Hawking says there are no gods

[David Mo]

I'm not a fan of the idea that the universe is a simulation, but I don't put it as an impossibility based on what we know, and if the universe is a simulation, whatever designed and runs that simulation would in some sense be a god, so that's another of the class of thing I'm talking about.

"Simulation"? Who is making the simulation process of the universe? What he is imitating?

What kind of possibility has this strange idea? You're not quoting Plato, I suppose.

I would like to know what you know that make "possible" the simulation hypothesis.

 

[Roboramma]

And it's this I keep coming back to, god is used to mean so many different classes of things that it is rendered meaningless.

A platypus and a blue whale are both mammals. The fact that they are very different doesn't mean that the word mammal is rendered meaningless.

 

[Darat]

A platypus and a blue whale are both mammals. The fact that they are very different doesn't mean that the word mammal is rendered meaningless.

That would be a fair analogy if we were discussing the "Islamic god" versus the "RCC god", but that is not how it is being used. It is like saying "This is a rock" "This is water" - sure both are matter but we wouldn't ask someone for a drink of rock and expect to get water.

 

[Diablo]

A platypus and a blue whale are both mammals. The fact that they are very different doesn't mean that the word mammal is rendered meaningless.

But if you were trying to find mammals, and you'd been told that both these animals were mammals, then you'd search for them very differently. It does help to define what people mean when they talk about 'god' so we know where and how to look.

 

[Roboramma]

That would be a fair analogy if we were discussing the "Islamic god" versus the "RCC god", but that is not how it is being used. It is like saying "This is a rock" "This is water" - sure both are matter but we wouldn't ask someone for a drink of rock and expect to get water.

As long as they both fit the definition of "god", then I think we can call them both gods without making the word meaningless.

I agree that there is a problem when people pretend to be talking about one but are actually taking about the other, as you last sentence makes clear.

 

[Roboramma]

But if you were trying to find mammals, and you'd been told that both these animals were mammals, then you'd search for them very differently. It does help to define what people mean when they talk about 'god' so we know where and how to look.

Absolutely.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am basically a strong atheist. If you ask me if God (or god) exists, I'll generally say no.

If we are having a discussion about whether or not it's correct to admit that we don't actually know with certainty, then I'm also going to admit that, for at least some versions of what people are talking about when they say "god", we aren't actually certain,

And that's the thing, the theists/apologists are always going to drag us into these weeds. We can't keep letting them.

It's the same problem. Any discussion can be drug down to such a level of hair splitting and nuance that everybody in it is reduced to effectively saying nothing. There's a reason however only certain discussion inevitably go there.

 

[Chanakya]

In the sense that you had stated that you only sympathizeswith those who recognize their errors -error is what doesn't agree with your subjectivism- and don't like to discuss the beliefs that bother you.

This is what you mean with "as long as they realize the subjectivity of their stance" and "do not attempt to proselytize".

It’s rude to repeatedly bring up the straw man objection, but I don't see what else I can do, David Mo. With no offense intended to you, I must respectfully point out that you’re putting your words in my mouth … and, what is more, also supplying me, yourself, the meaning that I allegedly invest those words with. None of that is what I’d intended to convey, as you’ll see if you read my post again.

I’d said that I am more open than many of the atheists I see here to POVs different than mine, because I see the essential subjectivity of my own stance. However, that accommodation of mine -- as I’d qualified -- does not extend to accepting proselytizing by theists (or by atheists of a harder persuasion than I am) who invest their own subjectivity with a make-believe objectivity, and who seek to impose that make-believe objectivity on to others.

I have not problem to debate with persons that "don't realize" that I am right and I don't consider that to debate on beliefs is "to proselitize".

Nor do I, David Mo, nor do I. After all, that’s exactly what I’m doing now, here in this thread, isn’t it?

Don’t worry, I have no intention of unleashing my private army of armed goons on those whose views I disagree with! Like you, all I will do is discuss and debate.

NOTE: "Totalitarian" was a joke/irony. The one that only wants to hear his truth.

Given that that last sentence, which explains your joke, is once more just a straw man, and not what I’d myself said or intended, I still cannot see the point of your remarks.

But never mind! A joke’s a joke, and I have no objections to expressing a polite muted ha-ha out of respect for your friendly intentions.

 

[Chanakya]

I believe what I believe is true, or else I wouldn't believe it... So I don't think I'm as skeptical as you hope I am, at least not in the religious context. So, I do see my beliefs as objectively true (the substantive religious ones I mean).

That’s surprising in someone who’s self-aware enough to have written that post.

Truth itself is something we reach out towards with our ideas, all of us. Are you saying that you don’t see how your own ideas about God -- while no doubt they sound reasonable to you (as mine do to me) -- are essentially subjective in nature?

You can hardly do that, epeeist, unless you were vouchsafed some blinding mystic vision, like the prophets of yore, can you?

I just don't expect that other people will instantly (nor necessarily ever) see what I believe as objective truth, nor are they rejecting God because they don't believe etc. It would be just as unreasonable for me to expect adherence to my beliefs as it would be for them to expect me to adhere to their beliefs just because they believe it.

That's one thing I've never really understood, how some people (not just Christian) expect that, hey, you've heard the truth of our religion, now you must believe and if you don't you're rejecting God. As if belief is a pure choice (behaviour perhaps, but not belief).

That seems like a reasonable stance.

(...) You can't reject God unless you believe, therefore an atheist isn't rejecting God (or a non-Christian monotheist isn't rejecting Jesus, because they don't believe in him).

That sounds reasonable, but you do realize that your religion (assuming you subscribe to some mainstream form of Christianity) damns the nonbeliever nevertheless, don’t you?

An example that comes to mind that I read about a few years ago in a Catholic bioethics newsletter, this is all from memory and simplified. At a conference with all sorts of Christians, the author was one of the few Catholic speakers and was speaking was discussing ethical and philosophical (aka natural law) arguments about various things that might be persuasive to non-Christians and the non-religious generally. Most other speakers were more, the Bible says this, therefore X. He raised the point in discussion, why should a non-Christian be persuaded by what the Bible says, if you want to persuade use more universal arguments, which seemed to befuddle a number of others present.

That’s a refreshing POV, in theist circles.

I'd had a similar experience myself with some Jehovah Witness types that had come over to my house: they claimed that their teachings represented the true intent of the Bible and, while they'd obviously come prepared to have me contest that claim, they seemed wholly unable to comprehend, despite my telling them repeatedly, that I did not care two pins about what the real intent of the Bible might be (even if there were some way to determine this), that the fact that the Bible said something did not mean -- to me -- that that was a description of how things actually are.

 

[epeeist]

...
That sounds reasonable, but you do realize that your religion (assuming you subscribe to some mainstream form of Christianity) damns the nonbeliever nevertheless, don’t you?
...

(portion only quoted)

No, it doesn't. Some do, Catholicism does not (not only since Vatican II, though that formalized the statement). What's critical is following one's conscience (I'm drastically oversimplifying and not getting into notions like Rahner's anonymous Christian or others re baptism of desire...).

Or to be more technical, how to reconcile necessity of baptism with salvation for the unbaptized (including unbelievers - save those baptized as infants or otherwise who were atheists or other non-Christians later...) is something that many, including the current and former pope, believe is theologically possible.

I should note, the Catholic catechism actually does refer to atheism as a sin, but in the same sentence notes that the circumstances, including behaviour of the faithful (i.e. how it helps make people atheist) mitigates the severity of the sin. There's also a separate discussion of unbaptized infants in another portion (they're technically atheist, right?). To quote one paragraph:

"2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62" (emphasis added)

To take an extreme, if someone was abused by a priest or because of all the stories coming out about it is driven away from Catholicism or Christianity or God, they've lost their faith not because of anything sinful they've done, but because of what others have done - not their fault.

 

[qayak]

(portion only quoted)

No, it doesn't. Some do, Catholicism does not (not only since Vatican II, though that formalized the statement). What's critical is following one's conscience (I'm drastically oversimplifying and not getting into notions like Rahner's anonymous Christian or others re baptism of desire...).

Or to be more technical, how to reconcile necessity of baptism with salvation for the unbaptized (including unbelievers - save those baptized as infants or otherwise who were atheists or other non-Christians later...) is something that many, including the current and former pope, believe is theologically possible.

I should note, the Catholic catechism actually does refer to atheism as a sin, but in the same sentence notes that the circumstances, including behaviour of the faithful (i.e. how it helps make people atheist) mitigates the severity of the sin. There's also a separate discussion of unbaptized infants in another portion (they're technically atheist, right?). To quote one paragraph:

"2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62" (emphasis added)

To take an extreme, if someone was abused by a priest or because of all the stories coming out about it is driven away from Catholicism or Christianity or God, they've lost their faith not because of anything sinful they've done, but because of what others have done - not their fault.

I suppose that as a Catholic you don't find fault with any of this mess of inconsistency. As an atheist, I do. To put it simply, if I believed a Supreme Being existed, and I was his spokesperson here on Earth, I would be demanding to know WTF was going on that this was allowed to happen and not hiding the perpetrators and making excuses for the Supreme Being and his organisation.

 

[psionl0]

That would be a fair analogy if we were discussing the "Islamic god" versus the "RCC god", but that is not how it is being used. It is like saying "This is a rock" "This is water" - sure both are matter but we wouldn't ask someone for a drink of rock and expect to get water.

If the premise of this thread was "a god or gods exists" then it would be reasonable to demand "WHICH god?"

However, the theme of this thread was that a scientist ruled out ALL gods from the universe. So your philosophical objection is irrelevant.

 

[David Mo]

It’s rude to repeatedly bring up the straw man objection, but I don't see what else I can do, David Mo. With no offense intended to you, I must respectfully point out that you’re putting your words in my mouth … and, what is more, also supplying me, yourself, the meaning that I allegedly invest those words with. None of that is what I’d intended to convey, as you’ll see if you read my post again.

I’d said that I am more open than many of the atheists I see here to POVs different than mine, because I see the essential subjectivity of my own stance. However, that accommodation of mine -- as I’d qualified -- does not extend to accepting proselytizing by theists (or by atheists of a harder persuasion than I am) who invest their own subjectivity with a make-believe objectivity, and who seek to impose that make-believe objectivity on to others.

Nor do I, David Mo, nor do I. After all, that’s exactly what I’m doing now, here in this thread, isn’t it?

Don’t worry, I have no intention of unleashing my private army of armed goons on those whose views I disagree with! Like you, all I will do is discuss and debate.


Given that that last sentence, which explains your joke, is once more just a straw man, and not what I’d myself said or intended, I still cannot see the point of your remarks.

But never mind! A joke’s a joke, and I have no objections to expressing a polite muted ha-ha out of respect for your friendly intentions.

I'm really sorry I misinterpreted your words. Perhaps they were not expressed as correctly as you would have liked. Or maybe my faulty English led me to think what it wasn't.
In any case, my sincere apologies.

 

[dann]

It was a tough life, particularly towards the end, but now, alas, the chair has died!

I don't know where it's gone, but even though I can't prove that it is actually so, I'm pretty sure that it hasn't gone to meet its maker. I might be able to prove that it did have one, though, but I don't know which one it might be, I don't even know if it was more than one or if he/she/they are still among us or R'ingIP.
There are an awful lot of makers, and I don't really care.

 

[Chanakya]

No, it doesn't. Some do, Catholicism does not (not only since Vatican II, though that formalized the statement). What's critical is following one's conscience (I'm drastically oversimplifying and not getting into notions like Rahner's anonymous Christian or others re baptism of desire...).

Or to be more technical, how to reconcile necessity of baptism with salvation for the unbaptized (including unbelievers - save those baptized as infants or otherwise who were atheists or other non-Christians later...) is something that many, including the current and former pope, believe is theologically possible.

Possible how? The babies going to limbo part is simply grotesque; and yes, I do remember, I think, some kind of “resolution” of that one, although I don’t recall any details. The part about people prior to Jesus being saved through his whatever is also, by some roundabout reasoning, kind of resolved, I know.

But what about people, today, now, who simply don’t believe in RCC or Jesus? Are you saying they can be “saved” too? How exactly?



(I am actually not aware of this. I know for a fact that many RCCs do not view this in these terms, and nor do some [Jesuit] clergy. But that can be explained away, I suppose, by reflecting that many adherents of specific faiths are often ignorant of many of the details of their own faith.

It makes no difference to me in practical terms, this is no more than some fairy tale resolution of a situation within a fairy tale. Nevertheless, despite treating this as fiction and not taking this in the least seriously, I am nevertheless genuinely interested in knowing this.)

I should note, the Catholic catechism actually does refer to atheism as a sin, but in the same sentence notes that the circumstances, including behaviour of the faithful (i.e. how it helps make people atheist) mitigates the severity of the sin.

Mitigates how? What does this mean, exactly? Will the temperature at the sauna in the afterlife be turned down to more temperate levels?

I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist joking about this — and a lame joke at that — and yes, obviously I see this as hair-splitting over fictional issues. Nevertheless, although with zero chance of actually believing, I’m still genuinely interested in knowing: What would be the consequence to the sinner of this, of this mitigation in the severity of their sin that you speak of here?

(...) To take an extreme, if someone was abused by a priest or because of all the stories coming out about it is driven away from Catholicism or Christianity or God, they've lost their faith not because of anything sinful they've done, but because of what others have done - not their fault.

And? What follows after that, as far as consequences to the sinner, now that he has been pronounced to be without “fault”, even if sinning? (And assuming that he never repents, never returns to the fold, and dies a nonbeliever? What happens to his soul now, following this acknowledgement that he is without fault, as opposed to what might happen to his soul in the absence of this acknowledgement?)

 

[Chanakya]

I'm really sorry I misinterpreted your words. Perhaps they were not expressed as correctly as you would have liked. Or maybe my faulty English led me to think what it wasn't.
In any case, my sincere apologies.

David Mo, you do realize that you're trangressing, there in your post, the fundamental Commandment that operates in the Internet space, don't you? The one that goes: Thou shalt firmly keep in check any tendency towards politeness and actual goodwill?

Sorry, couldn't resist that (attempt at a) joke!

Seriously, though: I appreciate your uncommonly gracious response. And now, irrespective of right and wrong, I cannot help feeling something of an ass myself, in so relentlessly having pursued a point that was, after all, content-free and pedestrian, even petty.



Anyway, my short point: We sometimes tend to misrepresent (perhaps even to ourselves, and certainly to others) the subjectivity of our own position as something objective. And sometimes we seek to proseltyze this counterfeit objectivity. It is this I was objecting to, by pointing out this conflation of the subjective with the objective.

Unlike Tommy, I do not hold that everything is subjective. Absolutely not! But some things obviously are subjective. Simply because we might ourselves be certain of our own position does not render our assessment objective. And it may be wise to be clear which is which: after all, there is nothing wrong in holding beliefs that are based on subectivity, as long as one is clear about where one stands.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the premise of this thread was "a god or gods exists" then it would be reasonable to demand "WHICH god?"

However, the theme of this thread was that a scientist ruled out ALL gods from the universe. So your philosophical objection is irrelevant.

The problem is elements in this debate not arguing honestly, turning the whole thing into a centuries long game of "You keep telling me which God you are disproving and I'll tell you when you get to the right one" that one side is perfectly fine to play forever.

Let's not be dense here people. We all recognize the tactic of "I'm still right if I can keep the debate going" for what it is and it would be hard pressed to invent a tactic for doing that more transparent then "I'm just never define what I'm arguing for so that none can ever disprove it."

 

[psionl0]

The problem is elements in this debate not arguing honestly, turning the whole thing into a centuries long game of "You keep telling me which God you are disproving and I'll tell you when you get to the right one" that one side is perfectly fine to play forever.

That is the exact opposite of what I am saying (although the post I responded to seems to be demanding that).

 

[Diablo]

The point that was made in the OP was that the laws of nature appear to be fixed - at least Hawking thought so - so what role is there for a god? For example, how can an immaterial (supernatural) god influence events in the material world since there is no mechanism for it to do so? There is no 'god' force which an immaterial being can use to affect material objects - at least none has been proposed or tested.

How would a god cause a flood? By using gravity? In which case it must have mass and therefore be material, and we should be able to observe it - except that we can't.
Anyone who proposes such a thing would have to describe the mechanism, show how it works and how to test it. If there is a god but it has no way of interacting with the material world then it's not really a god in the way that people have understood and described, and would be totally irrelevant.

 

[The Sparrow]

... If there is a god but it has no way of interacting with the material world then it's not really a god in the way that people have understood and described, and would be totally irrelevant.

You just have to employ the escape hatch of 'god intervenes in undetectable ways', then in the style of Sye Ten Bruggencate (spits on the ground) come back with 'are you saying god would not have the power to do that?'

You can never win when the theist side has a bottomless bag of superpowers to draw from.