Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I would be more impressed if you were to address the questions I raised rather than just commenting that I have an "incorrect understanding of Catholicism". I would have thought Catholic Answers would be the ultimate final word, for explanations about Catholic belief and the contributors of these answers, would be the crème de la crème of Catholic theologians.

Do you allow yourself the luxury of trying to figure out answers yourself, to the tricky conundrums such as those I have detailed? Accepting that evolution is fact, (and in your belief the way God made life including us), when and who got the first souls? I assume you think we, humans, are the only ones who possess souls.

Thor 2, you can't have it both ways, you can't demand a coherent, reflected reading like yours of people, who are deluded and then hold it against them that they are deluded. Let them be and try to find common ground. Stop evangelizing for the correct understanding of the Bible. There is no correct understanding. It is a matter of belief.

Instead identify those parts and religious teachings, which support your ethics. They are there because you can find religious people, who are secular, humanistic, for democracy, human rights and all the rest. That which you believe in, right? Join them and fight along with them against all, who are a danger to you both regardless of whether they are religious or not.
The threat is all authoritarian worldviews and not just religious ones and all religions are not authoritarian.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Thor 2, btw:
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sources

...Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;...

They are one of the end positions of secular, humanistic religions and they include Christian teaching, but not just.

They started out as Christians and are now so general that certain types of atheists could join and properly have.
If I had such a church in my neighborhood I could join. We might no share all views, but we would share these:

1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

And these I can get a positive meaning out of even as I most rely on science:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

 

[GDon]

Thanks for the penetrating insightful analysis into my psyche. At least I am glad to hear you think my heart's in the right place.

You're welcome. If only you thought with your heart!

I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so? Where else do Catholics and other Christians get their directions? Oh I know there are the writings of various saints etc, but they in turn refer to the Bible do they not?

Not necessarily. According to Catholic theology, there are several sources of revelation: Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (via the apostles and their successors), and the Sacred Magisterium (Teaching Authority).

Most denominations have such traditions, to cover situations that have developed in the last thousand years that are not covered by the Bible. They are like Amendments to the US Constitution. You can't understand the use of the Constitution in modern times without understanding the Amendments.

 

[dann]

Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?

Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.

No, a decision, a thought and an opinion obviously aren't physical things. They can even be put down on paper or digitalized to be read on a screen, i.e. what you're doing now. That "actual chemical and electrical states of the brain" give rise to the ability to think doesn't mean that it causes your thoughts. (What would be the point of arguing if it did?) It may all rest on the synapses, but you, i.e. your mind, consider ideas, draw conclusions etc. The brain evolved to think, and that's what you do with it. Free will is "part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain."

 

[GDon]

The brain evolved to think, and that's what you do with it. Free will is "part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain."

That's the key question. Some of the posts here aren't that free-will conflicts with determinism, but free-will can't exist at all regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not.

But if free-will does exist, there is no reason that it can't be a result of a functioning human brain -- at least, as far as I know. There is no need to include a non-natural element to make free-will work. There are some atheist philosophers that are compatibilists, like Dan Dennett, who believe that free-will decisions can be made in a 'natural' universe.

If free-will is considered as part of the natural functioning of the human brain, then it doesn't matter whether the universe is deterministic or not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."

Effects need causes. That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."

Effects need causes. That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.

I do give a rat's anus about this:

Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in credibility as the sharp logical dichotomy between facts and values has been increasingly questioned. Instead of a dichotomy, many now argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them. Moreover, these components themselves may not be seen as radically different; they may, for instance, simply reflect the degree to which a judgment is controversial within a particular community, with what we call factual judgments being the least disputed. From this point of view, cognitive relativism is broader and more fundamental than moral relativism, for it asserts that the truth value of all judgments, not just moral ones, is relative.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
So it is physical in your brain, that you don't give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
And it is physical in my brain, that I do give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
Both are value judgments and neither you nor I can with strict reason, logic and evidence show that either position is with only strict reason, logic and evidence, because both are relative value judgments.
I am not right and you are not wrong or in reverse. We are different and as a libertarian you should know this. Neither of us hold authority over the other.
I am a libertarian in the sense that the only one who holds authority over your life is you. The same goes for all other individuals. How we treat each other has nothing to do with authority, it has to do with how we use power or not. If we fight or cooperate.

 

[Thor 2]

I do give a rat's anus about this:

Gradually, however, cognitive relativism has gained in.........

Lots of words. Somewhat unpalatable but might benefit if we drizzle some lemon juice over it.

......... not just moral ones, is relative.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/
So it is physical in your brain, that you don't give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
And it is physical in my brain, that I do give a rat's anus about this piece of philosophy.
Both are value judgments and neither you nor I can with strict reason, logic and evidence show that either position is with only strict reason, logic and evidence, because both are relative value judgments.
I am not right and you are not wrong or in reverse. We are different and as a libertarian you should know this. Neither of us hold authority over the other.
I am a libertarian in the sense that the only one who holds authority over your life is you. The same goes for all other individuals. How we treat each other has nothing to do with authority, it has to do with how we use power or not. If we fight or cooperate.

Can't see how you have answered Joe's statement here however.

 

[Thor 2]

You're welcome. If only you thought with your heart!

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. After saying in a previous post that "my heart was in the right place", you now suggest the above?

Not necessarily. According to Catholic theology, there are several sources of revelation: Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (via the apostles and their successors), and the Sacred Magisterium (Teaching Authority).

Most denominations have such traditions, to cover situations that have developed in the last thousand years that are not covered by the Bible. They are like Amendments to the US Constitution. You can't understand the use of the Constitution in modern times without understanding the Amendments.

Thanks for the lesson but I did have an inkling about the Catholic Churches gyrations in coming to its decisions about the myriad of different issues it concerns itself with. Rhythm method good / condoms bad, Pope is infallible / Pope screws up if he says stuff when not in that special chair, the consecrated Host is actually the body of Christ / still taste like a cracker and sticks to the roof of your mouth, and so on.

My issue with all this, is that the truth is being constantly amended, so modern man has a better take on it than not so modern man? If the original word of God himself was not sufficient, (or perhaps a little wrong in places), how can this be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First just to address this:


I'm happy to do so and I think you're right that it's not worth going further down this derail, but I'd like to clarify my position first because I think you misunderstood me slightly.

I think everything I said can apply to whole organisms. The point was simply that it may be an incredibly rare event, for instance it could have only happened once that an organism of extraterrestrial origin arrived on earth and survived (and reproduced) here long enough for it's ancestors to take hold. In that case all life on earth would be the descendants of that organism (or perhaps small population of organisms).

Under this idea, either no other events (organisms arriving from space) took place or if other events took place none of them took hold (ie. left descendants).

I basically agree.

Yes, but that is consistent with it's simply being very rare.

On the other hand and to be fair I do find the idea very improbable. Bacteria surviving for years in space is very different from the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that would be necessary for panspermia to work.

Just thought it worth pointing out that it wasn't with me, though I think I did see one of those threads that you participated in, I never joined the discussion.

So you change the definition of panspermia to life was seeded here once. That is just as meaningless as saying panspermia refers to organic molecules.

 

[GDon]

I don't give a rat's anus about "This philosophy says this" or "This philosophical term says that."

We will see.

Effects need causes.

Ummm....

That's how reality works. The 3 lbs of grey matter inside your skull is not some special magical place where that isn't true. Period. End of discussion.

When you are thinking something or feeling something or remembering something that's because that 3 lbs of grey matter is in a certain physical state, a specific combination of millions of different chemical and electrical variables and that specific state has cause, just like every other specific state in the universe.

You have to admit, we have the appearance of making free-will decision. There is at least that. So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions? Please don't use philosophy in your response.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I assumed you were speaking in the same context in which I myself made my original comment. Else it is just a random thing to say, isn't it?

So your failure to communicate is my fault?

...

I don't know, exactly. But in as much as that POV describes a rationale for his atheism, well, that's an argument for 'soft' atheism.

Still, to decide basis this kind of arguably objective (lack of) evidence that there (definitely) cannot be a God, that remains a purely subjective decision. It does not objectively make sense. But subjectively, that is, from an individual's personal perspective, it can be perfectly reasonable.

Are you having trouble with the concept here?

The evidence is overwhelming all gods are mythical beings.

There is no evidence of any real gods.

End of inquiry.

IOW, there is no evidence of, therefore there is no reason to ask if there are any gods.

 

[GDon]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. After saying in a previous post that "my heart was in the right place", you now suggest the above?

An attempt at humour. I was saying that your heart is in the right place (where the heart should be), but not your brain; i.e. your brain isn't being used properly. Apologies. Humour doesn't come across well when it has to be explained. Probably more a reflection on me than you. Probably.

Thanks for the lesson but I did have an inkling about the Catholic Churches gyrations in coming to its decisions about the myriad of different issues it concerns itself with. Rhythm method good / condoms bad, Pope is infallible / Pope screws up if he says stuff when not in that special chair, the consecrated Host is actually the body of Christ / still taste like a cracker and sticks to the roof of your mouth, and so on.

Oh c'mon. The quote of yours I was responding to was:

"I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so?"

Why ask that if you already knew what you mention above?

My issue with all this, is that the truth is being constantly amended, so modern man has a better take on it than not so modern man? If the original word of God himself was not sufficient, (or perhaps a little wrong in places), how can this be?

Those goal posts can't move themselves!

Surely the idea of on-going revelation, where the church (or whoever) is the source of the on-going revelation, is not a mystery to you either? Which means that the original word of God is NOT enough. But only fundamentalists, theists or atheists, would find this a problem.

Epeeist, I hope you can see now that you are dealing with an atheist Bible fanatic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You have to admit, we have the appearance of making free-will decision. There is at least that. So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions? Please don't use philosophy in your response.

Listen Sport I know that every Navel Gazer ever born thinks they are the first person to ever use the "Everything is philosophy, therefore what you are doing is philosophy, ergo you can't argue against anything I'm doing as long as I'm calling it philosophy" nonsense and that it's some ultimate mic-drop argument ender.

But they aren't and it isn't.

Yes we have the "appearance" of having Free Will. Your point? That doesn't mean magic makes stuff happen without causes.

 

[GDon]

Listen Sport I know that every Navel Gazer ever born thinks they are the first person to ever use the "Everything is philosophy, therefore what you are doing is philosophy, ergo you can't argue against anything I'm doing as long as I'm calling it philosophy" nonsense and that it's some ultimate mic-drop argument ender.

But they aren't and it isn't.

Conversely, there are those who think that they are "doing science" when really they are discussing the philosophy of science.

From the Philosophy of Science article on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Other issues in philosophy of psychology are philosophical questions about the nature of mind, brain, and cognition, and are perhaps more commonly thought of as part of cognitive science, or philosophy of mind. For example, are humans rational creatures?[93] Is there any sense in which they have free will, and how does that relate to the experience of making choices?​

Yes we have the "appearance" of having Free Will. Your point? That doesn't mean magic makes stuff happen without causes.

Appearances can be deceptive of course. But if we have the appearance of having Free-will, does that mean we have the appearance of magic making stuff happen without causes? In your mind, does the appearance of Free-will have the appearance of magic?

 

[Thor 2]

An attempt at humour. I was saying that your heart is in the right place (where the heart should be), but not your brain; i.e. your brain isn't being used properly. Apologies. Humour doesn't come across well when it has to be explained. Probably more a reflection on me than you. Probably.

Brain not being used properly ...... hummmmm. I will reflect on that with my ineffectively used brain, but seeing I am not using it properly, I suppose my chances of success are limited.

Oh c'mon. The quote of yours I was responding to was:

"I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so?"

Why ask that if you already knew what you mention above?

The point I am making, and have been quite consistent in making through many posts, is the inconsistency and piecemeal nature of religious belief like Catholicism.

The Bible is what Catholics start with, but then you have a plethora of later dudes, explaining and massaging the obscure message contained therein, to suit their own agendas. We have concepts like Limbo and Purgatory for example emerging over time, to try and allay the fears of bereaved parents in the first case, and provide a great money spinner for the Church in the other. I know Limbo is no more as the Catholics sold it.

Those goal posts can't move themselves!

Surely the idea of on-going revelation, where the church (or whoever) is the source of the on-going revelation, is not a mystery to you either? Which means that the original word of God is NOT enough. But only fundamentalists, theists or atheists, would find this a problem.

Sure it's a mystery to me that folk can be cool with this idea. The Bible is supposed to be "the word of God" through his prophets, (and in some parts directly), why can't it be written in a way that is easily understood by all?

Is it not obvious to you that if the more recent and "correct" interpretations, (as well as the inspired input of apostles successors), are available to modern man, but were not available to not so modern man, then the advantage is ours and the forefathers screwed.

Epeeist, I hope you can see now that you are dealing with an atheist Bible fanatic.

"Atheist Bible fanatic" is it? Now that really adds some depth to the conversation.

 

[GDon]

The point I am making, and have been quite consistent in making through many posts, is the inconsistency and piecemeal nature of religious belief like Catholicism.

Grrrr! It's like fingers on a chalkboard. We've gone over this before. What you are doing is THEOLOGY. How do YOU know that God doesn't want to have on-going revelation? What you seem to be saying is that God -- which you don't believe in -- should behave in a certain way that He is not currently behaving in, or that Catholic belief isn't correct in expressing that God's wish. But how do you know? And how do you validate what is 'consistent' or not? What are you measuring against? Reality?

The Bible is what Catholics start with, but then you have a plethora of later dudes, explaining and massaging the obscure message contained therein, to suit their own agendas. We have concepts like Limbo and Purgatory for example emerging over time, to try and allay the fears of bereaved parents in the first case, and provide a great money spinner for the Church in the other. I know Limbo is no more as the Catholics sold it.

Okay. So what is the RIGHT view that Catholics should have, and how would you evaluate that? You are basically saying "on this topic God should not use on-going revelation."

THEOLOGY, THEOLOGY, THEOLOGY.

Sure it's a mystery to me that folk can be cool with this idea. The Bible is supposed to be "the word of God" through his prophets, (and in some parts directly), why can't it be written in a way that is easily understood by all?

THEOLOGY! "This is what God should do!"

Is it not obvious to you that if the more recent and "correct" interpretations, (as well as the inspired input of apostles successors), are available to modern man, but were not available to not so modern man, then the advantage is ours and the forefathers screwed.

THEOLOGY! "This is how God should judge!"

"Atheist Bible fanatic" is it? Now that really adds some depth to the conversation.

Let me add some depth. You are an Australian, in a country where few people, even Christian believers, care much about the Bible. That includes pre-atheist you (IIRC from our previous conversations.) You become an atheist (no problem with that), get on the internet, and then... hey, presto! You become obsessed with framing the Bible as the centre-piece of Christianity! I've come across others like you. The Internet has a weird proselyting effect on newly minted atheists.

Now, if you want to highlight two ideas within Catholicism and show that they are inconsistent and contradictory, then more power to you. No problem with that at all. But to ignore Catholic teachings, to say that their teachings are inconsistent with what a God (which you don't believe exists) should REALLY do is THEOLOGY.

If someone wants to do theology, that's great. If I have a common theological belief with someone, I'm happy to discuss it. But if you don't believe in God in the first place, it is pointless to do theology. Because there is no reference to validate against.

To get an idea of what I mean: explain to me how you would validate Catholic's belief in Limbo, such that you know it is the CORRECT belief? By 'correct', I mean 'conforming to what you think is true' or 'conforming to how God SHOULD be'. I will predict with 100% certainty that your answer will involve theology rather than science or logic.

 

[psionl0]

So why can't that grey matter create free-will decisions?

Because according to you, the universe is deterministic. This means that by definition, the "grey matter" only ever does what it was programmed to do by the universe (your attempts to obfuscate the definition of "deterministic" not withstanding).

The only only way that humans could have free will would be if God created them with free will and placed them in an otherwise deterministic universe. However, this act would mean that the universe is no longer deterministic.

 

[Jodie]

I hope that you're aware that a considerable (and rapidly expanding) part of "the human species" doesn't believe in anything divine (or "divine"). It doesn't seem to depend much on ethnicity. Country and culture do seem to play a role, however: Demographics of atheism (Wikipedia) And existential security seems to be very important for people's ability to let go of god beliefs.

Yet at one time both Russia and China had some type of belief system, well actually multiple types of belief systems because of the various cultures in those countries, prior to the establishment of communism. The world population is in the billions so 240 million atheists is not that impressive a number IMO. Plus, not all atheists started out as atheists.

You would have to ask a couple of other species to answer that question.

Yep, thought about that, if we ever learn to communicate with the greater apes and cetaceans I guess we can ask them.

 

[GDon]

Because according to you, the universe is deterministic. This means that by definition, the "grey matter" only ever does what it was programmed to do by the universe (your attempts to obfuscate the definition of "deterministic" not withstanding).

Why can't that programming include the ability to make free-will decisions? Do you think that we might be able to create AI with the ability to make free-will decisions?

The only only way that humans could have free will would be if God created them with free will and placed them in an otherwise deterministic universe. However, this act would mean that the universe is no longer deterministic.

I don't see the need to have God involved in the process, do you? Atheist compatibilists like Dan Dennett believe that some form of free-will can exist in a determinist universe. Why does God have to be involved?