Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[Magic Man]

Obviously the assumption is that spirits don't exist. They're in the same boat as heaven. There is no evidence to suggest they do exist. So, then the conclusion is, whether heaven is a physical or spiritual place, it still doesn't exist. And the point is from everything we know about how universe works, about which Hawking is an expert, spirits and heaven don't exist.

 

[ChristineES]

But if heaven is thought to exist, why wouldn't a physicist be qualified to answer the question of whether or not such a place is in the realm of the possible (or plausible)?

Then let's just say, as a human, Mr. Hawking has every right to answer the question on whether there is an afterlife or any question given him. As a scientist, one can't answer a question (In my opinion) on whether there is an afterlife or not with science as it is not a scientific question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then let's just say, as a human, Mr. Hawking has every right to answer the question on whether there is an afterlife or any question given him. As a scientist, one can't answer a question (In my opinion) on whether there is an afterlife or not with science as it is not a scientific question.

It's not?

The claim of Heaven is the claim of the existence of a realm, plane, or what-have-you where people continue to exist in some unknown but real form. It also implies that some aspect of a person (a "soul") can survive the death of the body. How is it not a scientific question to ask whether this is likely to be true?

The existence of "Heaven the metaphor" may not be a scientific question, but the existence of "Heaven the real place you go when you die" certainly is, IMO.

In terms of science, I don't really see the question as all that different from the foundational hypothesis of the germ theory of disease: that disease is transmitted by invisible (now known to be microscopic) agents that pass from person to person by various vectors. If this was a proposition within the purview of science - even in an era before the invention of the microscope - why isn't Heaven?

 

[Magic Man]

Not sure, and it doesn't really matter.

It does actually. There may be things that exist currently that we have no evidence for, but then people aren't claiming they exist. The point is that you're claiming something exists, and then assuming we just don't have the means to find the evidence yet. With something like bacteria, it always existed. It also had evidence that people weren't able to see or at least piece together. If someone had brought up the concept, it wouldn't have gone against what they knew of the world. It would just have explained something like getting sick.

My point is there was a time where bacteria existed, and there was no shred of evidence to support its existence. So, obviously the lack of evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist, or point against the claim of its existence, necessarily.

And my point is that no one went around claiming there was such a thing as bacteria until they found evidence for it. That's much different from claiming there is a heaven and then looking for the evidence, and assuming it's just not apparent to people yet.

Again, the lack of evidence points to something not existing. In some cases, it points more strongly than others. The biggest difference between examples like bacteria and heaven, as I mentioned above, is that things like bacteria would explain certain things in the world without going against many other things known about the world. Heaven goes against what we know about existence and the universe, which is why Hawking is a good candidate to give an opinion on its existence.

If you brought up the existence of something that would explain a certain phenomenon, and your explanation didn't contradict other things we already know, then a lack of evidence wouldn't point as strongly against your claim. The other key factor is how far you've gone to search for evidence. If the search is extensive, then the lack of evidence is a stronger indication of nonexistence.

Like I said, I'm afraid that’s not true at all.

OK, what is a useful claim that is not testable and cannot be supported by evidence?

I explained it in brief in my last post replying to 9-10ths_Penguin.

All you mentioned there was personal experience. What personal experience have you had that would serve as your evidence for heaven?

You claim that anything can either be proved or tested now, or else it doesn't exist or probably doesn't exist and/or is useless or worthless, irrelevant etc….

I think this is getting a little confused. If a claim cannot even be tested, it is useless. Let's take an example like dark matter. There is the claim that dark matter exists. The reason that is claimed is to explain certain phenomena. What exactly dark matter is is still not clear, and that's what they're working on. But we have evidence of something happening, and we use dark matter as sort of a placeholder for an explanation. We can test claims about dark matter. We may not be able to test them very well right now, but we can at least come up with ways to test the claims, and then work on methods of carrying out those tests.

That is opposed to claims that aren't even testable. If it's not even possible to test a claim, the claim is useless because there won't ever be a reason to accept it as true.

And of course saying I accept the claim because my mentors told me its true is taking away from it, it basically means that I'm an idiot who accepts whatever he's told. Thats not to say that this is what you're saying to me, however thats what it means to accept something just because i was told its true by my mentors.

No, it's just saying you accept a certain claim because it's what you've been told. It doesn't imply that you're an idiot. If there is no evidence for the claim, then you have nothing to go on but someone else's word.

That’s not the case. The statements I was referring to that impressed me much more than his were not actually statements representing my position, or sharing it.

Saying our brains are like computers is too simplistic in my view, and stating that there is no heaven and that its only a "fairy tale for people afraid of the dark" doesn't sound any better. And that’s not because it argues against my position, as like I said I have no problems with other arguments made against my position.

Obviously, his response isn't an in-depth analysis, but you're saying it basically displays an ignorance and bias. Of course, the comparison to computers is simplistic. It's supposed to be. He wasn't giving a lecture on the topic, just answering a question. For that purpose (or really just in general), a comparison with computers is very apt. Its simplicity doesn't take away from its accuracy. Can you explain what is wrong with his statement that heaven is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark?

 

[ChristineES]

It's not?

The claim of Heaven is the claim of the existence of a realm, plane, or what-have-you where people continue to exist in some unknown but real form. It also implies that some aspect of a person (a "soul") can survive the death of the body. How is it not a scientific question to ask whether this is likely to be true?

The existence of "Heaven the metaphor" may not be a scientific question, but the existence of "Heaven the real place you go when you die" certainly is, IMO.

In terms of science, I don't really see the question as all that different from the foundational hypothesis of the germ theory of disease: that disease is transmitted by invisible (now known to be microscopic) agents that pass from person to person by various vectors. If this was a proposition within the purview of science - even in an era before the invention of the microscope - why isn't Heaven?

I just don't see it as a scientific question. That is just my personal belief. I think I can leave it at that.
You do make some valid points, however.

 

[Badran]

It does actually. There may be things that exist currently that we have no evidence for, but then people aren't claiming they exist.

That has no bearing on the point i was making, as well as it being not true. I said i don't know, that doesn't mean nobody made the claim of there being bacteria or claimed an idea similar before there was evidence for it. If that wasn't the case with bacteria, that doesn't mean it didn't happen with anything else, and i already gave the example of the atom.

As to explain once again why this has no bearing on my point. I was addressing specifically this and only this claim: "the lack of evidence points against the claim", answer: not necessarily as i have demonstrated, and you keep making this claim.

The point is that you're claiming something exists, and then assuming we just don't have the means to find the evidence yet.

Thats not what i am doing at all. There is a claim, not every claim is falsifiable or testable in the first place. Thats not my opinion, thats just the way it is. And the claim in question here can easily qualify for being untestable. The part i make a claim in however, is that i personally accept that heaven exist, which means in other words i'm one of the people who claim or believe it does. The first part however is not my claim, as i'm not even saying its necessarily not testable, just possibly.

With something like bacteria, it always existed. It also had evidence that people weren't able to see or at least piece together. If someone had brought up the concept, it wouldn't have gone against what they knew of the world. It would just have explained something like getting sick.

We have no idea if there was a point that if such a claim was put forth whether or not that would have contradicted or opposed or didn't follow smoothly with the current knowledge at the time. The fact is, before a certain time, people could not see bacteria, test it, or have any sort of knowledge of its existence. Yet, it was true all the same.

And my point is that no one went around claiming there was such a thing as bacteria until they found evidence for it.

Once more, this is your claim, and you're ignoring the other example i gave about the atom which as i understand was at a time an unfalsifiable claim, or an untestable one, and there were claims for its existence.

Again, the lack of evidence points to something not existing. In some cases, it points more strongly than others.

See? I hope its obvious now. That sentence alone have already been demonstrated to be not true. Many things had no evidence for their existence and yet in fact they did exist. So a lack of evidence does not necessarily point to something not existing.

I agree however of course that in some cases the 'pointing' is more strong than others. This isn't one of those cases however. The ones where there is any pointing in the first place, at least so far based on the arguments presented.

The biggest difference between examples like bacteria and heaven, as I mentioned above, is that things like bacteria would explain certain things in the world without going against many other things known about the world. Heaven goes against what we know about existence and the universe, which is why Hawking is a good candidate to give an opinion on its existence.

That depends on what time bacteria would have been supposedly proposed, may be in sometimes it would have contradicted the common knowledge.

That aside, heaven actually contradicts nothing of our common knowledge, at least not all forms of the claims for it. That is assuming that the claim is that the body as it is survives, or in some form survives or that anything related to the body survives in a form we should be able to notice or find evidence for, which as i mentioned many times, is not necessarily the case.

If you brought up the existence of something that would explain a certain phenomenon, and your explanation didn't contradict other things we already know, then a lack of evidence wouldn't point as strongly against your claim.

Actually i think you mean it wouldn't point against the claim at all. Or are you actually saying that if something explains a certain phenomenon, and that explanation doesn't contradict current knowledge, is still probably false?

Which would mean its also worthless, according to you. I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant.

The other key factor is how far you've gone to search for evidence. If the search is extensive, then the lack of evidence is a stronger indication of nonexistence.

Yeah, but assuming of course you're searching in the right place using the right methods, and that the claim is actually 'findable' right now, or at all.

OK, what is a useful claim that is not testable and cannot be supported by evidence?

I think that is answered now through the points i made so far, at least in this post.

All you mentioned there was personal experience. What personal experience have you had that would serve as your evidence for heaven?

I said a little more than that actually:

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.

EDIT: In other words, its not just my experience, but the nature of the situation itself and its relation to other things.

I think this is getting a little confused. If a claim cannot even be tested, it is useless. Let's take an example like dark matter. There is the claim that dark matter exists. The reason that is claimed is to explain certain phenomena. What exactly dark matter is is still not clear, and that's what they're working on. But we have evidence of something happening, and we use dark matter as sort of a placeholder for an explanation. We can test claims about dark matter. We may not be able to test them very well right now, but we can at least come up with ways to test the claims, and then work on methods of carrying out those tests.

I understand what you're saying. This means that this issue is actually relevant to science, unlike heaven where there is a good chance its not, at least now.

However, relevance and irrelevance to science does not dictate relevance and irrelevance in general.

That is opposed to claims that aren't even testable. If it's not even possible to test a claim, the claim is useless because there won't ever be a reason to accept it as true.

First, again, there are reasons already for many people to accept something without evidence.

Second, not every claim is testable obviously, and nothing dictates that any untestable claim is useless.

Third, there were untestable claims that were true all the same and were eventually proven to be true.

No, it's just saying you accept a certain claim because it's what you've been told. It doesn't imply that you're an idiot.

It does, not necessarily by you, but thats what it means. At least in that particular instance i would be doing something unintelligent and idiotic, as i didn't use any of my skills to deal with what i've been told, and instead just accepted it.

If there is no evidence for the claim, then you have nothing to go on but someone else's word.

I already explained and gave an example of how i accepted something without evidence, there are plenty of reasons to accept something without evidence. Not all of them necessarily right, however this is certainly not the only way or reason to accept an unsupported claim.

Obviously, his response isn't an in-depth analysis, but you're saying it basically displays an ignorance and bias. Of course, the comparison to computers is simplistic. It's supposed to be. He wasn't giving a lecture on the topic, just answering a question. For that purpose (or really just in general), a comparison with computers is very apt. Its simplicity doesn't take away from its accuracy.

I understand, i'm not saying of course that he's ignorant or that what he said conveys ignorance however. I did say also if it was used for illustration only thats understandable, however it doesn't make the example any better to me. Or make the statement sound any more impressive.

Can you explain what is wrong with his statement that heaven is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark?

It contains an unsupported statement, and a very likely sarcastic remark, which also happens to be generalizing and again over simplistic.

 

[Quagmire]

It's not?

The claim of Heaven is the claim of the existence of a realm, plane, or what-have-you where people continue to exist in some unknown but real form. It also implies that some aspect of a person (a "soul") can survive the death of the body. How is it not a scientific question to ask whether this is likely to be true?

The existence of "Heaven the metaphor" may not be a scientific question, but the existence of "Heaven the real place you go when you die" certainly is, IMO.

In terms of science, I don't really see the question as all that different from the foundational hypothesis of the germ theory of disease: that disease is transmitted by invisible (now known to be microscopic) agents that pass from person to person by various vectors. If this was a proposition within the purview of science - even in an era before the invention of the microscope - why isn't Heaven?

Actually, the idea of the existence of microbes was first put forth by a mystic, not a scientist:

The possibility that microorganisms exist was discussed for many centuries before their actual discovery in the 17th century. The existence of unseen microbiological life was postulated by Jainism which is based on Mahavira’s teachings as early as 6th century BCE.[15] Paul Dundas notes that Mahavira asserted existence of unseen microbiological creatures living in earth, water, air and fire.[16] Jain scriptures also describe nigodas which are sub-microscopic creatures living in large clusters and having a very short life and are said to pervade each and every part of universe, even in tissues of plants and flesh of animals.[17]

 

[Panda]

Anyway, you missed the point: I wasn't arguing that dreams are real, I was just showing that it's entirely possible for a world to be created from thought, and that while we're in that world, it's reality is just as verifiable in every way that this one is while we're here.

I disagree completely here. You aren't creating a world from thought but a world of thought.

 

[Quagmire]

I disagree completely here. You aren't creating a world from thought but a world of thought.

What's the difference?

 

[PolyHedral]

What's the difference?

"From" implies that something is being created. It isn't.

 

[Quagmire]

"From" implies that something is being created. It isn't.

Formed than. The same could be said of this existence.

 

[Magic Man]

That has no bearing on the point i was making, as well as it being not true. I said i don't know, that doesn't mean nobody made the claim of there being bacteria or claimed an idea similar before there was evidence for it. If that wasn't the case with bacteria, that doesn't mean it didn't happen with anything else, and i already gave the example of the atom.

As to explain once again why this has no bearing on my point. I was addressing specifically this and only this claim: "the lack of evidence points against the claim", answer: not necessarily as i have demonstrated, and you keep making this claim.

You haven't demonstrated that. I've demonstrated the opposite. The real point here is that if you make a claim that something exists, and then when research is done, no evidence is found to support that claim, that lack of evidence is evidence of the absence of that something.

We have no idea if there was a point that if such a claim was put forth whether or not that would have contradicted or opposed or didn't follow smoothly with the current knowledge at the time. The fact is, before a certain time, people could not see bacteria, test it, or have any sort of knowledge of its existence. Yet, it was true all the same.

Regardless of the rest of it, the main fact here is that we have enough knowledge of how the universe works at this point to rule out something like heaven. If there was evidence of such a thing, we'd have found something, and it wouldn't continue to go against all the things we do know about the universe.

Once more, this is your claim, and you're ignoring the other example i gave about the atom which as i understand was at a time an unfalsifiable claim, or an untestable one, and there were claims for its existence.

You're ignoring an important part of my point. When someone brought up something like the atom, it didn't go against how the universe works. It was also a testable claim; they just couldn't test it at the time. There's a big difference between not being able to test a claim at all, and not having the tools at the time to test it.

As I said before, the lack of evidence foe the atom when it was first proposed many years ago did point away from it existing. But since it didn't really go against all of the other stuff known about the world, it didn't point that far away from it.

The main point here is that absence of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve something.

For instance, what is your evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

That aside, heaven actually contradicts nothing of our common knowledge, at least not all forms of the claims for it.

Really? It sure seems like it to me.

Actually i think you mean it wouldn't point against the claim at all. Or are you actually saying that if something explains a certain phenomenon, and that explanation doesn't contradict current knowledge, is still probably false?

I'm saying absence of evidence in that case doesn't point as strongly against the claim. For instance, if I claim that I own a ferret, but I can't provide photos or answer some questions about it, that points against my claim, but it's entirely possible that I own a ferret. If I claim to own a dragon, and I can't provide photos or any other evidence, then it points strongly against my claim.

I think that is answered now through the points i made so far, at least in this post.

Unless I missed it, I don't think so. I'm asking for an example of a useful claim that we cannot test and there cannot be evidence for.

I said a little more than that actually:

EDIT: In other words, its not just my experience, but the nature of the situation itself and its relation to other things.

I'm not following. That sounds like you're still just saying you've had a personal experience. Either that or you're saying you believe it because of how it fits into your religion, but then you're just pushing it off to your religion. You still have the same problem; it just gets shifted to why you believe your religious beliefs.

First, again, there are reasons already for many people to accept something without evidence.

Like what? All we have so far is that they're taking someone else's word for it, and their personal experiences. Neither of which I would consider a good reason to accept something without evidence.

Second, not every claim is testable obviously, and nothing dictates that any untestable claim is useless.

Obviously not every claim is testable, but I have yet to see an example of a useful claim that is not testable.

Third, there were untestable claims that were true all the same and were eventually proven to be true.

Which means they were testable. Besides, the argument you're making could be used to support Santa Claus, leprechauns and any other crazy claim people make. You could just say "Well, there's no evidence now, but there could be in the future". The main point is that there is no evidence now, so it's reasonable to conclude that the claim is false.

It contains an unsupported statement, and a very likely sarcastic remark, which also happens to be generalizing and again over simplistic.

What is the unsupported statement? I wouldn't call the remark sarcastic, but the point of the remark you're referring to is that people are afraid of death, so they like to believe in an afterlife to comfort them. It's not overgeneralizing or overly simplistic. It's pretty accurate according to what we know of people and an afterlife.

 

[Panda]

What's the difference?

You give the impression you are creating something more than just thought.

 

[Panda]

Formed than. The same could be said of this existence.

What do you mean?

 

[Quagmire]

You give the impression you are creating something more than just thought.

You got that impression. Doesn't mean you got it from me.

What do you mean?

In a dream you're creating a world. "of thought" "from thought" "in thought"...I don't think it makes a difference, I think these are semantic distinctions.

My point, again (and again and again....) is that every thing we have at our desposale that can be used to determine the substantiality of this, waking, reality, has a doppelganger in our dream reality.

Alceste was defining "real" this way:

When I say "actually exists" I am only referring to the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste.

My point is that by this set of criteria, we would have to consider dreams real also, since in dreams we also experience " the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the idea of the existence of microbes was first put forth by a mystic, not a scientist:

That's fine; scientific hypotheses can come from anywhere. I'm not a devotee of NOMA - I think that science can speak to many "religious" ideas.

What makes a hypothesis scientific is that it's testable, not that it was made by scientists.

 

[Panda]

In a dream you're creating a world. "of thought" "from thought" "in thought"...I don't think it makes a difference, I think these are semantic distinctions.

I think it makes a difference but, we got past that.

My point, again (and again and again....) is that every thing we have at our desposale that can be used to determine the substantiality of this, waking, reality, has a doppelganger in our dream reality.

Alceste was defining "real" this way:

My point is that by this set of criteria, we would have to consider dreams real also, since in dreams we also experience " the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste".

Ah I see what you mean, I think what Alceste meant was the sort of things you can thump with your hand and will leave a bruise on your physical body.

 

[Quagmire]

I think it makes a difference but, we got past that.



Ah I see what you mean, I think what Alceste meant was the sort of things you can thump with your hand and will leave a bruise on your physical body.

As opposed to the sort of things you can thump with your dream hand and will leave a dream bruise on your dream body?

 

[Panda]

As opposed to the sort of things you can thump with your dream hand and will leave a dream bruise on your dream body?

Yes, dream being the key word there. It is not real but merely a figment of your imagination.

 

[Quagmire]

That's fine; scientific hypotheses can come from anywhere. I'm not a devotee of NOMA - I think that science can speak to many "religious" ideas.

What makes a hypothesis scientific is that it's testable, not that it was made by scientists.

It was mostly just an (I thought) interesting aside, but if I were going to try and use it to make a point it would be this:

you said:

In terms of science, I don't really see the question as all that different from the foundational hypothesis of the germ theory of disease: that disease is transmitted by invisible (now known to be microscopic) agents that pass from person to person by various vectors. If this was a proposition within the purview of science - even in an era before the invention of the microscope - why isn't Heaven?

Question is: why was it in the purview of science? Would it have been if mystics and philosophers hadn't suggested it first?

Before the invention of the microscope, could it really have been considered a scientific theory, or at that stage was it still a philosophical one?

If this was a proposition within the purview of science - even in an era before the invention of the microscope - why isn't Heaven?

Maybe because scientists have stopped paying attention to mystics and philosophers.