Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thor 2 said:
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.



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.



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?
Click to expand...

Of course we're developing - don't you believe in evolution? :cool:

Original sin is referred to as a "blessed fault" in some contexts (thinking of a particular prayer sometime during the Easter Triduum, Holy Thursday through Easter) because it was because of original sin that Jesus became incarnate. Also, not necessary (from Catholic perspective) to believe there was an actual literal Adam and Eve, the central message is about humanity through its arrogance separating itself from God. But even if one believed in a literal Adam and Eve, as some/many do, humanity was created "good", not "perfect". Being created in the image and likeness of God has, as I've been taught, more to do with having the capacity to be in relationship with God in a way that other parts of creation like plants and animals can't be.

There are many things to criticize Catholics about, or Christians or many religious generally. But you seem to be confusing Catholics with Evangelicals (re creationism and pseudo-science etc.).
 
Steve said:
I think they are very likely fixed. We puny humans just do not know or understand them all yet. That we know what we do is really quite amazing.
Click to expand...
If the laws of nature are fixed (and assuming that the Hawking conclusion follows) then everything that happens in the universe, including individual thoughts and acts, is controlled by these laws.

That would mean that not only is there no room for a god, there is also no room for sentience, consciousness or free will.
 
Diablo said:
When I said they were fixed, I meant that the ones we have described and documented were fixed.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. But most of your post was about things that have not yet been adequately described and documented. (:) I think you meant NOT fixed).

I think they (the known laws) are fixed, with the caveat that I am not a physicist so my understanding is rather fuzzy, particularly with the math. I will concede that investigations into things such as dark energy may find things that could nullify one or more of the known laws. If so, that would be exciting for physics.
 
qayak said:
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.



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

I see improvement as morally, gradually, over time. Not to say there aren't periods of regression. So even if early 20th century was better than 1950s in some ways re tolerance, the overall trend has been upwards.

I agree it's good that less of a blind eye is turned. Unfortunately, a blind eye still is often turned, whether in religion, or politics, or business, to misdeeds.
 
psionl0 said:
If the laws of nature are fixed (and assuming that the Hawking conclusion follows) then everything that happens in the universe, including individual thoughts and acts, is controlled by these laws.

That would mean that not only is there no room for a god, there is also no room for sentience, consciousness or free will.
Click to expand...

Why would it mean that?
 
psionl0 said:
If the laws of nature are fixed (and assuming that the Hawking conclusion follows) then everything that happens in the universe, including individual thoughts and acts, is controlled by these laws.

That would mean that not only is there no room for a god, there is also no room for sentience, consciousness or free will.
Click to expand...
That is the same as saying we need magic to explain consciousness.

And these "laws" don't control anything, they are models in their own right or they describe parts of models that we can then test.
 
Chanakya said:
Ah yes, purgatory. Of course. Sure, that reconciles it, I agree, kind of -- within the paradigm of Catholicism, that is, and provided you buy into that worldview in the first place.

And as for this empty-hell business: I thought I knew a bit about Catholics and Catholicism, but I’d never heard of this empty-hell business, ever.

Thanks for spelling all of that out, epeeist.

Question: Would you say this view is at all mainstream? The empty hell thing, I mean? Like I said, I’ve never heard mention of it before this.
Click to expand...

Hell being empty, not mainstream. There not being many people in hell, more mainstream (referring to Catholics, based on what I've read and discussed, but there's a diversity of opinions and one item below mentions an Evangelical universalist).

I did a search for something relatively brief that discussed these themes, since my exposure to these principles has been more through discussions and talks. I think this item from a few years ago that starts with reviewing a book about someone who's with the hell is crowded group but disagrees, touches on universalism, Rahner's anonymous Christian, etc.

"...It seems to me that Pope Benedict's position -- affirming the reality of Hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there -- is the most tenable and actually the most evangelically promising."

https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/12/03/saving_the_hell_out_of_you.html

An earlier brief item referring to a different piece by the author of the above (but link in text is 404):

"...The question of whether or not hell is empty is an old, but it is getting new life because of a forthcoming book by an evangelical preacher who holds the universalist position. Father Robert Barron who teaches theology at Mundelein recaps the history of the debate and sides with the position of the great Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, namely, that we have reason to hope that hell is empty.
...
Of course we can't know if hell is empty, but in contemplating the power of the Cross, we must hope that it is so."

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/hell-empty


In addition to the notion of purgatory, some early theological Christian thought was also that damnation was not necessarily eternal (apocatastasis) though that's against Catholic teaching, there are some Christians who hold to that (and some novels that have used it as a theme).
 
Darat said:
Feedback systems.
Click to expand...
Feedback happens according to the same fixed laws of nature.

Darat said:
That is the same as saying we need magic to explain consciousness.
Click to expand...
I am saying quite the opposite. There is no consciousness. It is an illusion. We are programmed to believe that we are conscious by the laws of nature.

Darat said:
And these "laws" don't control anything, they are models in their own right or they describe parts of models that we can then test.
Click to expand...
Whether we know all of the laws of nature or not is beside the point. The premise is that all the laws of nature (whatever they are) are fixed.
 
Jodie said:
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.
Click to expand...


It would seem you have some other, (as yet undefined), theistic belief Jodie. I was however addressing my post to epeeist who is a Roman Catholic. Epeeist, although a well of knowledge about the faith, seems to be struggling to blend his theistic beliefs with concepts such as evolution.
 
psionl0 said:
What? Some things don't happen according to the laws of nature?
Click to expand...

Before I allow myself to be led any further down this path I am going to back up and provide the following from Britannica.com:

Laws of nature are of two basic forms: (1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and (2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well. In either case, a law may be valid even though it obtains only under special circumstances or as a convenient approximation. Moreover, a law of nature has no logical necessity; rather, it rests directly or indirectly upon the evidence of experience.

With that I will now state that I have been in error discussing *laws of nature*. My opinions are actually based on laws of science/physics as per the posted quote by Hawking. The laws that allow for variation within the limits that they state.
 
Thor 2 said:
It would seem you have some other, (as yet undefined), theistic belief Jodie. I was however addressing my post to epeeist who is a Roman Catholic. Epeeist, although a well of knowledge about the faith, seems to be struggling to blend his theistic beliefs with concepts such as evolution.
Click to expand...

:confused:

As I replied to another poster, I believe in evolution. I struggle with all sorts of things re faith and reason, but that's not one of them!

EDIT: on another note, re some of the recent discussion about free will and laws of nature, as has been discussed on this board in the past, are quantum phenomena with associated unpredictability and uncertainty and so on, an example of unpredictable behaviour but in accordance with know scientific principles and laws?
 
Last edited:
epeeist said:
Of course we're developing - don't you believe in evolution? :cool:

Original sin is referred to as a "blessed fault" in some contexts (thinking of a particular prayer sometime during the Easter Triduum, Holy Thursday through Easter) because it was because of original sin that Jesus became incarnate. Also, not necessary (from Catholic perspective) to believe there was an actual literal Adam and Eve, the central message is about humanity through its arrogance separating itself from God. But even if one believed in a literal Adam and Eve, as some/many do, humanity was created "good", not "perfect". Being created in the image and likeness of God has, as I've been taught, more to do with having the capacity to be in relationship with God in a way that other parts of creation like plants and animals can't be.

There are many things to criticize Catholics about, or Christians or many religious generally. But you seem to be confusing Catholics with Evangelicals (re creationism and pseudo-science etc.).
Click to expand...

What an odd question you start with. Of course I believe in evolution as the way life, including man, developed. I am an atheist and accept the overwhelming proof the scientific method has delivered, for our appraisal. It is only the religious who have trouble with science like this, as they desperately try to make it compatible with their dogma.

I see this struggle in your further explanation of the Adam and Eve "original sin" concept. So you don't believe in a literal, apple eating, version of this story I gather. Well there is little doubt that historical figures in Catholicism did from their writings. These are the ones that foundered and carried the "One True Church", (Acknowledgement to The Big Dog), forward to today. This is where the Roman Catholic Church came from!

The dilemma religions, such as yours, find themselves in is painful I'm sure.

No longer can we pretend we are the centre of creation as the scale of the universe impacts our understanding. What is the meaning of "being created in the image of God", (as I see you struggling with this above), when we evolved from a common source as other apes. How come there is so much imperfection about, (including in our own bodies), if your all powerful God had a hand in the making of all, regardless of the method used.

Why do you have the idea I am talking about evangelicals? The evangelical or fundie position is easier to defend as they just deny what science has given us.
 
psionl0 said:
You should have read the rest of the post that you quoted. It clarifies the term "scientifically proved" (it means proven using the scientific method).
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem using precise terminology?

You don't prove something using the scientific method. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom