Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[punkdbass]

No. He's an Atheist. In fact, his latest book has made popular the idea that science disproves God

Ask any REAL scientist if science "proves" or "disproves" things and they will tell you it doesn't. Science is simply is an ever evolving understanding/explanation of the world that can dramatically change over time.

There certainly isn't concrete proof that God doesn't exist, and there certainly isn't concrete proof that God does exist.

Hawkins thoughts are always interesting though, and one day I want to read some of his books.

Chaos theory is one of the newer fields of science/math that I find fascinating and want to learn more about

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No. He's an Atheist. In fact, his latest book has made popular the idea that science disproves God.

"Hawking's latest book, "The Grand Design," challenged Isaac Newton's theory that the solar system could not have been created without God. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going.'"
-- Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story - Yahoo! News


.

Okay, thanks. I just thought I saw an interview of him saying he believed in a non-creator god...

 

[Alceste]

What makes a physicist qualified to make pronouncements about theology?

A physicist is qualified to make pronouncements on what is likely to exist (or not exist) in the universe/s.

If Hawking tells me something about black holes, or the curvature of spacetime, or the probabilities of the Higgs-Boson being found next year, I will pay close attention and presume that his qualifications are beyond reproach, and above nearly anyone alive.

But his unquestioned genius for physics doesn't make him uniquely qualified to speak about spiritual and theological matters, anymore than it makes him uniquely qualified to make definitive pronouncements about Shakespeare's motivations in composing one of his sonnets. That simply isn't Hawking's area of training and expertise.

He is entitled to his theological, or atheological, opinions, as is anyone; but he is no more qualified to state that there absolutely is no afterlife than I would be to state that there will absolutely be a contraction of the universe followed by a Big Crunch.

Heaven is not a theological or spiritual proposition: it is claimed to be a location, which presupposes that in some corner of some universe, it actually exists. I would not go to a theologian to answer the question of whether a proposed location is or isn't possible within the natural laws of the multi-verse as we currently understand them: I would go to a physicist. A theologian is of no use to me, except as an expert in the history and practice of religious belief.

For the record, a physicist will not necessarily tell you heaven is impossible. Since M-Theory (very fashionable) predicts an infinite number of infinite universes, many physicists who subscribe to this model will swear up and down that this means every conceivable universe not only CAN exist, but DOES exist. (I disagree with them, though - like religious folks, they tend to obfuscate the line between imagination and reality - I will confidently claim that there is no universe where a thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters have inadvertently produced the complete works of Shakespeare just as I confidently as I will claim there is no heaven).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Ask any REAL scientist if science "proves" or "disproves" things and they will tell you it doesn't. Science is simply is an ever evolving understanding/explanation of the world that can dramatically change over time.

There certainly isn't concrete proof that God doesn't exist, and there certainly isn't concrete proof that God does exist.

Hawkins thoughts are always interesting though, and one day I want to read some of his books.

Chaos theory is one of the newer fields of science/math that I find fascinating and want to learn more about

Uh... Science doesn't prove things?

 

[outhouse]

Uh... Science doesn't prove things?

not really

its not what they do.

they do explain what they find to the best of their ability and post findings

 

[The Sum of Awe]

not really

its not what they do.

they do explain what they find to the best of their ability and post findings

Then how are there theories and laws?

 

[outhouse]

Then how are there theories and laws?

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena


Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.

 

[outhouse]

Science gives us so much. Technology, information, understanding of the natural universe... these are invaluable things. But it is refreshing and reassuring to hear even scientists and textbooks stating that science does not disprove things like "beauty" and "deity". Nor does it prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Science gives us so much. Technology, information, understanding of the natural universe... these are invaluable things. But it is refreshing and reassuring to hear even scientists and textbooks stating that science does not disprove things like "beauty" and "deity". Nor does it prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Then why do many people say "Science means proof" or why does science and proof seem so related?

Isn't science a tool that is used by using the scientific method to prove something?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Science gives us so much. Technology, information, understanding of the natural universe... these are invaluable things. But it is refreshing and reassuring to hear even scientists and textbooks stating that science does not disprove things like "beauty" and "deity". Nor does it prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But how would we be understanding anything in science if it wasn't for the proof of anything?


I'm not talking about anything related to deities... But proof of anything?

 

[outhouse]

Then why do many people say "Science means proof" or why does science and proof seem so related?

Isn't science a tool that is used by using the scientific method to prove something?

before I joined this forum and was educated I thought the same exact thing bud

I researched it well and it didnt take long for me to figure out they were right.

many people do not truely understand what it is exactly that science does.


take gravity, we know a apple will fall, we understand and can write why but that doesnt prove it.

The key word is in theory, a theory cant prove anything. It does however explain what we know about things. Some things are a high degree of certainty but again its not proof.

we can observe evolution in a lab and report on it, it does not prove evolution. It explains it the best we can. Its one reason why so many theist argue it to this day.
[please save the evo ID debate for another thread its just a example]

 

[outhouse]

But how would we be understanding anything in science if it wasn't for the proof of anything?


I'm not talking about anything related to deities... But proof of anything?

explaining what someone observed and reporting doesnt prove anything.

its just how science works.

just search around a bit and study and you will see what im talking about.

 

[Quagmire]

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


Sounds like more than a touch of emotional bias in this statement.

Personally, my opinion is that when we're talking about things like "God" or an afterlife, a physicist's opinion is no more qualified than anyone else's, and considering the tone of his statement, I wouldn't consider it any more objective either.

 

[lew0049]

Stephen Hawkins is pretty funny. He's a scientist but disregards "experiment and observation" with his claims.

 

[lew0049]

Also, Dr. Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project) seems to believe otherwise - research his findings.

 

[Caladan]

And all it took is one scientist in a wheelchair...

 

[Levite]

fair enough bud.

I dont think a theistic specialist is qualified to talk about heaven as little is ever said about such a place.

No one has ever been there and came back to talk about it.

heaven leaves open such a can of worms because everyone and every religion has such a different view.

we know its not a physical place

does it live on in imagination only? this question has as much reality of that followed by most religions that have said notion as far as I can tell.

what does any living human know about such a place with certainty? other then a afterlife started in egyptian and sumerian cultures over 6000 years ago as far as we know, since thats all that written history goes back

I think that's the point, though. It is open to considerable debate, because it is, as far as science goes, an entirely unproven, and perhaps unprovable, postulate.

It lies outside the realm of science, since it is something transcendent.

You are almost correct and on point, however, you are not.

Heaven would certainly be an aspect of Cosmology; Cosmology is a field that Stephen Hawking specializes in and thus he is qualified to make such evaluations as to whether there is a heaven or not.

A physicist is qualified to make pronouncements on what is likely to exist (or not exist) in the universe/s.

Heaven is not a theological or spiritual proposition: it is claimed to be a location, which presupposes that in some corner of some universe, it actually exists. I would not go to a theologian to answer the question of whether a proposed location is or isn't possible within the natural laws of the multi-verse as we currently understand them: I would go to a physicist. A theologian is of no use to me, except as an expert in the history and practice of religious belief.

For the record, a physicist will not necessarily tell you heaven is impossible. Since M-Theory (very fashionable) predicts an infinite number of infinite universes, many physicists who subscribe to this model will swear up and down that this means every conceivable universe not only CAN exist, but DOES exist. (I disagree with them, though - like religious folks, they tend to obfuscate the line between imagination and reality - I will confidently claim that there is no universe where a thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters have inadvertently produced the complete works of Shakespeare just as I confidently as I will claim there is no heaven).

Again, though, there is a difference between physical Cosmology and metaphysical Cosmology. Unless one is postulating that Heaven (or any other kind of afterlife realm) exists entirely within the physical universe-- which I certainly don't, and which most of the rabbis, priests, ministers, and imams that I've spoken with don't seem to postulate, either. But unless that was one's hypothesis, it seems to me that afterlife realms lie literally outside Hawking's sphere of expertise.

For one, he was merely answering a question given to him.

Secondly, he supported it with a physical reason rather than making a purely theological statement.

He's basically just agreeing with a somewhat commonly argued position that there is no mind-brain duality, and that when the brain dies, the person is simply dead.

A perfectly fair statement to make as a subjective "I believe" statement, which is probably what he intended to make. But he is in no more of an authoritative position to say it objectively than is anyone else.

 

[horizon_mj1]

If Hawking tells me something about black holes, or the curvature of spacetime, or the probabilities of the Higgs-Boson being found next year, I will pay close attention and presume that his qualifications are beyond reproach, and above nearly anyone alive.

But his unquestioned genius for physics ...

He is entitled to his theological, or atheological, opinions, as is anyone; but he is no more qualified to state that there absolutely is no afterlife than I would be to state that there will absolutely be a contraction of the universe followed by a Big Crunch.

I agree with you for the most part, anyone is entitled to an opinion, but when it comes to matters of black holes and the expansion of the universe, Dr. Michio Kaku is more qualified (IMO). Hawking is very reputable and still one of my favorite physicist, but the two mentioned areas are the two he had difficulties in and made some major flaws in his theory. What keeps me liking him is the fact he corrected himself and was able to thus amend himself.

 

[darkendless]

I love how theology is always able to sidestep criticism because it is beyond our means to provide concrete evidence, therefore certainties based on what is available to us are dismissed in favour of information that defies logic and common sense.

Its like writing a university research paper, a whole heap of possibilities and likilhoods but its taboo to state certainties (unless you like standing up in front of a room of academics explaining your choice of words).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I doubt that God or Heaven ( however it might be described) Is part of our physic Universe or set of universes.
I am quite happy for any scientist to say that "there is no heaven in the Universe."

I am also quite happy that any other inhabited worlds would have their own equivalent to Jesus, and set of unique religions.

I doubt very much there is more than one God.