Hawking says there are no gods

[3point14]

(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.

Why?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.)

So you seem to be stage 5 or 6. Now the question is if you are that as a result of culture or if you can argue for it.
But the same is true of me, i.e. culture or not. We are both welfare Danes so culture might be a part of it.

But this is a derail in a derail
The point is that you can't take for granted that a given non-religious person has a cognitively different (or better???) morality than a religious one. The probability may be in favor of the non-religious person, but since it seems there is a cognitively element and not just a religious one, it might better to approach it with something else than religion - bad and non-religion - good.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Why?

Because they are pre-science cosmologies. They are as good as they were able to understand the universe at that time.
That is the difference!

And not, why? Why is not a science question, how is!!!
E.g. how do you explain the difference between modern and non-modern religions?

 

[3point14]

Because they are pre-science cosmologies. They are as good as they were able to understand the universe at that time.
That is the difference!

Because people were more credulous then we can't dismiss their writings as fiction because they really believed it? - is that actually the argument? We're bowing to the greater knowledge of mescalined up stone age mystics?

That sounds like, not to be to frank about it, utter tosh.

And not, why? Why is not a science question, how is!!!
E.g. how do you explain the difference between modern and non-modern religions?

I don't need to. Delusional people are delusional in any age. Of course, many centuries ago there was every excuse for deluded ignorance and wishful thinking. Since then we've had an enlightenment which you may have read of.

 

[dann]

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.)

Well, at least I hope that the people of your imaginary future won't think that Voldemort is the hero of tales of Harry Potter - the way that some Bible thumpers seem to think that the guy in the Old Testament spreading death, disease and terror and demanding unconditional submission is!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Because people were more credulous then we can't dismiss their writings as fiction because they really believed it? - is that actually the argument? We're bowing to the greater knowledge of mescalined up stone age mystics?

That sounds like, not to be to frank about it, utter tosh.




I don't need to. Delusional people are delusional in any age. Of course, many centuries ago there was every excuse for deluded ignorance and wishful thinking. Since then we've had an enlightenment which you may have read of.

So it matters, that there are delusional people, i.e. it matters or you brought it for no reason at all.
So I will go with that it matters. The problem is "that it matters" is not science nor a fact like gravity. It is your first person subjective belief. It means you hold a non-factual belief.
Google: Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Now if you accept that it is belief, you are off the hook for now. If you claim it is a scientific fact "that it matters", you are delusional.
The scientific method can't be used to do first person subjective beliefs. It can explain how they are natural, but can't do first person subjective beliefs.

Now if you admit, "that it matters" is a belief, you admit that science can't do everything.

 

[qayak]

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.

The number you quote is based on a sloppy study done on 10-16 year old boys. Why would you think the conclusions apply to adults?

The study made no distinction between theist and atheist so how can you say that conclusions reached apply equally to each. The 10-15% quoted could actually line up along those lines in that there were roughly <15% who claimed to be atheists and theists tend to get their morality from their religious indoctrination while atheists tend to get it through rational thought.

 

[3point14]

So it matters, that there are delusional people, i.e. it matters or you brought it for no reason at all.
So I will go with that it matters. The problem is "that it matters" is not science nor a fact like gravity. It is your first person subjective belief. It means you hold a non-factual belief.
Google: Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Now if you accept that it is belief, you are off the hook for now. If you claim it is a scientific fact "that it matters", you are delusional.
The scientific method can't be used to do first person subjective beliefs. It can explain how they are natural, but can't do first person subjective beliefs.

Now if you admit, "that it matters" is a belief, you admit that science can't do everything.

As before when you wrote something similar, I have literally no clue what you're on about. Sorry.

 

[Chanakya]

Well, at least I hope that the people of your imaginary future won't think that Voldemort is the hero of tales of Harry Potter - the way that some Bible thumpers seem to think that the guy in the Old Testament spreading death, disease and terror and demanding unconditional submission is!

Agreed! Someone who actually demands worship and obedience would, irrespective of anything and everything else, probably deserve neither!

Those goatherds of yore probably couldn't conceive of a higher figure than some all-powerful tyrant.

On the other hand, even if they'd conjured up some cloying sweet fair kind loving truly benevolent God, that God would have remained equally fictional.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The number you quote is based on a sloppy study done on 10-16 year old boys. Why would you think the conclusions apply to adults?

No, read more.

The study made no distinction between theist and atheist so how can you say that conclusions reached apply equally to each. The 10-15% quoted could actually line up along those lines in that there were roughly <15% who claimed to be atheists and theists tend to get their morality from their religious indoctrination while atheists tend to get it through rational thought.

So an atheist communist or fascist or Ayn Rand objectivist or racist are all rational?
Most people get their morality from culture. It doesn't follow that atheists just because they are atheists apply rationality on morality.
Of one the two, strong versus soft atheist, is irrational.
That most scientists are atheists doesn't tell us, if they are strong or soft.

Edit: BTW

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.

 

[qayak]

No, read more.

The baseline is a study of hypothetical dilemmas on 10-16 year old boys. The follow up only shows how those boys changed over the next 20 years. The study doesn't allow for differences in religious upbringing.

So an atheist communist or fascist or Ayn Rand objectivist or racist are all rational?

I would say more rational than a theist communist or fascist, or Ayn Rand objectivist, yes.

Most people get their morality from culture. It doesn't follow that atheists just because they are atheists apply rationality on morality.

Actually, it does? The culture of an atheist is far more rational than that of a religiously indoctrinated, delusional theist.

Of one the two, strong versus soft atheist, is irrational.
That most scientists are atheists doesn't tell us, if they are strong or soft.

Got a citation for either of those?

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

 

[Chanakya]

Why?

Lack of evidence, primarily. As well as all of the other arguments, all valid, that people have put up.

Except, with me, it leads to soft atheism. It leads to : 'I believe the ancient Potter series is fiction, as are those lovely rituals in there.' With the accent on "I believe".

And nor is this just semantics.

For instance, I am open to changing my mind, if given good reason to. Also : I am more accommodative of subjective beliefs of theists (and of hard atheists), as long as they realize the subjectivity of their stance, and provided they do not attempt to proselytize those personal subjective opinions and beliefs.

 

[Chanakya]

Heh, nice! I enjoyed that joke.

Except -- if I may be inappropriately solemn and serious in analyzing that joke -- it conflates atheism with hard atheism (either out of ignorance, or else deliberately and disingenuously); and also misrepresents both the intent and the sentiments of the soft atheist.


ETA : It's a nice joke, funny enough, but falls flat if seen as an actual argument. I hope you did not present it other than just for the laughs?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Got a citation for either of those?

This is a list of atheists in science and technology. Per wikipedia policy WP:BLPCAT, persons in this list are people (living or not) who have publicly identified themselves as atheists or have been historically known to be atheists and whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life. A mere statement by a person that he or she does not believe in God does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this list. Their atheism must be relevant to their notable activities or public life in order to be included on this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Since it doesn't differentiate it seems unknown, whether they are strong or soft.
As to one of the strong or soft being irrational, that is logic:
It can't in the same sense of known be known whether there are no gods possible or unknown if there are any gods.
So one is logically false and thus one is irrational.

So you can have an atheist, who doesn't understand knowledge and what is known about the universe as per cosmology as back to known versus unknown.

...Actually, it does? The culture of an atheist is far more rational than that of a religiously indoctrinated, delusional theist.

The atheist has then been indoctrinated and is dogmatic about communism or Objectivism or fascism and so on. It doesn't stop there, she/he can believe in some form of woo, CT and so and reject or accept scientism.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Chanakya

I know I owe you a post, but I fell into a "hole" and now I am ashamed that I haven't answered you or read your PM

Sorry

 

[JoeMorgue]

Heh, nice! I enjoyed that joke.

Except -- if I may be inappropriately solemn and serious in analyzing that joke -- it conflates atheism with hard atheism (either out of ignorance, or else deliberately and disingenuously); and also misrepresents both the intent and the sentiments of the soft atheist.


ETA : It's a nice joke, funny enough, but falls flat if seen as an actual argument. I hope you did not present it other than just for the laughs?

The Hard/Soft nonsense is meaningless gibberish hiding special pleading.

 

[David Mo]

For instance, I am open to changing my mind, if given good reason to. Also : I am more accommodative of subjective beliefs of theists (and of hard atheists), as long as they realize the subjectivity of their stance, and provided they do not attempt to proselytize those personal subjective opinions and beliefs.

In other words, that they agree with you and shut up. You're pretty totalitarian, aren't you?

Theists have their reasons -- they don't convince me. Atheists have theirs. Let them say them. You listen to them and say why you don't like them instead of throwing anathemas left and right. That's how freedom of speech and the search for truth work.

 

[epeeist]

...


Actually, it does? The culture of an atheist is far more rational than that of a religiously indoctrinated, delusional theist.

...

(portion only quoted)

Assuming arguendo that on average theists are less rational than atheists about religion, it doesn't follow that atheists generally are more rational (looking at everything). Whether it be irrational views about economics, science, race, politics, history, etc., there are all sorts of things about which a particular atheist may be more irrational than a theist.

I mean, would you rather get treatment for an injury from an atheist believer on homeopathy, or a religious physician who utters a brief prayer before starting to treat you?

I'm a theist with a STEM education and I regularly see self-proclaimed atheists (here or elsewhere) say irrational things about matters having nothing to do with religion. Theists do also, of course, but to presume that atheists for that reason alone are magically ( ) rational in all other ways is ridiculous.

It's also possible, of course, for an atheist to have what you believe to be the correct atheist worldview, but for silly reasons. Or for anyone to be correct about something, but for invalid reasons.

 

[epeeist]

Heh, nice! I enjoyed that joke.

Except -- if I may be inappropriately solemn and serious in analyzing that joke -- it conflates atheism with hard atheism (either out of ignorance, or else deliberately and disingenuously); and also misrepresents both the intent and the sentiments of the soft atheist.


ETA : It's a nice joke, funny enough, but falls flat if seen as an actual argument. I hope you did not present it other than just for the laughs?

The message and humour of the cartoon was that proselytizers - whether atheists or theists - can both be very annoying. Either a strong or weak atheist may be a proselytizer (or not).

Now, depending upon what you mean by proselytizing - how aggressive etc. - I would strongly disagree with you.

My support for free speech extends to people may be exposed to things they don't want to hear, from advertisements, banner ads, websites, etc. There's a right to be free from overly aggressive and intrusive messaging, but I don't think that should extend to e.g. while in public or at college no-one expressing anything one disagrees with about religion or abortion or politics should be allowed to communicate in any way or hold signs except in a designated free speech zone that one need never see because it's behind a building or hidden by trees in a corner of a park.

Those who seek to see only what they like or agree with, whether through Facebook, only going to some websites or some shows, or otherwise, are in my view dangerously limiting their world view. I make an effort to read at least some things I disagree with (religiously, politically, etc.) to get exposure to different ways of thinking, especially around election time.