Hawking says there are no gods

[TragicMonkey]

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

You perceive the search for truth as a contest of opposing sides...because of how you think the opposing side acts? That's circular. What makes you think the search for truth is a contest of opposing sides?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You perceive the search for truth as a contest of opposing sides...because of how you think the opposing side acts? That's circular. What makes you think the search for truth is a contest of opposing sides?

I don't. The "The Other Side" was your conceptualization, not mine.

If you want to see me saying "This particular way of thinking isn't adding anything to the discussion" as "opposing sides" so be it. If I don't want to hear about how 2+2=Potato that doesn't mean I see the "2+2=4" side has to beat the "2+2=Potato" side, it just means not everything said is meaningful or valuable or useful.

Noise making with no context, no standards, no falsefiability, and no end goal beyond an endless stream of "Science doesn't know everything neiner neiner neiner" while never actually answering anything itself doesn't interest me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.

I want my answer to actually be answers and not just faux-clever rewordings of the question that go nowhere ad infinitum.

Magical thinking has consequences. Ignoring the idea that decisions can be made while untethered from reality is double plus not good. Demonize me for opposing it all you wish.

 

[qayak]

Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.

Well science and ****house luck. Can you name another system?

 

[Dr.Sid]

No room for gods ? Pretty strong claim. Considering we are most likely living in simulation ..

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well science and ****house luck. Can you name another system?

Aristotle has some notions on what is the ethical way to behave. Can you tell us what the scientific conclusions are on ethics? I'd like to hear a scientific definition of right and wrong. And remember: no philosophy! That's unscientific.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Aristotle has some notions on what is the ethical way to behave. Can you tell us what the scientific conclusions are on ethics? I'd like to hear a scientific definition of right and wrong. And remember: no philosophy! That's unscientific.

Well apparently we can just say "Philosophy!" and never actually explain the hows or whys of philosophy answering the questions or show any answers they've ever actually given us.

Seems like we don't need a grandiose term and entire ego-driven epistemology that places itself above everything else for the simple concept of "Throwing ideas out there."

 

[Darat]

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.

But no one is claiming "science" has a perfect understanding of anything, that doesn't mean we don't know anything.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well apparently we can just say "Philosophy!" and never actually explain the hows or whys of philosophy answering the questions or show any answers they've ever actually given us.

Seems like we don't need a grandiose term and entire ego-driven epistemology that places itself above everything else for the simple concept of "Throwing ideas out there."

I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does. I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.

 

[Darat]

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.

For me it's even simpler, all I want to know is "does it do what it says it does on the tin?" If it does I'm interested, even if it then fails in some other way it may be useful in some way at sometime.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does.

Yep. And I'll keep getting greater and greater talking down to's about what is isn't, and never so much as postcard about what it actually is.

I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.

Ah the "Philosophobe" argument. Good to see it again.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But no one is claiming "science" has a perfect understanding of anything, that doesn't mean we don't know anything.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I'm saying is the inverse is also true: the fact that we know some things scientifically doesn't mean we can know nothing nonscientifically.

 

[Darat]

My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.

Sorry but I think you are very wrong, all the organised religions of the world claim to already have the truth, to be THE way. The problem is that they don't deliver what they claim they do, as I said before if they did what they say on their tins then I'd be interested but they don't. That is why I find no value in them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yep. And I'll keep getting greater and greater talking down to's about what is isn't, and never so much as postcard about what it actually is.



Ah the "Philosophobe" argument. Good to see it again.

Argument from ignorance seems profoundly unscientific to me. The scientific method itself was devised by a philosopher. Empiricism is a philosophy. You stand on the shoulders of giants crapping on them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Argument from ignorance seems profoundly unscientific to me. The scientific method itself was devised by a philosopher. Empiricism is a philosophy. You stand on the shoulders or giants crapping on them.

Yeah much like astronomers rightly crap on astrologers and chemists rightfully crap on alchemist.

Simply defining your epistemology as broadly as possible doesn't give you domain over everybody.

Philosophy is "over" science only because it says it is.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah much like astronomers rightly crap on astrologers and chemists rightfully crap on alchemist.

Simply defining your epistemology as broadly as possible doesn't give you domain over everybody.

Philosophy is "over" science only because it says it is.

You really do perceive all pursuit of knowledge as conflict, don't you? Even the dialectical approach is intended to pursue the truth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You really do perceive all pursuit of knowledge as conflict, don't you? Even the dialectical approach is intended to pursue the truth.

I take their actual effectiveness into account. I'm not really sure what all the hostility toward that is coming from.

I really don't get how me saying "I respect methodologies that actually produce usable answers and information more than ones that don't" becomes perceiving "all pursuit of knowledge as a conflict."

 

[psionl0]

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

I don't understand the relevance of how a church defines its god.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry but I think you are very wrong, all the organised religions of the world claim to already have the truth, to be THE way. The problem is that they don't deliver what they claim they do, as I said before if they did what they say on their tins then I'd be interested but they don't. That is why I find no value in them.

Whether you find value in a thing is up to your personal judgment. As for 'organized religions' I hope you realize that there are as many strands of religious belief as there are individuals. More, in fact, as people change their thinking over time. Marcionic Christianity was as different from modern Roman Catholicism as heychastic Byzantine Christianity is from Quakerism. Knowing at least a little of a given belief before reaching a conclusion about its validity seems reasonable.

Of course it is silly for anybody to claim they know the full truth of reality, whether they are using religion or science to come by their conclusions.