Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[Badran]

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

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.

See, the difference is i'm not saying it doesn't point, but i'm saying it doesn't necessarily point towards that. You're saying it does.

First two questions that comes to my mind is:

1) Why does it always point against?

2) Why couldn't it point to something else? Like point towards the one searching for evidence? (And in that case, i'm not referring to particular humans, but humans in general and their knowledge).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Ah... so it's in the Land of Special Pleading. Hmm.

The problem I have with this is that it's not good enough for Heaven to lie in some realm beyond our ken; the claim of Heaven has built into it an implicit claim of knowledge, or at least rational support: we can't even talk about things that we have a complete lack knowledge of, so whatever a person refers to as "Heaven", it is necessarily something that lies at least partially within the bounds of human knowledge, and therefore also within the bounds of human inquiry.

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.

Heh... I don't think you intended it this way, but to me, this reads a lot like "theologians and metaphysical philosophers are used to just making stuff up."

But seriously: what special source of knowledge - valid knowledge - does a theologian have access to that a physicist doesn't?

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.

Why?

It seems to me that you are acknowledging that the claim of Heaven is baseless. By my scorecard, if a claim is baseless, then the claim fails.

While it may be correct that we can't disprove things that are beyond human knowledge, we also have no reason at all to assert them. The people asserting them can't take refuge in the reason "we assert it because we have good reason to think it's true", so in light of that, I think Hawking's suggestion that they assert it because of something like fear or wishful thinking is probably reasonable.

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.

Well, as they say (I think it may have been Dawkins who first came up with it), that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I mean, if we simply dismissed statements that can't be proved or disproved, then the statement "Heaven is real" would have dismissed right off the bat and we wouldn't even have got to the point where Hawking would be talking about the idea.

 

[Magic Man]

See, the difference is i'm not saying it doesn't point, but i'm saying it doesn't necessarily point towards that. You're saying it does.

First two questions that comes to my mind is:

1) Why does it always point against?

To accept a claim, people generally need evidence (or at least they should). If there is a lack of evidence, it points to the conclusion that the claim isn't true, at least if the evidence is requested and searched for.

You: I'm Brad Pitt.
Me: Really? Can you show me some evidence?
You: Well, here's my picture.
Me: You could get that anywhere.
You: Here's some secret info about me.
Me: That's common knowledge.
...
Me: So, you can't provide any evidence for your claim, huh? Then I'm going to assume you're not Brad Pitt.

2) Why couldn't it point to something else? Like point towards the one searching for evidence? (And in that case, i'm not referring to particular humans, but humans in general and their knowledge).

I don't understand this part. Could you elaborate?

 

[lunamoth]

Cosmic Log - Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

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

Meh. He's entitled to his own opinion.

 

[Badran]

To accept a claim, people generally need evidence (or at least they should). If there is a lack of evidence, it points to the conclusion that the claim isn't true, at least if the evidence is requested and searched for.

You: I'm Brad Pitt.
Me: Really? Can you show me some evidence?
You: Well, here's my picture.
Me: You could get that anywhere.
You: Here's some secret info about me.
Me: That's common knowledge.
...
Me: So, you can't provide any evidence for your claim, huh? Then I'm going to assume you're not Brad Pitt.

Okay here are a couple of thoughts using the example. Here, we know that if he was Brad Pitt, he would've been able to give us some good evidence to prove that. Or at least much better than he offered. In heaven's case for example, how do we know that it is possible to prove it?

Then, there is still the possibility that he might be Brad Pitt (though unlikely here i admit, but possible). Which means that if someone accepted this claim, he would not be wrong, just less justified in his choice than your choice, not accepting it.

For example, in trials, if there is no sufficient or any evidence, a case is dismissed. Why? Because we can actually prove or disprove such thing. But even here, not in every case dismissed the suspect is actually innocent. Sometimes it just happens that the circumstances didn't allow us to find enough or any evidence.

It is usually reasonable to accept claims only when there is a good reason to do so. Usually a good reason is evidence that indicates it, or even better proof, beyond a doubt. The only difference is you're saying thats always the case. And i can't see how can we say that when we do not know the limits of what we can actually put to the test and whats not.

I don't understand this part. Could you elaborate?

Part of what i meant is explained in the first part. To add though, what i mean to say is, assuming that the lack of evidence for something always indicates it being less likely, or as something that we shouldn't accept, is assuming that everything is provable by us, or that we can provide evidence for everything, which we don't know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See, the difference is i'm not saying it doesn't point, but i'm saying it doesn't necessarily point towards that. You're saying it does.

First two questions that comes to my mind is:

1) Why does it always point against?

2) Why couldn't it point to something else? Like point towards the one searching for evidence? (And in that case, i'm not referring to particular humans, but humans in general and their knowledge).

In this case, I think a lack of evidence does point away from the claim, because the claim makes predictions.

Specifically, the claim that Heaven exists implies that some aspect of a person survives (or can survive) his death.

Just as the claim "I have a cat" would be undermined if you searched my house and found not only no cat, but no litterbox, no cat food, no photos of a cat, and no cat hair, the claim "Heaven exists" is undermined by the fact that we can't find it when we go looking for it, and the implications of Heaven don't seem to exist.

 

[lew0049]

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.

Then the same standard should be used to evaluate Hawkins because his claims are by no means scientific.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then the same standard should be used to evaluate Hawkins because his claims are by no means scientific.

So... since the claim "Heaven exists" and the claim "Heaven is just a fairy story" are on equal footing, which approach would you prefer:

- accept both without evidence (and therefore accept that Heaven is just a fairy story)
- reject both without evidence (and therefore reject Heaven)

 

[Badran]

In this case, I think a lack of evidence does point away from the claim, because the claim makes predictions.

Specifically, the claim that Heaven exists implies that some aspect of a person survives (or can survive) his death.

Just as the claim "I have a cat" would be undermined if you searched my house and found not only no cat, but no litterbox, no cat food, no photos of a cat, and no cat hair, the claim "Heaven exists" is undermined by the fact that we can't find it when we go looking for it, and the implications of Heaven don't seem to exist.

But does the claim include any description that would lead us to think we can trace that possible surviving aspect of a person?

It seems less likely to me actually that this would be the case.

I see the problem with Hawking's statement to be over simplifying in order to just force the matter to be judged under certain terms. Whats with the poor comparison between the brain and computers for example?

How can he compare what is as far as i know the most complicated and least understood organ with something that we ourselves made and completely understand?

 

[outhouse]

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.

It was ment to be a tad comical, and if you read back through the whole post you will see I agree with you

 

[outhouse]

Meh. He's entitled to his own opinion.

Thank you and one of my point's ,, Didnt think it needed to be stated or ground rules set up

[i tried to frubal you but your all full up from me]

 

[outhouse]

Whats with the poor comparison between the brain and computers for example?

How can he compare what is as far as i know the most complicated and least understood organ with something that we ourselves made and completely understand?

I dont know how poor that is, the closest thing we have to a brain is a computer.

I think his comparison has more to do with once you shut the power off, the thinking is over, in aspect's or which universe or dream or soul.

 

[outhouse]

whats failed to be said here is, we could put heaven on trial for being manufactured by man.

there is no doubt in my mind I could personaly win that case as prosecutor with evidence at hand, with a impartial jury of course.


Just looking at the source for heaven says volumes. Now we are talking a literal heaven here so lets ask. Has the source been literally accurate in the past.????

has the source used allegory and fiction?????

has the source made statements that are simular to a fairy tale in the past??

When was the source written and by who?? and has it been updated as needed???

Has anyone ever had 1 bit of evidence for, or against said place beyond imagination???

This doesnt take evidence, in my opinion. It takes a logical open mind with common sense.

You pick your own verdict, ive picked mine.

 

[Silver]

If scientists can just master time travel or access of the past, then one day.....
Future scientists may be able to transfer your consciousness at the moment of your death to a manmade afterlife realm.

There you go.....heaven created by scientists.

 

[outhouse]

If scientists can just master time travel or access of the past, then one day.....
Future scientists may be able to transfer your consciousness at the moment of your death to a manmade afterlife realm.

There you go.....heaven created by scientists.

The a big "IF" my friend

 

[Badran]

I dont know how poor that is, the closest thing we have to a brain is a computer.

I just don't see enough similarities to make it a serious comparison. Just because thats the best thing we have doesn't mean we should go with it. There are too many aspects missing.

Comparing computers to what is basically responsible for their existence seems silly to me. That aside from the fact that we know very little of the brain.

I think his comparison has more to do with once you shut the power off, the thinking is over, in aspect's or which universe or dream or soul.

Yeah thats what i understood too, i just don't see whats the point of it. I guess its possible he put it this way like have been mentioned to make it simple, but we still have no choice but to judge his words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But does the claim include any description that would lead us to think we can trace that possible surviving aspect of a person?

It seems less likely to me actually that this would be the case.

Really? Take any other claim about human capability... ESP, for instance.

Say I tell you that people are capable of receiving transmissions from invisible aliens telepathically. How would you go about telling whether this is true?

The aliens themselves are conveniently invisible, so we can't test them directly. However, we could look at the brain to see whether some organ exists that might be a telepathic "antenna". We could build some sort of detector to try and pick up the transmissions. We could "shield" a person's head to see if they show any difference in behaviour that might be attributable to being deprived of this transmission. There are lots of ways by which we could test different aspects of the claim.

In the same way, the claim of the existence of Heaven implies that there exists some mechanism to transport the "personhood" of a person to an invisible realm and to preserve it there after their body dies and decays. If this is actually the case, then it's a potentially testable claim... i.e. completely within the scope of science.

I just don't see enough similarities to make it a serious comparison. Just because thats the best thing we have doesn't mean we should go with it. There are too many aspects missing.

Comparing computers to what is basically responsible for their existence seems silly to me. That aside from the fact that we know very little of the brain.

Okay... then compare it to any other material thing that continues to exist in an immaterial yet real form after it is destroyed.

Tell you what: give me you list of the top three things that meet this description and we'll see which one fits best.

 

[Badran]

Really? Take any other claim about human capability... ESP, for instance.

Say I tell you that people are capable of receiving transmissions from invisible aliens telepathically. How would you go about telling whether this is true?

The aliens themselves are conveniently invisible, so we can't test them directly. However, we could look at the brain to see whether some organ exists that might be a telepathic "antenna". We could build some sort of detector to try and pick up the transmissions. We could "shield" a person's head to see if they show any difference in behaviour that might be attributable to being deprived of this transmission. There are lots of ways by which we could test different aspects of the claim.

In the same way, the claim of the existence of Heaven implies that there exists some mechanism to transport the "personhood" of a person to an invisible realm and to preserve it there after their body dies and decays. If this is actually the case, then it's a potentially testable claim... i.e. completely within the scope of science.

I didn't say it was impossible, what i meant is that its not necessarily testable or within the scope of science. It could be, and it could be not. I'm more inclined that its not.

So what i'm saying in other words is, if we can't actually apply testing methods and get results, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist, or point against the claim of its existence. We could be able to do it, but not today. We could never be able to do it. And we could be able to do it today but just failing for whatever reason.

I personally though like i said am more inclined that we can't.

Okay... then compare it to any other material thing that continues to exist in an immaterial yet real form after it is destroyed.

Tell you what: give me you list of the top three things that meet this description and we'll see which one fits best.

If i'm following correctly, you're saying that he gave the supposed best example.

If so, do you think just because its the best it should count as a good example?

Like i said though i understand its possible it was meant to simplify for an easy understanding, but what he followed it by makes me more inclined to think he's just over simplifying the matter in general, and not for a good reason.

 

[atanu]

"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"

That assumes that the computer/s have life at present.
That is the fairy story.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay here are a couple of thoughts using the example. Here, we know that if he was Brad Pitt, he would've been able to give us some good evidence to prove that. Or at least much better than he offered. In heaven's case for example, how do we know that it is possible to prove it?

If you can't give any evidence for it, then it's just as well to assume it doesn't exist.

Then, there is still the possibility that he might be Brad Pitt (though unlikely here i admit, but possible). Which means that if someone accepted this claim, he would not be wrong, just less justified in his choice than your choice, not accepting it.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say the person claiming to be Brad Pitt was on a dating site trying to pick up women. Now you not only have a complete lack of evidence that he is Brad Pitt and you have a good reason why he might pretend to be Pitt.

Part of what i meant is explained in the first part. To add though, what i mean to say is, assuming that the lack of evidence for something always indicates it being less likely, or as something that we shouldn't accept, is assuming that everything is provable by us, or that we can provide evidence for everything, which we don't know.

To know that something is true, we have to be able to provide evidence for it. Every claim you make about the universe can either be supported by evidence or it can't. If the claim you make isn't supported by any evidence, even when people have searched and searched for it, that would indicate that your claim is probably false.