Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[Quagmire]

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.

All any of the above proves is that the brain needs to be operational in order for the brain to be conscious. This whole argument is circular in that it presupposes a lack of an afterlife (or otherlife) in order to demonstrate that there is no afterlife:

The unspoken variable in this equation is "if we assume that this, physical, existence is all there is,..." and proceeds from there.

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.

Of course it does. If the only demonstrable position is "we don't know", then "we don't know" is the only reasonable position. Not saying we should quit looking for other answers, just that until we come up with proof one way or the other, it's ridiculous to consider any other position as proven, or even more probable.

There are three possibilities regarding the goddess Athena; she exists, she doesn't exist, or we don't know.

No, there are several other possibilities:

Metaphorically:
She's meant to represent a principle, in which case she exists symbolically.

Mythical:
Her mythical persona can be traced back to some actual, human female warrior or chieftain whose story is lost in pre-history (or just lost for whatever reason) who's memory survived in legend and eventually evolved into a cultural deity.

Actual:
If there is a God, and one of the attributes we assign to God is omnipotence, then the idea that IT could manifest ITself as a feminine warrior in order to interact with a particular culture is just a given.

The same is true for vampires; they exist, they don't exist, we don't know.

Vampires are supposed to be physical beings operating in the realm of the observable. If there had been humanoid beings among us with super-human powers sucking people's blood for the last several thousand years, they would have left a few clues.

Once evidence begins to pile onto one side,

Pile is a good choice of words in this case.

the ball is in the court of the other party to prove that their claim remains legitimate.

I think you're still confused about who the "other party" is, you're acting as if the only qualified participants for these kinds of debates are people who are making definite claims one way or the other. A nuetral stance, one that asks for justification from both parties making definite claims is at least as valid as the other 2.

Look, Lyn, all we ever wind up arguing about in these types of debates is what the rules for the arguments should be. I'm not going to debate according to the rules you keep assigning to these arguments because to me, they don't make sense: "someone who says 'no' doesn't have to prove 'no' but anyone who asks 'why no" has to prove "yes"?

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.

I don't think it should be put aside. I think it gives us a pretty clear indication of bias, and considering that he presents this statement as a summation of his argument, IMO it makes every other aspect of his argument suspect.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into another long point-by-point debate.

))

All any of the above proves is that the brain needs to be operational in order for the brain to be conscious. This whole argument is circular in that it presupposes a lack of an afterlife (or otherlife) in order to demonstrate that there is no afterlife:

The unspoken variable in this equation is "if we assume that this, physical, existence is all there is,..." and proceeds from there.

That's not how this knowledge came about at all.

Centuries ago, before anyone had microscopes, an understanding of electricity and much less how it works in the brain along with chemicals, a knowledge of cell theory and other deep biological concepts, extensive studies on the brain, knowledge of computational systems and vast emergent properties, and life support systems that fortunately or unfortunately allow us to study a variety of damaging affects on the brain, the question seems to have been far more neutral. I would still put forth that "nothing rather than something" should have been the logical default position on an afterlife in any time period, but I'd grant that the knowledge-base was far more balanced to the point of near-neutrality. Since nobody knew how the squishy pink stuff in the head worked at all biologically speaking, it seemed pretty reasonable to put forth the idea that humans were animated systems with a sort of mind/body duality, and that the mind/spirit/soul/atman could survive intact after the death of the body.

But over time, as tools and knowledge grew, the brain and therefore the mind began being more extensively studied. It began being tinkered with, looked at piece by piece (both literally and figuratively), and studied extensively. It's understood that personality is in our brain, and can be altered by changes to the brain. It's understood that memories are in our brain, and can be wiped away by changes to the brain. It's understood that chemicals can give us happiness or lead us to feel sad, or even change our level of altruism. And it's understood that chemicals or damage to the brain can change the nature of consciousness in various ways, such as removing it entirely, or diminishing it along an analog spectrum of possibilities. Consciousness can even be measured electrically.

So it's not just a matter of the brain needing to be there for consciousness to function; it's about how every part of what we think we are can be altered or done away with, even when we're still alive. And yet there's the proposition that when all of this is taken away by death, some whole part of us goes somewhere beyond space and time, or is taken to another realm? Why would that be treated as a neutral proposition in terms of burden of proof?

Of course it does. If the only demonstrable position is "we don't know", then "we don't know" is the only reasonable position. Not saying we should quit looking for other answers, just that until we come up with proof one way or the other, it's ridiculous to consider any other position as proven, or even more probable.

Proven I'll grant, but not the probable part.

No, there are several other possibilities:

Metaphorically:
She's meant to represent a principle, in which case she exists symbolically.

Mythical:
Her mythical persona can be traced back to some actual, human female warrior or chieftain whose story is lost in pre-history (or just lost for whatever reason) who's memory survived in legend and eventually evolved into a cultural deity.

Actual:
If there is a God, and one of the attributes we assign to God is omnipotence, then the idea that IT could manifest ITself as a feminine warrior in order to interact with a particular culture is just a given.

Granted, but I think you knew the context of the point. Some people believed (and still do believe) that Athena is an actual goddess. There are three positions on this specific claim (according to your previous logic): she exists, she doesn't exist (and therefore exists as a myth or an exaggeration), or we don't know.

But that doesn't mean everyone needs to say that they don't know (even if it's technically a negative that cannot be proven).

Vampires are supposed to be physical beings operating in the realm of the observable. If there had been humanoid beings among us with super-human powers sucking people's blood for the last several thousand years, they would have left a few clues.

Granted. I tried to think of some quick examples off the top of my head. Unicorns, fairies, and santa claus are too commonly used. Let's use the Athena one, then.

Pile is a good choice of words in this case.

I think you're still confused about who the "other party" is, you're acting as if the only qualified participants for these kinds of debates are people who are making definite claims one way or the other. A nuetral stance, one that asks for justification from both parties making definite claims is at least as valid as the other 2.

Look, Lyn, all we ever wind up arguing about in these types of debates is what the rules for the arguments should be. I'm not going to debate according to the rules you keep assigning to these arguments because to me, they don't make sense: "someone who says 'no' doesn't have to prove 'no' but anyone who asks 'why no" has to prove "yes"?

I don't think it should be put aside. I think it gives us a pretty clear indication of bias, and considering that he presents this statement as a summation of his argument, IMO it makes every other aspect of his argument suspect.

I try to assign "rules" that match how common discourse works rather than granting a special case.

In most contexts, an extraordinary supernatural claim should have the burden of proof. It's safe to disregard concepts like Athena and Santa Claus unless the believers of those entities can put forth evidence. Why would an afterlife get special treatment in this case? Why shouldn't Hawking dismiss it rather authoritatively if asked when it would be socially (and reasonably) acceptable for us to dismiss these other claims rather authoritatively? As darkendless already pointed out, it's mainly due to the number of people that believe it rather than because the belief is substantially different than these sorts of examples.

 

[gnomon]

Stephens just imagining.

I hear it's easy.

 

[Quagmire]

Stephens just imagining.

I hear it's easy.

Especially for someone whose been deprived of the usual opportunities for direct, sensory experience, who's had to live almost all of his life in his own mind (even more so than the rest of us I mean).

 

[xkatz]

Stephens just imagining.

I hear it's easy.

I hear he uses this device to enhance his imagination:

 

[Quagmire]

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into another long point-by-point debate.

))


That's not how this knowledge came about at all.

Centuries ago, before anyone had microscopes, an understanding of electricity and much less how it works in the brain along with chemicals, a knowledge of cell theory and other deep biological concepts, extensive studies on the brain, knowledge of computational systems and vast emergent properties, and life support systems that fortunately or unfortunately allow us to study a variety of damaging affects on the brain, the question seems to have been far more neutral. I would still put forth that "nothing rather than something" should have been the logical default position on an afterlife in any time period, but I'd grant that the knowledge-base was far more balanced to the point of near-neutrality. Since nobody knew how the squishy pink stuff in the head worked at all biologically speaking, it seemed pretty reasonable to put forth the idea that humans were animated systems with a sort of mind/body duality, and that the mind/spirit/soul/atman could survive intact after the death of the body.

But over time, as tools and knowledge grew, the brain and therefore the mind began being more extensively studied. It began being tinkered with, looked at piece by piece (both literally and figuratively), and studied extensively. It's understood that personality is in our brain, and can be altered by changes to the brain. It's understood that memories are in our brain, and can be wiped away by changes to the brain. It's understood that chemicals can give us happiness or lead us to feel sad, or even change our level of altruism. And it's understood that chemicals or damage to the brain can change the nature of consciousness in various ways, such as removing it entirely, or diminishing it along an analog spectrum of possibilities. Consciousness can even be measured electrically.

So it's not just a matter of the brain needing to be there for consciousness to function; it's about how every part of what we think we are can be altered or done away with, even when we're still alive.

Or perhaps only while we're still alive.

It doesn't matter how detailed you want to be about the proposition, it's still the same proposition.

A TV needs to be there in order for us to watch something on a television. If you damage any of the audio components, the sound changes. If you damage any of the video components, the picture changes. Volume, brightness, clarity, are all dependent on different components and can be altered by changing the settings. If something goes wrong with the connection, the picture goes fuzzy or you lose some of your stations. If you unplug the TV, it does nothing at all.

None of this means that the TV is creating any of the sounds or images that you're seeing on the screen.

And yet there's the proposition that when all of this is taken away by death, some whole part of us goes somewhere beyond space and time, or is taken to another realm? Why would that be treated as a neutral proposition in terms of burden of proof?

I know I'm wasting my breath at tis point but that isn't the proposition I was suggesting we classify as neutral.

Proven I'll grant, but not the probable part.

That's debatable. It depends on what you decide to consider as evidence and how you chose to interrupt that evidence.

Granted, but I think you knew the context of the point.

I addressed that context along with a cpl other possibilities.

Some people believed (and still do believe) that Athena is an actual goddess.

what is an "actual goddess"?

There are three positions on this specific claim (according to your previous logic): she exists, she doesn't exist (and therefore exists as a myth or an exaggeration), or we don't know.

I wouldn't catalog ''exists as a myth" under "doesn't exist".

I try to assign "rules" that match how common discourse works rather than granting a special case.

You'll have to PM me with your copy of the rules then, so I'll realize when I'm asking for my position to be treated as a "special case". Actually, I would think that taking someone's position and changing it into something else before addressing it was a little too much special attention already.

In most contexts, an extraordinary supernatural claim should have the burden of proof.

Asking "How do you know that what we perceive is all there is" doesn't seem like an extraordinary supernatural claim to me. Seems more like a question.

 

[Alceste]

...But there's one important aspect of Heaven that this doesn't address: for Heaven to be Heaven, it isn't enough for it to be a place that we would consider very pleasant where people live forever; it has to be a place where people (some of them, anyhow) go when they die. IOW, for Heaven to be real and fit into M-theory, not only would we need a reasonably Heaven-like parallel universe, but we would also need some way to transport "us" from this universe to that one.

What happens in parallel universes may be beyond science's scope, but the claim of Heaven creates a prediction for this universe, too: that there exists in this universe some means of transport to that other universe.

This is one of the mind-benders about M-Theory, IMO. People often assume that given an infinite amount of time/space, every conceivable event and permutation must inevitably occur. The problem with this assumption is that the human imagination is to the whole universe as a child with a broken bit of sidewalk chalk is to ... well, the whole universe. A monkey who would sit randomly bashing away at a typewriter for a thousand years in another part of space-time would not be a monkey. The typewriter would not be a typewriter. Almost everything that might exist in an infinite universe is utterly inconceivable to a human mind.

Anyway, I agree with your point about heaven. If a paradise existed in some corner of an infinite universe where everyone enjoys eternal life in the glorious presence of an omnipotent, benevolent consciousness, it would not be what humans call "heaven" because we are here, and not there.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Levite, what do you imagine heaven to be? I haven't heard the "outside the universe" version of heaven before. Most believers I know think of heaven as an actual location.

 

[lew0049]

In most contexts, an extraordinary supernatural claim should have the burden of proof. It's safe to disregard concepts like Athena and Santa Claus unless the believers of those entities can put forth evidence. Why would an afterlife get special treatment in this case? Why shouldn't Hawking dismiss it rather authoritatively if asked when it would be socially (and reasonably) acceptable for us to dismiss these other claims rather authoritatively? As darkendless already pointed out, it's mainly due to the number of people that believe it rather than because the belief is substantially different than these sorts of examples.

I understand what you are saying but how can you fully explain any supernatural claim because they would not be governed by the laws of nature (I don't see a difference between an extraordinary supernatural claim vs a supernatural claim)? When Hawkins dismisses a supernatural claim then he is making a claim that the supernatural does not exist. Furthermore, he is making this claim with no scientific evidence to support his theory.

 

[darkendless]

I understand what you are saying but how can you fully explain any supernatural claim because they would not be governed by the laws of nature (I don't see a difference between an extraordinary supernatural claim vs a supernatural claim)? When Hawkins dismisses a supernatural claim then he is making a claim that the supernatural does not exist. Furthermore, he is making this claim with no scientific evidence to support his theory.

A lack of evidence is evidence in this case. I don't think a religious claim should be considered when its just speculation at best.

 

[Madhuri]

Cosmic Log - Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story"

Based on the article alone, his 'argument' was very weak and simply invalid.
For example, he makes an absolute statement that can be neither proved nor disproved (at this point in time at least). So his statement is a matter of opinion only.

Another example: ""Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.

Science is not an entity that makes predictions. People make predictions based on their discovery and interpretation of science. But what is more, the idea that universes are spontaneously created is not in contradiction with the idea of heaven and in fact, it is something that is actually taught/believed in Hinduism.

This girl is unimpressed.

 

[Badran]

A lack of evidence is evidence in this case.

That means that anything not supported by evidence is false.

I don't think a religious claim should be considered when its just speculation at best.

No problem with that, as long as you don't state that such claims are false.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another example: ""Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
Science is not an entity that makes predictions. People make predictions based on their discovery and interpretation of science.

I must quibble....to say "science predicts", is shorthand for saying that people use science to make predictions.
Remember that he is a popular author, & that his writing is often geared towards us laymen.
I'm certain he's only giving his personal opinion, rather than a rigorous logical analysis.

 

[Madhuri]

I must quibble....to say "science predicts", is shorthand for saying that people use science to make predictions.
Remember that he is a popular author, & that his writing is often geared towards us laymen.
I'm certain he's only giving his personal opinion, rather than a rigorous logical analysis.

Of course, I expect that. But the OP doesn't clarify any other argument and the article provides little else to work with.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course it does. If the only demonstrable position is "we don't know", then "we don't know" is the only reasonable position. Not saying we should quit looking for other answers, just that until we come up with proof one way or the other, it's ridiculous to consider any other position as proven, or even more probable.

The demonstrable position is "we don't know with 100% certainty, but we have evidence that suggests option A strongly". I don't know with 100% certainty that my wife isn't cheating on me, but it's reasonable for me to make the statement "My wife isn't cheating on me" due to all of the evidence I have for that position. It's definitely reasonable for me to live my life by that assumption until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Revoltingest]

The demonstrable position is "we don't know with 100% certainty, but we have evidence that suggests option A strongly". I don't know with 100% certainty that my wife isn't cheating on me, but it's reasonable for me to make the statement "My wife isn't cheating on me" due to all of the evidence I have for that position. It's definitely reasonable for me to live my life by that assumption until there is evidence to the contrary.

[youtube]TyBiZpVn6qI[/youtube]
Once again, yer clueless.
Here's the evidence.
YouTube - Smurfette cheating.Jeff garcia

 

[Magic Man]

That means that anything not supported by evidence is false.

No, it just means you don't accept something without evidence. It also means that in the case of a claim where evidence has been requested and searched for but not found, that failure to find evidence is meaningful.

 

[Madhuri]

A lack of evidence is evidence in this case.

Only if you choose to make it so. And that is entirely subjective.
In the case of the existence of heaven, our inability to locate it is neither evidence for or against its existence.

Often times, 'evidence' is subjective or subject to interpretation.

 

[Badran]

No, it just means you don't accept something without evidence.

I don't think thats what he meant. I think darkendless was implying that the lack of evidence points against the claim.

Also, i personally don't think its always like that. Because we have to accept, that at least, when it comes to certain things we may not have sufficient evidence to judge. So, in some cases we should refrain from making any judgment, and in others may be its understandable depending on the situation.

There is also the aspect of personal experiences in this, how each of us perceive the same thing and how our individual experiences affect our decision in each case.

It also means that in the case of a claim where evidence has been requested and searched for but not found, that failure to find evidence is meaningful.

May be, but not always meaningful in the sense of pointing against the claim.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think thats what he meant. I think darkendless was implying that the lack of evidence points against the claim.

Also, i personally don't think its always like that. Because we have to accept, that at least, when it comes to certain things we may not have sufficient evidence to judge. So, in some cases we should refrain from making any judgment, and in others may be its understandable depending on the situation.

There is also the aspect of personal experiences in this, how each of us perceive the same thing and how our individual experiences affect our decision in each case.

Yes, in this case absence of evidence points against the claim, and we should not accept it.

May be, but not always meaningful in the sense of pointing against the claim.

No, that's how it is meaningful. When you make a claim, and I spend time researching it and looking for evidence to support it, including asking you for evidence, and all of that research and questioning turns up nothing, that points against the claim.