsoever. What we're saying is exactly what you're saying here. We have no evidence for the claims made about heaven, and we have good reason to believe the claims are made up for the purpose of making people feel better and less afraid of death. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that heaven does not exist, even if there's the tiniest possibility that it does.

Rejecting a claim based on the fact that it has no supporting evidence and we can see a reason why it would have been made up is not equivalent to believing that claim because we have been told it's true by our mentors. The second one takes faith, while the first one does not.

The conclusion is still based on an assumption, that an afterlife is testable or that we can find evidence for it right now or at all. Its still based on the assumption that anything is provable, and right now.

Also i do not of course accept it because i was told its true by my mentors. This is basically the problem as it seems to me. You're taking away from the opposite position, and overlook shortcomings in yours. Both positions have the same possible problem.

I don't mean specifically you of course, but this position in general.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it sure points in that direction. A person holding a smoking gun over the body of a person who has just been shot isn't necessarily the killer, but the fact that he's holding the smoking gun sure points in that direction.

Yes, in that example it sure does. I can't see how thats the same in the issue here.

Actually, we're not that far off, but that's irrelevant. We understand it enough to put it in the context of everything else we know about the universe.

Not in my opinion.

Let me put it in different words, when i hear a scientist of this level expressing his opinion on such a matter, i expect much better than this.

I have heard opinions that far supersede his in quality, reasonableness and lack of bias right here in this forum from people that are not anyway near him in knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is just my opinion, but I feel that a few people think :"If a scientist says it, it must be true". I am not saying it was said here on this thread, but I know there are some who are thinking it.

Maybe, but still probably less than the number of people who automatically disagree with what he says because he's a scientist.

 

[ChristineES]

Maybe, but still probably less than the number of people who automatically disagree with what he says because he's a scientist.

Of course that's true, there is always more than one side.

 

[outhouse]

Let me put it in different words, when i hear a scientist of this level expressing his opinion on such a matter, i expect much better than this.

since he was just answering a question and finds heaven to be fantasy, I find his opinion valid.

If he was writing a paper on said subject I would agree. In this case someone grabbed a sound bite and ran with much the way I did.

 

[blackout]

I still don't know what this debated heaven is supposed to be? (or not be)