Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[Vendetta]

They're as qualified (& unqualified) as theologians...& Navy Seals....& landlords....& fluffers.

Jk lol

 

[Quagmire]

No, it`s a rejection of an idea.

In order to deny the existence of heaven(concept/idea) one must first be aware of heaven.
Without the idea of heaven the rejection of it is impossible.

The one who posits the idea of heaven as "real" holds the burden of evidence.

OK then, rephrase the question: isn't the idea that the reality that we're capable of perceiving is all that there is an idea?

And considering that we know our perception is limited, isn't it an unreasonable idea?

 

[Penumbra]

OK then, rephrase the question: isn't the idea that the reality that we're capable of perceiving is all that there is an idea?

And considering that we know our perception is limited, isn't it an unreasonable idea?

It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's almost always unjustified, without evidence or any sort of authority to make the statement that there is an afterlife.

The burden of proof is not shared equally between people who propose an idea and people who doubt such an idea.

 

[Penumbra]

No. I'm saying that Heaven is not a physical place within the universe (or multiverse), and therefore no one can say definitively whether it exists or not; but if anyone is likely to express an opinion with any kind of authority, it is likely to be a theologian or religious professional, since it is a theological or metaphysical postulation.

Hawking appears to be saying that Heaven is not any kind of place, and he can say definitively that it does not exist.

If someone had asked Hawking to express his opinion on the existence of fairies, and he would have answered in the definitive negative by saying they are fairy tales (and literally so), people would not think much of his statement.

An afterlife, like all extraordinary claims, is in the same camp. This is not to say that it most surely does not exist, as proving a negative is near impossible. It's something that doesn't really jive well with any current physics, but it's less socially acceptable to dismiss it as unreasonable.

Hawking isn't really making a profound statement here. He's pointing out that since the brain is made of components like everything else, that when the components fall apart, he finds it a fairy tale to believe that some immeasurable, unsubstantiated, unjustified, and essentially magical spiritual aspect of a person transcends the destruction.

 

[outhouse]

science has no place or should I say, has nothing to do with such a question as it cannot be proven or falsified.

you , me or the pope or hawking has the same credibility on said subject.

In this case one needs to study all the text about said subject to determine and define said place, heaven.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That would be correct.
Consider that theories can be proven false, but you can't ever prove them true because there are always new & different circumstances to test the theory.
Just as Newton's laws of gravitation were replaced by Einstein's general theory of relativity, any theory is potentially replaceable by something better.
So no theory is true, it is merely useful in understanding & predicting.

I know gravity is like that... but why do people always say "evolution has proof" or stuff like that?

If it's true that nothing in science has proof... why even accept science?

 

[outhouse]

but why do people always say "evolution has proof" or stuff like that?

because evolution, like gravity, has been observed.

 

[Quagmire]

It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's almost always unjustified, without evidence or any sort of authority to make the statement that there is an afterlife.

The burden of proof is not shared equally between people who propose an idea and people who doubt such an idea.

I'm not talking about the statement that there is an afterlife, I'm talking about a positive statement that there is no afterlife.

Hawking says this

There is no heaven of afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark."

This is a positive statement, and as such would need to be justified.

We have 3 options here, not just 2:

1. There is an afterlife
2. There is no afterlife
3. We don't know if there is or isn't.

Given our current inability to know one way or the other 3 is the only reasonable position.

Anyone making claims for 1 or 2 would need to justify those claims.

 

[Quagmire]

science has no place or should I say, has nothing to do with such a question as it cannot be proven or falsified.

you , me or the pope or hawking has the same credibility on said subject.

In this case one needs to study all the text about said subject to determine and define said place, heaven.

Agree with all of the above. :yes:

 

[outhouse]

We have 3 options here, not just 2:

1. There is an afterlife
2. There is no afterlife
3. We don't know if there is or isn't.

Given our current inability to know one way or the other 3 is the only reasonable position.

Anyone making claims for 1 or 2 would need to justify those claims.

the problem there is that the same thing can be said about any imaginitive thought.

the math of your question leaves to much open

 

[PolyHedral]

science has no place or should I say, has nothing to do with such a question as it cannot be proven or falsified.

But it does, because heaven is a scientifically testable claim. If you say heaven exists, you are making a statement about the world we inhabit, and that claim can be tested. That claim has indirectly been tested, and there is no evidence to suggest that a soul or anything like it exists. It's therefore more likely for the idea of heaven to be wrong than right.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know gravity is like that... but why do people always say "evolution has proof" or stuff like that?

A layman's use of the word "proof" is different from the more rigorous scientific use..

If it's true that nothing in science has proof... why even accept science?

Science is not "absolute truth", but it is useful.
Example:
The GPS system uses general relativity to calculate your position.
Even if it's eventually replaced by a better theory, good ole GR still serves us well.

Remember that applying the scientific method to the material world is a posteriori knowledge, & always subject to revision.

 

[Quagmire]

the problem there is that the same thing can be said about any imaginitive thought.

The problem is that the idea that what we can see/know is all there is also takes imagination. The idea of "nothingness" or cessation is a hypothetical concept when held by beings that are still experiencing something.

the math of your question leaves to much open

What would you add or subtract form the equation?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Why does it have to exist in this universe?

Sorry, my bad, I was quoting someone else with that statement (I made the correction).

 

[Levite]

Exactly what authority could a theologian or religious professional bring to the discussion? I thought you said tha tno one can say definitively whether it exists or not; if that's the case, then isn't Hawking's opinion just as valid as a theologian's?

Well, personally, I think that the term "place" implies physicality (making the term "physical place" redundant, BTW), which would mean that Heaven isn't any kind of place if it isn't a "physical place".

Again: is your view really that different from Hawkings'?

In some respects a physicist knows far more about the workings of the universe, and if anything is more qualified than a theologian to make statements like this.

Again, since I don't think that Heaven is a physical place within the universe, but I do think that it is a metaphysical realm outside the universe, having a transcendant nature somehwat like God's (which is one reason I think some have claimed that Heaven is "closer" to God), it is something which is real and extant, but which is outside everything that a physicist would have expertise in.

In theory, it is outside anyone's area of expertise, but at least theologians and metaphysical philosophers are used to the notion of postulations entirely outside of the scientific realm.

If someone had asked Hawking to express his opinion on the existence of fairies, and he would have answered in the definitive negative by saying they are fairy tales (and literally so), people would not think much of his statement.

It's not quite analogous, as fairies, if they existed, would be creatures dwelling inside this universe. In fact, if they existed, they would be dwelling at least partially on this planet. Therefore, they would likely have to obey laws of physics, and we might reasonably expect to find physical traces of them. And so a qualified scientist might be able to look at the evidence for their existence (nearly none) and conclude that they likely do not exist.

Whereas, as I said before, Heaven is not thought to be within the universe at all.

I have zero problem with people not believing in heaven, or in not believing in any afterlife, or in people not believing in God. My issue only begins with them making universal, definitive statements that are condescending to those who do believe in those things.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not talking about the statement that there is an afterlife, I'm talking about a positive statement that there is no afterlife.

Hawking says this

This is a positive statement, and as such would need to be justified.

We have 3 options here, not just 2:

1. There is an afterlife
2. There is no afterlife
3. We don't know if there is or isn't.

Given our current inability to know one way or the other 3 is the only reasonable position.

Anyone making claims for 1 or 2 would need to justify those claims.

There are two aspects here I disagree with.

The first is that Hawking did justify his claim. In his brief answer to the question, he explained why he held his position. He compared the brain to a computer, and implied that it's no more reasonable to assume that a human lives on after the destruction of the human brain, than it is for a computer or an operating system to live on after the destruction of the computer.

Memories, personality, and the ability to be conscious are all dependent on a functioning brain, and this is able to be demonstrated and unfortunately commonly is in hospitals. Damage to the brain, either physically or through blood deprivation or some other issue, can temporarily or permanently reduce or eliminate any aspect of consciousness, personality, and memories. Chemicals such as helpful or harmful drugs and other things can completely change a person's subjective and objective mental states. The proposition that, there exists something intangible, immeasurable, undetectable, and essentially magical that transcends a destroyed body despite all of this evidence that all of these aspects are brain-dependent, is the claim that requires substantial proof to remain valid.

The second issue is that knowledge never works like you describe in practice, nor should it. Just because something is not falsifiable does not mean that all parties should remain neutrally agnostic on the matter. There are three possibilities regarding the goddess Athena; she exists, she doesn't exist, or we don't know. The same is true for vampires; they exist, they don't exist, we don't know. Once evidence begins to pile onto one side, the ball is in the court of the other party to prove that their claim remains legitimate.

Granted, he probably shouldn't have made the remark about being afraid of the dark, because there are a variety of reasons for believing in an afterlife, but apart from that, his points are fair and reasonable.

 

[outhouse]

But it does, because heaven is a scientifically testable claim. If you say heaven exists, you are making a statement about the world we inhabit, and that claim can be tested. That claim has indirectly been tested, and there is no evidence to suggest that a soul or anything like it exists. It's therefore more likely for the idea of heaven to be wrong than right.

while what you say might be true

I always thought if its not falsifiable its out of science's realm

 

[outhouse]

The problem is that the idea that what we can see/know is all there is also takes imagination. The idea of "nothingness" or cessation is a hypothetical concept when held by beings that are still experiencing something.



What would you add or subtract form the equation?

as far as the math I can only say I need to know more allgebra to fix this


if it comes down to it yes #3 is what we have.

I do understand your reply in context.


My point was simply, if I said pink unicorns with purple circles exist. The same equation could be used. We know the above doesnt exist. Im trying to give heaven more credit then that.

 

[outhouse]

Whereas, as I said before, Heaven is not thought to be within the universe at all.

what basis do you make this assumption?

 

[darkendless]

We have 3 options here, not just 2:

1. There is an afterlife
2. There is no afterlife
3. We don't know if there is or isn't.

Given our current inability to know one way or the other 3 is the only reasonable position.

Anyone making claims for 1 or 2 would need to justify those claims.

How can we justify something that isn't there? Can we leave open the possibility of Dragons because we havn't found one yet or because we have speculation? The only reason we don't have to treat dragons with the same respect as we do religious beliefs is because of weight of numbers in regard to believers.

It seems to me that heaven and a lot of religious concepts in general are allowed to exist simply because so many people believe in them. It begs the question, why is one baseless theory given more respect than a tonne of other baseless theories when the evidence is approximately the same?