Hawking says there are no gods

[epeeist]

So some aspects of religion may become understandable at some point in the future, when modern man develops an understanding on a par with that of Stone Age peasants thousands of years ago? Yes got it.

Quite the contrary, modern human understanding is continuously improving in many areas, including religion. There are of course unfortunate retrograde developments (or rather regressions) in religion, just as there are in science (e.g. with some people making what should be scientific determinations based on unscientific political and fiscal considerations).

While religion tends to be reactionary, slow to change, to me (in my belief system) new insights are available without changing the fundamental beliefs. Christians still assert the Apostle's Creed, study not only the Bible but historical theologians and derive value from such study.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's nothing about panspermia that requires multiple origin of live events on earth. It that way it's just the same as local abiogenesis.

Even assuming we're talking about life on earth originating from panspermia, it could be so rare that only one such event took place on earth (just like that could be the case with abiogenesis). It could also be that once the life which is ancestral to us took hold, its evolution led to adaptation to Earth's environment to such an extent that future potential panspermia simply could not take hold (just as could be true of abiogenesis that took place after the origin of life).

I find local abiogenesis to be more likely than panspermia, but there's nothing about the tree of life that rules panspermia out, or even distinguishes it from abiogenesis, and the idea itself is certainly a scientific idea, just one that hasn't (yet?) got real support. That's the way that all ideas start, and while most will turn out to be false, we have to actually do the work to find out which.

Oh yeah, that crap. I forgot some people use a different, useless definition for panspermia.


From Duckduckgo:

panspermia (păn-spûrˈmē-ə)►
n. The theory that microorganisms or biochemical compounds from outer space are responsible for originating life on Earth and possibly in other parts of the universe where suitable atmospheric conditions exist.

From Wiki:

Panspermia
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.

If one uses the first definition, why bother? Organic molecules are not replicating life forms. Organic molecules are not evidence of life throughout the Universe.

Panspermia refers to organisms, already considered living. It's stupid to talk about panspermia if all you mean are organic molecules from space. Changing the definition makes the word not a useful scientific term.

This crap came up before in another thread on panspermia. It's ignorant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hawking is wrong when he says; "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed...". I don't accept it. This is a highly metaphysical statement. Nobody can say if some scientific revolution will change the scientific paradigm in the future. In addition I don't think that current laws explain everything about all the Universe. In reality I think the concept of Universe is a metaphysical one. The current knowledge about the known universe would be more appropriated.

I think that God's hypothesis is superfluous but this statement has to be ground on different basis. That is to say, on another concept of science less dogmatic.

That highlighted sentence is a given. It doesn't need to be said.

Do you say it when you talk about evolution? "Nobody can say if some scientific revolution will change the scientific paradigm in the future."

About the Big Bang theory? "Nobody can say if some scientific revolution will change the scientific paradigm in the future."

About the existence of BigFoot or the Lochness monster? "Nobody can say if some scientific revolution will change the scientific paradigm in the future."


We don't use that caveat every time we repeat a well established scientific theory. Why the double standard of pointing it out when someone dares to say there are no gods?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I suggest you practice metacognition. Not that you need it to have a life, but that you need it if you want to say what reality really is.

I suggest you qualify that statement with, 'in your opinion'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You just let slip a fundamental misunderstanding. If this is what you based all your opinions on, then your opinions are groundless.

Hawking says the laws of nature are fixed. He DID NOT say that our understanding of those laws is correct, or that they are fixed. You have assumed the latter in your response, and you are flat out wrong.

That too. ^

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought it was on-topic, the point I was making was that science can't prove or disprove things outside of science, ...

Yes, that is on topic. Getting into the 'love isn't scientific' is off topic. That whole discussion of morality, love, beauty and so on not being scientific will lead nowhere except completely off the tracks.

That's a commonly repeated trope, IMO it serves as an excuse to let sleeping god beliefs lie. It's yesterday's non-overlapping magisteria POV. Faith and spirituality can be segregated from science so as to tell the god believer it's OK, you can just put that 'designer' question on the shelf while you are in the science room. It's Phil Plait's, don't be a dick. In other words hide you atheism lest you offend.

Here's an example:

Some Christians insist that we can find room for god beliefs and denial of evolution theory by declaring god was the designer.

The standard answer from science is, a designer is out of the range of science.

No, wrong. Intelligent Design depended on irreducible complexity. That is something science can investigate. Behe's IC hypothesis failed when the genetic path to the bacterial flagellum was found. There is no evidence of a designer.

I guess I'm a dick because I don't buy into the non-overlapping magisteria. I think it is hypocritical to single out things one doesn't want to challenge and pretend they are outside the physical universe.

 

[qayak]

Quite the contrary, modern human understanding is continuously improving in many areas, including religion.

Really? Can you give us some examples. It seems to me that religions just keep rotating through the same failed arguments over and over. An actual improvement would be to show some solid evidence that a god exists. But religions still argue about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

 

[Thor 2]

So some aspects of religion may become understandable at some point in the future, when modern man develops an understanding on a par with that of Stone Age peasants thousands of years ago? Yes got it.

Quite the contrary, modern human understanding is continuously improving in many areas, including religion. There are of course unfortunate retrograde developments (or rather regressions) in religion, just as there are in science (e.g. with some people making what should be scientific determinations based on unscientific political and fiscal considerations).

While religion tends to be reactionary, slow to change, to me (in my belief system) new insights are available without changing the fundamental beliefs. Christians still assert the Apostle's Creed, study not only the Bible but historical theologians and derive value from such study.

So with our improvement of "human understanding", we may look forward to a time in the future, when all the contradictions and apparent nonsense in Biblical scripture, falls into place and we will finally get to know God?

Pity about those "retrograde developments", (I guess you are referring to the past events such as witch burning and so on), and a pity that your God was incapable, (In spite of his all powerfulness.). to do something about it. Can't make an omelet .......

What regressions in science pray tell? Was there a time when some were forming theories without doing observation? But no, that can't be, because that is not the scientific method!

 

[epeeist]

So with our improvement of "human understanding", we may look forward to a time in the future, when all the contradictions and apparent nonsense in Biblical scripture, falls into place and we will finally get to know God?

Pity about those "retrograde developments", (I guess you are referring to the past events such as witch burning and so on), and a pity that your God was incapable, (In spite of his all powerfulness.). to do something about it. Can't make an omelet .......

What regressions in science pray tell? Was there a time when some were forming theories without doing observation? But no, that can't be, because that is not the scientific method!

I meant the general trend is to e.g. increased tolerance of those with dissimilar beliefs. Retrograde is e.g. countries still enforcing death penalty for blasphemy (or, still wrongly but less harshly, lesser penalties) as used to be more common. So I was referring more to moral development. But also theological understanding or scope of research.

Science, examples of bias spring to mind, either in research or publication bias.

Theodicy and why evil exists, is more OT to this thread, for me free will (which I...believe in?) explains a lot. Raymond Smullyan had an interesting and amusing take on it "Is God a Taoist".

 

[epeeist]

Really? Can you give us some examples. It seems to me that religions just keep rotating through the same failed arguments over and over. An actual improvement would be to show some solid evidence that a god exists. But religions still argue about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

I think you and I are thinking of different things. I was thinking e.g. recognizing that there are elements of truth in non-Christian religions etc. is a positive development, related also to moral development of improved tolerance. Recognizing that mental health affects moral culpability (and while not denying the possibility of possession, not leaping to assume such is the case). Suicides will sometimes/often have diminished moral culpability. Etc.

So if you were seeing improvements as, being more persuasive to atheists, not sure about that, I'm familiar only with anecdotes not social science (wait, is that a science? ) studies.

 

[epeeist]

Yes, that is on topic. Getting into the 'love isn't scientific' is off topic. That whole discussion of morality, love, beauty and so on not being scientific will lead nowhere except completely off the tracks.

That's a commonly repeated trope, IMO it serves as an excuse to let sleeping god beliefs lie. It's yesterday's non-overlapping magisteria POV. Faith and spirituality can be segregated from science so as to tell the god believer it's OK, you can just put that 'designer' question on the shelf while you are in the science room. It's Phil Plait's, don't be a dick. In other words hide you atheism lest you offend.

Here's an example:

Some Christians insist that we can find room for god beliefs and denial of evolution theory by declaring god was the designer.

The standard answer from science is, a designer is out of the range of science.

No, wrong. Intelligent Design depended on irreducible complexity. That is something science can investigate. Behe's IC hypothesis failed when the genetic path to the bacterial flagellum was found. There is no evidence of a designer.

I guess I'm a dick because I don't buy into the non-overlapping magisteria. I think it is hypocritical to single out things one doesn't want to challenge and pretend they are outside the physical universe.

Maybe another example would be easier to discuss?

Since I believe the theory of Darwinian evolution is generally the best scientific model of how life works, it's kind of hard for me to argue against it nor have I read much about intelligent design arguments. I say generally the best only because I thought that there was some conjecture that in limited circumstances with e.g. some worms there is an argument for limited Lamarckian evolution?

I've heard the hide one's atheism argument, though I don't think people should have to hide their religious beliefs, whether they be theist or atheist (they may have to, given where they live, but that's not desirable). But what people say or do about it situationally may be dickish.

Re Hawking, and this was discussed earlier, my original thought was that in some ways having a strongly religious service for an atheist who was public about their atheism was kind of dickish. However, if that was the choice of surviving family, okay. Or if a mark of respect not ignoring his beliefs, or if those who knew him thought he wouldn't mind (e.g. because of his sense of humour... ).

 

[Thor 2]

I meant the general trend is to e.g. increased tolerance of those with dissimilar beliefs. Retrograde is e.g. countries still enforcing death penalty for blasphemy (or, still wrongly but less harshly, lesser penalties) as used to be more common. So I was referring more to moral development. But also theological understanding or scope of research.

Moral development now. So we are developing into a morally superior species than the one God breathed life into? Made in his own image no less.

Science, examples of bias spring to mind, either in research or publication bias.

This is not a regression in science. It is an illustration of how some ignore the scientific method, in order to promote there own agenda. The various examples of the religious, using pseudo science to re-enforce belief in Biblical events, comes to mind.

Theodicy and why evil exists, is more OT to this thread, for me free will (which I...believe in?) explains a lot. Raymond Smullyan had an interesting and amusing take on it "Is God a Taoist".

That free will thing, is the one Abrahamic God believers always fall back on, to explain why Adam and Eve, although created perfect, sinned. The obvious answer to this is, why was there free will decision wanting, if they had perfect reasoning ability? Never did get a reasonable answer to this one.

Oh hang on! ..... You believe we are morally developing still. Could it be that in some time in the future we will be morally developed to a stage that we don't need the "Jesus died on a cross for our sins" for heavenly admission?

Can you see how you tie yourself in knots trying to apply reason to religious belief?

 

[psionl0]

I don't understand either of these posts.

Maybe you don't understand the scientific method but mere assertion doesn't cut it - no matter how logical the assertion may appear to be.

Regarding the puzzle analogy, you originally argued that our knowledge of the universe was complete and that there was no room for a "god piece". You suddenly switched to "our knowledge of the universe is incomplete but there is no 'god piece' so there!"

 

[GDon]

That's a commonly repeated trope, IMO it serves as an excuse to let sleeping god beliefs lie. It's yesterday's non-overlapping magisteria POV. Faith and spirituality can be segregated from science so as to tell the god believer it's OK, you can just put that 'designer' question on the shelf while you are in the science room.

If you are talking about Gould's NOMA, then that misunderstands what Gould meant. It's not "science cannot criticize religion", as many people seem to think. Here is the example that Gould gives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures": "Do humans look so much like apes because we share a recent common ancestor or because creation followed a linear order, with apes representing the step just below us?" represents an inquiry concerning fact, while "Under what conditions (if ever) do we have a right to drive other species to extinction by elimination of their habitats? Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values.​

Questions about the origin of the universe fall under the science umbrella, regardless of whether they are made by religious figures.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe you don't understand the scientific method but mere assertion doesn't cut it - no matter how logical the assertion may appear to be.

I only have a masters in a science field and practice evidence based medicine. But go ahead with this kind of tripe if it makes you feel better.

Regarding the puzzle analogy, you originally argued that our knowledge of the universe was complete and that there was no room for a "god piece". You suddenly switched to "our knowledge of the universe is incomplete but there is no 'god piece' so there!"

You need to go re-read my posts. They are passing over your head. There's no way in hell I said our knowledge of the Universe was complete. Start there.

If you quit adding absolute superlatives where they don't exist, you might do better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you are talking about Gould's NOMA, then that misunderstands what Gould meant. It's not "science cannot criticize religion", as many people seem to think. Here is the example that Gould gives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures": "Do humans look so much like apes because we share a recent common ancestor or because creation followed a linear order, with apes representing the step just below us?" represents an inquiry concerning fact, while "Under what conditions (if ever) do we have a right to drive other species to extinction by elimination of their habitats? Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values.​

Questions about the origin of the universe fall under the science umbrella, regardless of whether they are made by religious figures.

I know what Gould said, wrote and meant.

Your diversion doesn't change the facts, there is no 'other' reality that involves gods.

 

[psionl0]

I only have a masters in a science field and practice evidence based medicine. But go ahead with this kind of tripe if it makes you feel better.

What does that prove? Even if you are a bigger nerd than I am that would have nothing to do with scientific truths or proofs.

 

[qayak]

I think you and I are thinking of different things. I was thinking e.g. recognizing that there are elements of truth in non-Christian religions etc. is a positive development, related also to moral development of improved tolerance. Recognizing that mental health affects moral culpability (and while not denying the possibility of possession, not leaping to assume such is the case). Suicides will sometimes/often have diminished moral culpability. Etc.

That's all been done down through history, it is nothing new. You see it as improvement because it is something new to you. You think that there has been this steady progression of improved tolerance but that is just wrong. If you go back to the early 20th century Western societies were far more tolerant of things like homosexuality than they were in the 1990s and 2000s.
It isn't a progression, there is a lot of regression. You see religion becoming more tolerant currently because half a century, or more, ago they became extremely intolerant.

At this point religion in the West, especially Christianity, is progressing because it has to or it will die out. More people are refusing to tolerate the immoral acts by religions and their leaders that used to have a blind eye turned.

So if you were seeing improvements as, being more persuasive to atheists, not sure about that, I'm familiar only with anecdotes not social science (wait, is that a science? ) studies.

No, I was seeing improvements as being religions actually leading on moral issues instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age.

 

[Jodie]

So with our improvement of "human understanding", we may look forward to a time in the future, when all the contradictions and apparent nonsense in Biblical scripture, falls into place and we will finally get to know God?

Pity about those "retrograde developments", (I guess you are referring to the past events such as witch burning and so on), and a pity that your God was incapable, (In spite of his all powerfulness.). to do something about it. Can't make an omelet .......

What regressions in science pray tell? Was there a time when some were forming theories without doing observation? But no, that can't be, because that is not the scientific method!

My take on it is that we will evolve towards a more cohesive understanding of what it means to be human and perhaps have better insight into our motivations and compassion for each other. Now whether that happens as a matter of faith or science ( a natural evolutionary change) that affects human consciousness remains to be seen. If I had to guess, probably both will have a synergistic effect on human consciousness for the better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does that prove? Even if you are a bigger nerd than I am that would have nothing to do with scientific truths or proofs.

You have yet to address your mistaken version that science seeks proofs and now here you've said it again: "scientific ... proofs".

Name one.

If you can't then stop insulting me.