Hawking says there are no gods

[The Sparrow]

Well it would If say his garage was smaller than the size of an corvette....

Aren't certain warhips known as corvettes?

(runs and hides)

 

[Darat]

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aren't certain warhips known as corvettes?

(runs and hides)

I've got a model of one in my cellar. But if I had a garage, that's where I'd probably keep it.

Dave

 

[Chanakya]

How do you know that? Genetic science argues against panspermia.

You know the saying to have an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?

I remember having read, not long ago -- although in some newspaper or magazine, not some technical journal -- that they were actually researching this whole panspermia thing, in the context of some asteroid or meteor that had entered the solar system, or something like that. (I'm sorry, my recollection is hazy. Nor will I take the trouble to Google this, because this is not central to the discussion at all, for reasons I will explain shortly).

Anyway, my point was: If people are still researching this, then obviously it means they've kept an open mind about it. If they'd been certain that such a thing is impossible, then why waste time and energy (and money) researching it out, right? Any scientific research necessarily requires an open mind. Surely that is obvious?

In any case, you seem not to have understood my underlying argument. Seen against the actual argument I was presenting to JoeMorgue, I'm afraid your objection -- even if for the sake of argument I were to grant that you are correct -- is pedantic.

JoeMorgue was objecting to hairsplitting about the God question, and protesting that nowehere else do we do this. And I was telling him that we do this all the time when precision is important, e.g. in court cases, and in detective fiction (and, I suppose, with actual detection by actual detectives as well), and with scientists who're actually testing out some particular issue.

This panspermia business was only an example. It can be easily substituted, if need be, with another that is more 'correct'.

 

[The Sparrow]

I've got a model of one in my cellar. But if I had a garage, that's where I'd probably keep it.

Dave

Damn, you told me. Now I have the burden of proof that you don't keep it in your garage.
Science! Help me!

 

[Chanakya]

But God-ideas aren't what are being discussed it is the existence of something or not that is the point under discussion.

I do to a certain extent agree that God-ideas are probably more defined than "something". The extent I wouldn't agree to is when it is appropriate to discuss God-ideas, the area in which discussions of God-ideas fall into are human behaviour, why do those that claim to believe in a god behave in such a manner, what causes some gods to be discarded and so on.

Fascinating in its own right.

I agree with what you say here, but actually that isn't quite the sense in which I'd used that term myself.

True, what is being discussed is the existence of God. But that cannot be discussed without first discussing (or at least implicitly assuming) what we mean by the word God. And given that there are so many God ideas floating around, the existence of God translates to the existence of one (or more) of these God ideas.

That is the sense in which I'd used the term "God-ideas".




In any case, that remark of Hawking's, it's obvious that he'd used the word "God" in some particular sense. Perhaps/possibly the God of the Bible. Had he been around (and accessible to us), then I guess we could have simply asked him, and settled this whole debate with one single brief question and answer.

But as it happens he isn't around, so we philosophize away here over the larger question of God ideas. Which seems very different from the context of his actual remark, which was straightforward enough.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm pretty sure panspermia is not on the differential of scientists that know what they are talking about.

You appear not to know what you're talking about.

If you don't understand how the genetic tree of life argues against multiple genetic origins then you need to brush up on the genetic family tree.

That has nothing to do with panspermia.

This is the "just make random **** up forum" now isn't it?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Chanakya

I have given it some thoughts. I don't believe that everything is subjective. Rather everything what ever it is, if it matters, is a case of subjectivity. I.e. if everything/the universe/reality matters, is a case of subjectivity.

Look at the concept of "necessary and sufficient". In broad terms science/philosophy/religion are all about what really matters and what is at a minimum necessary to explain reality, but maybe not sufficient. E.g. both gravity and subjectivity are necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have given it some thoughts. I don't believe that everything is subjective. Rather everything what ever it is, if it matters, is a case of subjectivity.

I have given it some thoughts. I don't believe in distinctions without difference. Rather every distinction ever what it is, if it matters, has no difference.

 

[Chanakya]

Continuing: You can say whatever you want, doesn't make it evidence supported.

I have no issue with the assertion religious mythology and novel fiction are qualitatively different. But both are fiction, nonetheless. You seem to want to put Cargo Cults, religious mythology, in the category of novel fiction. That's absurd. It certainly isn't a novel based story, it is god mythology in every way.

No, that is not what I am saying, at all.

It would be tedious to repeat the actual point I was trying to make, but sure, if you wish to revisit that discussion, and ask me to, I'll give it a go.

And you support this based on what? That you believe one and not the other?

It seems a likely enough explanation. Your rhetorical question implied that no explanation is possible, and therefore simply showing the double standard is itself enough to clinch the issue. I've presented a very reasonable explanation that shows that that is not the case.

I'm afraid your invoking the no-evidence objection appears pro-forma-ish, that is, hardly applicable at this particular juncture.

You have already shown your mistake by not recognizing the Cargo cults as religious mythology.

I'm afraid you haven't understood my argument at all, if you can say that.

Again, it would be tedious to repeat that argument, but if you wish me to, and ask me, I will be happy to re-state it.

That holds no evidentiary weight.

I've already addressed this in this comment. Your no-evidence objection doesn't make sense at this particular juncture, given the actual context in which I'd said what I'd said.

It's equally possible some religious texts began as fiction. So what? People in the future build their god mythology based on a fictional book, it be comes religious mythology. I'm not seeing whatever significance you believe you are relating.

It doesn't necessarily have to involve Gods at all. That is the point I was trying to make: that it doesn't necessarily have to be about God-fictions.

All right, let me repeat what I'd actually said in that other thread.

Say in a post-apocalyptic world, all of our knowledge is lost, and all that remains are a very few tattered books, that are squirreled away by a generation of savages.

Suppose -- and I'm only presenting a hypothetical in order to answer your question, "Why this double standard for God-fictions as opposed to other fictions", so don't go presenting some pro forma demand for evidence! -- suppose in this scenario, people actually started believing that whatever is written in books (those few books that have survived) are necessarily fact.

In such a situation, you could very reasonably hold a soft-abiblist position, or a hard-abiblist position, or an agnostic-biblist position, when it comes to the question: "Is it necessary that whatever comes printed in books is factually true?"

So no, I'm suggesting that splitting hairs about the God question is not really all that absurd, given that so many people actually believe this particular fiction. Had they believed some other fiction in equally large numbers (e.g., a fiction like "Everything a printed book says is true") then that too could reasonably have been subjected to such close scrutiny.

And the reason I say, the sense in which I say, that the religion-fictions are different from the Tolkien-type fictions, is that large numbers believe in the former, while no one believes in the latter.

Yeah well, I'm perfectly rational. It's useless to disprove gods that there is zero evidence for just because a lot of people believe. Of all the reasons, majority fantasy is one of the weakest.

I hope I've shown why it isn't? (That is, why it isn't useless to give a closer and finer focus on God-ideas -- the whole hard-atheist-soft-atheist routine -- precisely because "a lot of people believe"?)

... There are two ways to approach the god hypothesis.

1) Prove they don't exist because someone said they do.

There is zero evidence gods exist. And there are many other fictional beings no one asks anyone to disprove when there is no evidence.

So ignore both of those premises and assert based on no evidence whatsoever that no one can prove gods don't exist, ergo they deserve some special pleading because so many people believe.​

Or,

2) What conclusions can you draw about god beliefs based on the evidence we do have?


That is what I asked and that is where I stand. Gods are fiction. Got one shred of evidence they aren't?

I agree. The former, your #1, leads to hard atheism. The latter, your #2, leads to soft atheism.

If you can do what you've yourself suggested in your #1, then your hard atheism is reasonable. If you cannot, and yet hold on to hard atheism, then your hard atheism is not reasonable, not rational.

What you've suggested in your #2 is always reasonable. That is why I find soft atheism to be reasonable.

Incidentally:
(a) The fact that soft atheism is "soft" need not imply that it is half-hearted. Your realize that, right?
(b) "God" is a large word, it encompasses many individual God-ideas. I believe there are some God ideas that lend themselves to (reasonable) hard atheism, and some that don't.

 

[Chanakya]

Hi Chanakya

I have given it some thoughts. I don't believe that everything is subjective. Rather everything what ever it is, if it matters, is a case of subjectivity. I.e. if everything/the universe/reality matters, is a case of subjectivity.

Look at the concept of "necessary and sufficient". In broad terms science/philosophy/religion are all about what really matters and what is at a minimum necessary to explain reality, but maybe not sufficient. E.g. both gravity and subjectivity are necessary, but not sufficient.

Hello, Tommy.

You know, actually I do agree with you that everything is subjective. If you choose to reason it out that way.

We choose to believe that some of what we subjectively perceive is objectively true. We do this because that is the easiest and simplest explanation -- Occams's Razor and all that -- but that is not to say that that is necessarily the only possible scenario, the only possible explanation.

So I believe you are right, you know!

Except: In our day-to-day lives, as well as our day-to-day gassing-away-on-forums (that is, at all times when we don't want to amuse ourselves with solipsism), it makes sense to see some things as objective, and some as subjective.

That is what I'd meant when I'd said to David Mo that I don't think everything is subjective.




I do agree with you, in a sense. Except that since it applies to everything, it really isn't significant at all, unless one's discussion happens to specifically focus on that aspect. In all other cases that is irrelevant.

But absolutely, it is good to keep in mind, in the background as it were, your pet ideas about subjectivity. It helps keep in check our going overboard in the other direction!

At least that is how I see this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's textbook strawman.

I am not arguing that there is a god but questioning the science that "proves" there isn't. (hence the scare quotes).

How many times are you going to fight this strawman? Science does not seek to PROVE anything.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In that analogy, the universe is complete and we know all the parts of it (or I am arrogant enough to believe so).

A more accurate analogy might be that that what we don't have all of the pieces of the puzzle or that some of the pieces that we used in the puzzle don't even belong to the puzzle and need to be replaced (much like gravity was replaced by relativity). If somebody offers a new piece of the puzzle then we don't say it doesn't belong just because we can't see where it fits. It might be seen to fit if some of the other missing pieces were in place or it might even require a rearrangement of the puzzle thus creating a new picture before the piece can be made to fit. Even then, all we have is a new theory.

If you are going to add a new piece, you need a new piece. You don't have one. There is no god piece, that was Hawking's message.

You really are trying hard to keep the door open for a magical god.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are fiction.

More than a few of us simply aren't buying the assertion we have to prove there are no gods in order to conclude that all gods are fictional.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

Except: In our day-to-day lives, as well as our day-to-day gassing-away-on-forums (that is, at all times when we don't want to amuse ourselves with solipsism), it makes sense to see some things as objective, and some as subjective.

That is what I'd meant when I'd said to David Mo that I don't think everything is subjective.

Solipsism and skepticism are not that same, but they sort of meet in "I know that I know nothing". The difference is to me, how I treat "I exist". I don't treat that differently than "reality exists". I don't know either, but I believe in both.

I do agree with you, in a sense. Except that since it applies to everything, it really isn't significant at all, unless one's discussion happens to specifically focus on that aspect. In all other cases that is irrelevant.
But absolutely, it is good to keep in mind, in the background as it were, your pet ideas about subjectivity. It helps keep in check our going overboard in the other direction!

At least that is how I see this.

The problem is that when we speak of a "we" that "we" is sometimes so broad that it includes all of humanity as a part of reality. And then we are back to everything.
Try something:
From here on out, always when on this forum, do this: Try to learn to spot when someone speaks for "we" as all of humanity as a part of reality or everything.
It happens a lot and makes sense. We are social animals after all, the problem is that all of reality/everything is not the same to everybody. That then becomes a problem if you claim an universal morality/ethics for all humans, "because I can decide what matters for all of us."
Try to learn to catch that one. It is very common. At least a significant amount of posters do that. They speak for everybody and everything.

Hell, I do sometimes, but I try to catch it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is the problem. Hawking prefaced his comment with "If you accept, as I do ....." which is just a statement of what he believes. However, because of his eminence as a scientist,

And that's bad because?

But this part, because of your frequent references to scientific proof, here I doubt you understand the definition of scientific fact:

many are sucked in to believing that he has stated a scientific fact.

Yes, it is a scientific fact all gods are fictional. And scientific facts, if you understand the definition are always functional facts not facts which can never be changed if new evidence surfaces.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry if I missed it.

The few posts that take issue with Hawking are buried beneath the many posts that scream "HALLELUJAH! Hawking proved there is no god!"

Nope.

 

[JoeMorgue]

When all this is said and done is it just going to be people complaining that arguably the smartest man of our time dared to make a statement about God without burying it under the approved mountain of groveling, milquetoast, apologetic language? That he dared said "God does not exist" (even though he didn't exactly) instead of the "more appropriate" way of "If it pleases everyone I would like to state that it is my person opinion that the best way for me to view the world is for me personally to hold the opinion that I personally do not consider God to be something that exists in my world view grovel grovel grovel apologetics apologetics apologetics..."

 

[psionl0]

I thought you wanted to discuss what Hawking was talking about? How can we do that unless we talk about what he was saying?

I can't imagine why you so desperately cling to your strawman. Hawking ruled out ALL gods and I am merely saying that his reasoning is not scientific and I am not trying to hide behind some ambiguous definition of a god.

If it makes you happy then insert the god of your choice and imagine that this is the god we are discussing.

 

[Steve]

Hawking is (was ) correct.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

Yes, it is a scientific fact all gods are fictional. And scientific facts, if you understand the definition are always functional facts not facts which can never be changed if new evidence surfaces.

Not all facts are scientific facts.
It is not a scientific fact that I like philosophy. It can be explained using science, but that I like philosophy is not in itself a scientific fact.

And though all gods so far are fictional, it is also a scientific fact that some humans believe in gods.
So you can't use science to show that is "wrong/bad/whatever", because that is "wrong/bad/whatever" is not a scientific fact. It is not objective as required by science, because it depends on you subjectively thinking it is "wrong/bad/whatever".
Now it is a fact that you can think that and a fact that I don't think that; i.e. it is "wrong/bad/whatever" to believe in gods.