Dr. Hawking, what was the point?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

British scientist Stephen Hawking has branded heaven a "fairy story" for people afraid of the dark, in his latest dismissal of the concepts underpinning the world's religions.

The author of 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time" said in an interview with The Guardian published on Monday that his views were partly influenced by his battle with motor neurone disease.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4f8ccccd2e38de074f4c1305131c47e4.491&show_article=1

As an outsider to religion I've often been of the opinion its purpose was to explain, mitigate and ultimately hold-out the hope for the remediation of, evil.

It also strikes me as a matter of what the individual desires. A sinning doubter who craves righteousness seems far more fitting for Heaven than a swaggering would-be prophet. How much more pitiful someone who has been overtaken by evil through no fault of his own shaking his fist and demanding Justice, Mercy and Comfort not be true.

You'd think a genius would be smarter than that.

[Splashdown]

I saw that article and almost brought it over.

It just makes me sad.

[rubliw]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4f8ccccd2e38de074f4c1305131c47e4.491&show_article=1

As an outsider to religion I've often been of the opinion its purpose was to explain, mitigate and ultimately hold-out the hope for the remediation of, evil.

It also strikes me as a matter of what the individual desires. A sinning doubter who craves righteousness seems far more fitting for Heaven than a swaggering would-be prophet. How much more pitiful someone who has been overtaken by evil through no fault of his own shaking his fist and demanding Justice, Mercy and Comfort not be true.

You'd think a genius would be smarter than that.

That's awfully presumptuous.   You accuse him of demanding that justice, mercy and comfort, not be true?  How on earth do you know that?  

He, more than most, is probably able to feel and comprehend the weight of the problem of evil... IMHO, the most potent challenge to theism that exists.  So maybe his position is a rational conclusion based on his experience.

And just how is that you are non-believer?  Are you shaking your fist, demanding that justice, mercy and comfort, not be true?  Do you have some rational reason to disbelieve, that Hawkins cannot have? Do tell.

[CatholicCrusader]

British scientist Stephen Hawking has branded heaven a "fairy story" for people afraid of the dark.......

That's a pretty moronic statement, considering the fact that he is a scientist and therefore he knows damn good and well that he cannot scientifically or factually back up his allegation.

[JohnnyReb]

That's a pretty moronic statement, considering the fact that he is a scientist and therefore he knows damn good and well that he cannot scientifically or factually back up his allegation.

I see both sides of this argument as being based on faith.

[CatholicCrusader]

I see both sides of this argument as being based on faith.

I agree. Belief in God or belief in no god cannot be backed up with fact.

Thaty's why it is so hypocritical of many atheists to demand proof for theists' beliefs yet claim there is no burden on the atheist to provide proof for THEIR belief

Besides: To say you're an atheist is one thing. But to use terms like "fairy tale" can only have the purpose of trying to incite anger, which proves how pathetic this four-eyed geek actually is

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That's awfully presumptuous.   You accuse him of demanding that justice, mercy and comfort, not be true?  How on earth do you know that?

Because if he achingly wanted Justice, Mercy and Comfort to be true he would still have his--oh, what's that word--faith. 

Far nobler souls than his have suffered as much if not more and yet they managed to endure.

Does he merit an exemption for some as-yet undisclosed reason or is he just weak?

[CatholicCrusader]

....Far nobler souls than his have suffered as much if not more and yet they managed to endure.....

Yep. In fact, a common thread in the biographies of Saints is that they usually suffered some painful malady, but they knew their suffering would have meaning if they offered it up to God for Him to use to help people.

[TVDOC]

That's a pretty moronic statement, considering the fact that he is a scientist and therefore he knows damn good and well that he cannot scientifically or factually back up his allegation.

Hawkings is a hack....not a scientist.  I've read his papers, books, and heard him lecture, and Einstein he isn't.  He attempts to use his academic credentials to warp reality into his own image of what reality should be......that isn't science.

His views on religious matters are simply not relevant.

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hawkings is a hack....not a scientist.  I've read his papers, books, and heard him lecture, and Einstein he isn't.  He attempts to use his academic credentials to warp reality into his own image of what reality should be......that isn't science.

His views on religious matters are simply not relevant.

doc

I've only ever read his writings that have made their way into the popular press and demur to your professional opinion on the balance of his works.

That being said I wonder if perhaps emotional bandwagon-jumpers--as so eminently illustrated by wilbur in this thread--aren't the reason his career has been carried as far as it has.

[TVDOC]

I've only ever read his writings that have made their way into the popular press and demur to your professional opinion on the balance of his works.

That being said I wonder if perhaps emotional bandwagon-jumpers--as so eminently illustrated by wilbur in this thread--aren't the reason his career has been carried as far as it has.

Having met a few of his acolytes, IMO you just nailed it.......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Having met a few of his acolytes, IMO you just nailed it.......

doc

Pity

A career advancing in spite of crippling disability is far more heroic than a career advancing because of crippling disability.

I will confess I want to believe the heroic epic (I'm a romantic that way).

Perhaps one day you will treat me/us to a more detailed explanation of your dissatisfaction.

[rubliw]

Hawkings is a hack....not a scientist.  I've read his papers, books, and heard him lecture, and Einstein he isn't.  He attempts to use his academic credentials to warp reality into his own image of what reality should be......that isn't science.

That may be true, I don't know... I've heard other more qualified scientists say similar things.. and I've heard others disagree.. but its also worth noting that Einstein has said similar things about religious beliefs.

[rubliw]

Because if he achingly wanted Justice, Mercy and Comfort to be true he would still have his--oh, what's that word--faith.

Hey, I think having beautiful 72 virgins to cater to your every whim for eternity sounds like a pretty desirable state of affairs - it doesnt mean I believe it.

Stephen Hawking may actually desire those things, but it doesn't mean he can believe in it.

Far nobler souls than his have suffered as much if not more and yet they managed to endure.

Does he merit an exemption for some as-yet undisclosed reason or is he just weak?

Why do you consider it "weaker" to disbelieve in a deity or an afterlife, after suffering a life of hardships?   In some respects, I think the case can be made that its far more stalwart to believe that you won't be duly compensated at the end of a life filled with hardships.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hey, I think having beautiful 72 virgins to cater to your every whim for eternity sounds like a pretty desirable state of affairs - it doesnt mean I believe it.

Stephen Hawking may actually desire those things, but it doesn't mean he can believe in it.

The only person who can keep you from believing something is you.

Have you trapsed over to the DU forum recently to witness all the absurdities, contradictions and mewling?

It is Exhibit A for why, even if Heaven is a fiction, Hell is a certainty.

I, for one, enjoy the spectacle. Relish even.

Why do you consider it "weaker" to disbelieve in a deity or an afterlife, after suffering a life of hardships?   In some respects, I think the case can be made that its far more stalwart to believe that you won't be duly compensated at the end of a life filled with hardships.

I'm in the military.

We know wash-outs when we see them. I've seen plenty of individuals with capable minds and fit bodies simply elect to not follow through on what was being imparted to them. They give-up. Their spirits gave way long before their flesh deserted them.

They're rather contemptible, really, considering how many have succeeded before them and how many more will succeed after them.

Mr. Hawkings, in contrast, lives in the theoretical and he does so even though his flesh denies him the fortunes most of us take for granted. The one thing he has--the one thing that presumably allows him to tower over the rest of us--is his mind, his intellect.

But he has resigned his greatest attribute to Despondency.

Fine, it is his for the taking.

I've read of unlettered saints being set ot the stake and as their flesh sizzled and fuel was being added to the flames they beat their breasts and cried out for Mercy to be shown to their tormentors.

Fascinating stuff, that.

[Hella Jeff]

I agree. Belief in God or belief in no god cannot be backed up with fact.

Thaty's why it is so hypocritical of many atheists to demand proof for theists' beliefs yet claim there is no burden on the atheist to provide proof for THEIR belief

Lack of belief is not a belief. I dont have to prove that there are no telepathic space weasels burrowing holes on venus and I dont have to prove that there is no God, the lack of proof is proof enough.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Lack of belief is not a belief. I dont have to prove that there are no telepathic space weasels burrowing holes on venus and I dont have to prove that there is no God, the lack of proof is proof enough.

Though the interlocutor is no longer with us this gross error in logic should not be left uncorrected.

The argument above relies on a half-truth: the truth is - you cannot prove a negative, i.e. there is/are no god(s) and its counter-part of being able to disprove atheism. Both are equally absurd statements.

First of all, lack of belief is properly termed agnosticism, "without gnosis/knowledge." Atheism, by definition, is "without theism."

To claim to be an atheist is either to be a mislabeled agnostic or a declarative on the side of affirming no god. Personally I've found most agnostics are mislabeled atheists because they pretend an absence of a settled mind but really they are either atheists in hiding or they have some grudge against god they are trying to hide from...somebody...themselves or even god maybe.

But HJ says, "the lack of proof is proof enough."

Where to start...

First, it assumes there is no proof being offered. No person who ever sat on a jury ever saw the crime alleged but it would be a poor juror who insisted that unless he personally saw the crime it never happened.

Second, the statement is self-contradicting. He has to prove that no proof has ever been offered. The lack of proof that no proof has been offered means the thing he claims to refute would exist.

Third, the statement says that HJ himself is a reliable witness that has actually observed the evidence--or lack thereof--and that he is testifying truthfully and accurately to what he has seen or not seen. This is contingent upon HJ not having a conflict of interest, bias or hostility and that his faculties of apprehension and comprehension are sufficient. Judging by his post I would say he is not a reliable or impartial witness.

This is not to say atheism is non-existent therefore god must exist; I am only saying HJ is an inaccurate and unreliable advocate for atheism.