Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work.

But "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall doesn't make them right.

 

[Darat]

It's one of life's little ironies that most religious know very little of their own religion's theology and history. The average modern Christian has no idea that their theology owes more Aristotle than to Christ. The question is who are you setting out to disprove: Ms Jenkins of Finch, Oklahoma? Or Aquinas?

I don't believe in the theology of either, but I do know one of those has a lot more meat to it.

Oh indeed but if say a RC wants to say she does not believe in the god of her church that's a rather strange position to hold* so I am sure they will be able to define the god they do believe in..... (*Granted not so much for some of the other christian churches such as CofE. )

 

[The Big Dog]

TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work. I

Be "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall to make them right.

Cripes, I think that number rises to 99% given the fact that most people can't read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

"Solid" point otherwise.

 

[TragicMonkey]

TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work. I

Be "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall to make them right.

It's not a contest, or a game, or a battle. There's no 'winning', not against other people. The point of intellectual endeavor is to arrive at the truth, to figure out how things really are. That's the goal of all the sciences AND all the theologies AND all the philosophies. That some/most/all of them have not met with success doesn't make them all pointless wastes or their adherents idiots. That some/most/all of the self-proclaimed adherents of a given scientific theory/theology/philosophy fail to understand it doesn't make it wrong any more than understanding it would make it correct. Things are how they are, regardless of what we know or how we think we got to what knowledge we have of them. Rejecting a whole branch of thought because you don't like the way one of the leaves looks is not intellectually rigorous: you should study a thing before you reach a conclusion of its merits. It is not required that you reject every possible theory except the one you personally pursue. For one thing, it would take lifetimes of study to understand the full complexity and nuance of all prior human thought!

 

[psionl0]

And it is a god we know does not exist.

In spite of your attempts to place this in the "Russell's Teapot" category, this is a claim that you can't prove. Not with philosophy and certainly not with science.

 

[Darat]

In spite of your attempts to place this in the "Russell's Teapot" category, this is a claim that you can't prove. Not with philosophy and certainly not with science.

Of course we can, have you never checked the definition of god in the RCC et all?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm trying to even hypothetically invent a strawman of all this that's more intellectually hollow then "You're wrong to say the thing we can't define, can't show any evidence for, special plead away everything about it, and place it outside of any rational thought in it's own special epistemology doesn't exist."

 

[Darat]

I'm trying to even hypothetically invent a strawman of all this that's more intellectually hollow then "You're wrong to say the thing we can't define, can't show any evidence for, special plead away everything about it, and place it outside of any rational thought in it's own special epistemology doesn't exist."

It's actually worse than that JoeMorgue, the actual believers do define their god - the RCC is not shy about telling us about their god. It's those that seem to be rather unaware of what the religious claim to believe in discussions like this that are vague about their definitions or tell us that the religious don't believe in what they claim to believe!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fair cop. Amend to "Things we totally define for ourselves but pretend we can't define when discussing them with other people."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why is it so difficult to accept that figuring out the truth of things isn't a contest? You wouldn't accept a bishop declaring they held a perfect understanding of the full truth of reality. Why then would you expect anyone to accept the same claim from a scientist? Science is a method of inquiry, it's not a set of particular conclusions that have been reached and are therefore set in stone as absolute truth. It's as ridiculous to expect absolute finality of science as it is to expect experimentation from religion. If tomorrow someone invents a device that can detect the gnostic divine spark we'd have to adjust current scientific theories. Things are how they are, whether we're remotely right in what we think of them or what system we use to reach those conclusions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth. I agree with that myself. But if some ancient Greek philosopher theorized the atom based on nothing but his own notions he was just as correct as the scientists millennia later who finally managed to see the damn things. He didn't use the best methodology but he was still right. And the atom would continue existing whether nobody knew of it or not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why is it so difficult to accept that figuring out the truth of things isn't a contest?

What does that even mean?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.

I suggested such an experiment and it was rejected by everybody. I don't recall an inkling of support or admiration for it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth.

Okay let me lay out my mindset here (100% honest, no snark, no trap, no gotchas.)

Step back from the terminology. If whatever the methodology you use whatever you want to call it to get the answer to a question doesn't at least include the base concepts of falseifiability, repeatable results, removal of unnecessary variables, stuff like that... what are you even doing that isn't "Creative Writing?"

It's not that "Scientific method is the best means to figure out the truth" per se, it's more that without things like what I mentioned what you have at the end isn't an answer by my definition.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I suggested such an experiment and it was rejected by everybody. I don't recall an inkling of support or admiration for it.

It was most certainly very wrong.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.

This should be obviously true, especially on this board. Real shame this needs to be pointed out.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What does that even mean?

It means that from what I've gotten from your posts you appear less interested in discovering the truth of how the universe is than in winning an argument against 'the other side'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It means that from what I've gotten from your posts you appear less interested in discovering the truth of how the universe is than in winning an argument against 'the other side'.

Because I don't feel "the other side" is offering anything beyond word games and semantics.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay let me lay out my mindset here (100% honest, no snark, no trap, no gotchas.)

Step back from the terminology. If whatever the methodology you use whatever you want to call it to get the answer to a question doesn't at least include the base concepts of falseifiability, repeatable results, removal of unnecessary variables, stuff like that... what are you even doing that isn't "Creative Writing?"

It's not that "Scientific method is the best means to figure out the truth" per se, it's more that without things like what I mentioned what you have at the end isn't an answer by my definition.

You are complaining that things that are not science are not operating by the rules of science. Of course they aren't! They're not supposed to. If Buddhism were to act scientifically it wouldn't be Buddhism, it would be science. You may or may not like Madonna but you can hardly fault her for not being Katy Perry.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are complaining that things that are not science are not operating by the rules of science. Of course they aren't! They're not supposed to

But none of these things have an identity beyond "Lookit at us, we're not science."

Sure I've heard a lot about "things science can't answer" but nothing even resembling an explanation of how these all these other things are supposed to answer it.