Hawking says there are no gods

[David Mo]

As I said upthread: The basis of morality is brain structure and function that you are born with. Yes, nurture has influence, but contrary to a lot of theists who think without God and fear of going to hell, all of society would break down, morality comes from within, not from the Bible (thank goodness).


We know this based on observing non-human primates and studying brain damaged people.

It is one thing to know the physiological basis of morality and another to know if a statement is morally valid.

Being told that a part of my brain is activated when I see someone killed doesn't tell me if that's good or bad.

 

[Roboramma]

There are some religious statements that are testable and false. For instance, wine and bread don't literally turn into blood and flesh, and we can actually test to see if they do.

There are other religious claims that we know were just based on someone either guessing or making things up. If they turned out to be true, it would be true only by random chance. But given all the other possibilities, the chance of that happening is infinitesimal. This is different from, for instance, guessing that everything is made up of tiny indivisible elements (atoms), because that was really just a 1/2 chance (and the greeks made both guesses, that the fundamental constituent of matter was continuous and that it was indivisible, and the truth is that we don't actually know yet which of those is true. For instance, when the religous person says that:
A) The universe has a creator
B) That creator is aware of the state of the universe
That's already a very complex claim. There are many degrees of awareness that a system could have, including none at all. Most systems that we know of are not aware of anything, and none which don't interact with a particular other system are aware of that other system.
C) That it is capable of complex states that interact with that awareness, like thought and emotion.
D) That the particular complex state that it's in includes not wanting you to have sex before marriage.

That would be a very unlikely thing to get right just by chance. If there were a good reason for thinking that the universe were created by a being which came about by a similar process to us and which would thus share some similarities with us, then it wouldn't just be a random guess, but the religious have no argument or evidence for that, so again we're left with a random guess.

I'd put the probability of that as extremely low. But it's different from the testable claims like that some wine has turned into blood.

To look at the analogy of extinct species, there are some places where we haven't looked, and there are some species that we expect are extinct but which could live in those environments, however to just posit a particular species, or even to make up a species at random and suggest that it lives in some particular environment, well, you'll very probably be wrong with that guess. But if you base that guess on good biology and an understanding of the ecosystems, maybe you'll get something right.

There are also some species that are large enough and which require enough resources that their non existence is not in doubt because we've already looked there. This is similar to the wine which is actually blood, we can test that and show that's false. There are no T-rex's roaming around Africa undiscovered.

 

[David Mo]

There are no articles on whether Hogwarts exists either.

So what? I don't know what you want. Nor either is there philosophical articles about the existence of Hogwarts. This means that Hogwarts' existence is neither a scientific nor philosophical subject.

 

[qayak]

I'm looking for the opposite of a stupidity contest.

And yet you posted something so stupid.

 

[qayak]

A family of T-Rex would be hard to overlook. But not as hard as an actually existing god

I know, right? A god would be so glaringly obvious.

 

[psionl0]

Cambridge Dictionary defines falsehood as "a lie or a statement that is not correct," but you add "knowingly," which is a trick.

And Cambridge Dictionary defines lie as "to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone"
Either the authors believed that what they were writing was true or they knew it was false. So where is the trick?

 

[psionl0]

I made no such claim. I'm saying you did by implication (at the very least). Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I don't need to prove something you are merely inferring.

I don't know why you find it so incredible that a religious writer would believe in what they were writing. If you seriously think that they are just a bunch of J.K. Rowlings then that is bordering on delusional.

 

[ynot]

I don't need to prove something you are merely inferring.

Responding directly to what you wrote is not inferring anything.

I don't know why you find it so incredulous that a religious writer would believe in what they were writing. If you seriously thing that they are just a bunch of J.K. Rowlings then that is bordering on delusional.

I don't know why you find it so incredulous that a religious writer might not believe in what they were writing. Do you think the likes of L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith believed what they were writing was true?

I didn't and don't say all religious writers don't believe what they're writing. You said/implied all religious writers do believe in what they're writing . . .

As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.

 

[psionl0]

You said/implied all religious writers do believe in what they're writing . . .

No I didn't. I specifically pointed out that it was possible for some writings to be fraudulent.

Nevertheless, your strawman not withstanding, it is far more likely that a religious writer believes in what they are writing than an author of fiction.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Responding directly to what you wrote is not inferring anything.


I don't know why you find it so incredulous that a religious writer might not believe in what they were writing. Do you think the likes of L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith believed what they were writing was true?

I didn't and don't say all religious writers don't believe what they're writing. You said/implied all religious writers do believe in what they're writing . . .

Whether I think you believe in what you wrote is not determined by what I think. If that is the case I think you believe you are God. If you say no, you are lying.
What you believe depends on what you actually believe. Now of course you could be lying and if that is so, then I must give evidence for that.
The same applies to you: Someone is not lying just because you say so!!!

So I don't think you are lying. I think you are mistaken in that it is not a fact that one other humans simply believe something or are lying, if you say so.

So do all religious writers believe in what they write?
If they believe, they are religious. So a person, who deceives about the religious beliefs, can't be religious, because a religious person believes.
If they deceive, they believe it is for a higher purpose; i.e. a religious belief.
If they deceive for another purpose, they are not religious.

Religious persons believe.
Con artists deceive.
No all religious persons are con artists otherwise.
We even have a name for a sub-group of con artists - honest con man. But that means that the con man believes in the con. So if an honest con man believes "the con" about religion, it is a religious belief and thus not really a con.

So yes, all religious writers believe, otherwise they won't be religious. So it is upon you to show that L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith were not religious. I.e. not religious means that they are something else and that something else is a positive claim for which you have to show evidence and not just think.
You really aren't that good at evidence, it would seem.

 

[dann]

Cambridge Dictionary defines falsehood as "a lie or a statement that is not correct," but you add "knowingly," which is a trick.

And Cambridge Dictionary defines lie as "to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone"
Either the authors believed that what they were writing was true or they knew it was false. So where is the trick?

They may have believed in their own falsehoods the same way that Jesus believed in his own parables, the prodigal son, for instance: Not that this alleged prodigal son actually existed in the real world; he was fictional, intended to convey a 'deeper' truth, but he wasn't meant to be thought of as somebody that you would go looking for in real life to hear his side of the story.
And, of course, Jesus may have been a real person who actually believed that his mother was impregnated by God and that he himself was the son of that god. It really doesn't matter. It doesn't make his god any more real if he believed in it than if he knew it was false, it doesn't make his idea more or less real if he told his stories in order to deceive his disciples or if he was deluded and had managed to deceive himself.

 

[dann]

So yes, all religious writers believe, otherwise they won't be religious.

But not all apparently or allegedly religious writers believe.

You may also present true ideas in the form of fiction where each and every character is made up. And that may also be how some religious writers feel about their characters. It's certainly the way that most modern Christians, in particular in secularized countries like Denmark, feel about the stories in their Bible: 'Jesus was probably not the son of any god, but you should nevertheless love thy neighbor.'
Authors who write stories in this vein would be well aware that the characters were all fiction but they would still insist that overall message was truthful.

 

[dann]

it is far more likely that a religious writer believes in what they are writing than an author of fiction.

Yes, it's far more likely that religious writers are deluded and believe in what they're writing than authors of fiction. J.K. Rowling doesn't believe that Harry Potter is real.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

They may have believed in their own falsehoods the same way that Jesus believed in his own parables, the prodigal son, for instance: Not that this alleged prodigal son actually existed in the real world; he was fictional, intended to convey a 'deeper' truth, but he wasn't meant to be thought of as somebody that you would go looking for in real life to hear his side of the story.
And, of course, Jesus may have been a real person who actually believed that his mother was impregnated by God and that he himself was the son of that god. It really doesn't matter. It doesn't make his god any more real if he believed in it than if he knew it was false, it doesn't make his idea more or less real if he told his stories in order to deceive his disciples or if he was deluded and had managed to deceive himself.

That has nothing to do with religion in particular.
Take X is Y versus X is non-Y.
Now for 2 atheists, where one claims it is known that there are no gods at all and the other claims it is unknown for some versions of a god whether that god exists or not, one of them is deluded/deceiving her/himself.
What is it with pointing out that religious people could be deluded?
The same goes for contradictory claims about "real" in woo, politics, philosophy and so on.
Being deluded is so common, that you are pointing something out that has nothing to do with religion in particular.
Being deluded is in a sense as natural as gravity. It is a part of the natural world.
Hell, for believing I have a mind versus I don't have a mind, the "I" and "mind" themselves are epiphenomenal, one of the two are deluded.
BTW I don't have a body, this body has an "I".

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But not all apparently or allegedly religious writers believe.

You may also present true ideas in the form of fiction where each and every character is made up. And that may also be how some religious writers feel about their characters. It's certainly the way that most modern Christians, in particular in secularized countries like Denmark, feel about the stories in their Bible: 'Jesus was probably not the son of any god, but you should nevertheless love thy neighbor.'
Authors who write stories in this vein would be well aware that the characters were all fiction but they would still insist that overall message was truthful.

Thus they are religious.

 

[3point14]

As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.

No, it wasn't. The argument as it was made appears in the words I chose to use it. If you want to show what I think, use the quote function. That way you won't get it horribly wrong, as you have here.

 

[dann]

Thus they are religious.

Yes, those authors would be religious, but they would still be aware that their characters were fiction.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes, those authors would be religious, but they would still be aware that their characters were fiction.

But they are not devious or deluded in normal sense, they are doing it for a higher purpose for which, they could be deluded, but not devious.

So that leads to this:
There are people, who do hold non-factual beliefs and that matters.

The problem vis a vis real is that, it is only real "that it matters", if you believe that and "that it matters" is not a fact; i.e. it is a belief.

I don't believe that it matters if people are deluded as such or delusional. And there is more to it than that.
Take https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kohlberg.pdf
Notice this:

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (postconventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves

So the 85-90% of all adults have not reflected about ethics. That is no different than saying religious have not reflected about religion.
And it means it also applies to non-religious people, because non-religious also hold moral views, so it is likely that a majority of non-religious people have not reflected about ethical principles.

 

[dann]

Take https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kohlberg.pdf

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

Yes, of course.
No.
No, not really.
Yes. (I'm not really into telling law enforcement what to do, but if the question had been, 'Did the chemist cause the woman's death?', my answer would have been yes.
By the way, I don't agree with the objection to Kohlberg that his stories were hypothetical. It's not difficult to find similar stories in real life: May Martin Shkreli (Wikipedia) rot in the hell that I don't believe in, and let him be joined by everybody who is trying to abolish health care for poor people.)

 

[Chanakya]

I'm afraid I find the hard atheist's stance just as iffy as the theist's.

More than one poster, presumably hard atheists all, has brought up Harry Potter and cargo cults in this thread.

Think of a time, in the future, when somehow the details of who wrote these books is lost. All you have are these volumes, attributed to someone called J K Rowling, who might, for all we know, be fictional herself. And you have -- let's say -- large numbers of people who seem to believe the contents of these books are based on fact.

In such a scenario, surely a research into the provenance of these books would be a valid exercise? And surely soft a-Potterism, hard a-Potterism, and plain agnosticism would each be valid stances to adopt?

Further: might the goings-on in these books be actually based on some kind of occult practices and rituals practiced by these ancients of the 21st century? Surely that too would not be at all certain, and a valid subject for serious 'research'?

That Hogwarts and cargo cults and Scientology are very easily dismissed as fiction today have little to do with our dismissing the older, more complex religions as fiction.

(I'm not saying they're not fiction, the older religions. They are. At least, that is my opinion. But I don't think they're quite as obviously fictional as, say, cargo cults or Hogwarts. If that is the reasoning that leads us to our atheism, then I'm afraid we're being as irrational as the theist.)