Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

They have to do the philosophy first to figure out how to test it. But, yes.

I was really just chiming in on Phlegm's observation about:



I think that's largely correct.

Yes, largely. That is the point, science is great, but not everything.

 

[qayak]

That depends on how you combine science, philosophy and morality???

What does god have to do with morality? I would say science has a far better grasp of morality than any religion.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What does god have to do with morality? I would say science has a far better grasp of morality than any religion.

From the OP: "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

How you answer that question is not a question for science. That is depending how you slice politics, morality, sociology/psychology and what not.

Science can't do morality. Morality is not observer independent, science can describe it, but not do it.

 

[Phlegm]

No, I don't agree. Science is all based on methodology and evidence. Sciences start as sciences now. Science itself started as a philosophy.

Sorry, I don't understand the distinction. The methodology was born out of philosophy.

 

[Phlegm]

I'm sorta of with Belz on this one. It's the "You know what you call alternative medicine that actually works? Medicine." thing just broadened.

In a broad sense, yes.

In fact that's my new rule of thumb. Philosophy is just "Alternative Science." And you know what we call Alternative Sciences that actually works? Science.

Personally, I wouldn't label much of what fits under the broad umbrella of philosophy as alternative science. It doesn't follow all the same rules.

Chemistry replaced alchemy. Astronomy replaced astrology.

Yes

And science, real science not "Nothing but beakers and labcoats!" science, replaced philosophy as the term is usually used here.

Parts of it, yes. There is not a whole lot left in philosophy that hasn't moved over to the sciences. Most of what is left is really just an approach to knowledge and how to live.

 

[Phlegm]

Well, yes and no. Because how that plays on in the end depends on how you slice this: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras
Measure involves how you view:

• Empirical
• Rational
• Moral

And how much you rely on meta-cognition: i.e. the ability to check your own thinking.
Now the combination of this can't become science in the strong sense, because it is never fully observer independent.
Take Sam Harris and harm. What is harm depends on how we agree on that as opposed to say e.g. gravity. Harm is not observer independent, gravity is. And it always end in the 4Fs in biology and that there is no united we in the human species.
If you say around long enough, you will notice this.
We are always in part debating what science actually is and we can't agree on that, we can't agree if there is knowledge outside of science, what philosophy is and if we can do it only based on a combination of science, reason and logic.
If you are familiar with philosophical notion, it is always:
Is it Science or science?
Is it Reason and Logic or reason and logic?
What about being Right, Faith and Emotions or beliefs in humans and respect of differences?

As for the subconscious, yes, it is there, but you can deal with it differently. It can mostly control you or it can become a part of you.

Just in this thread we have debated free will and if there are limits to knowledge and what unknowable and non-existence is.

So no, it is never just if science got it right as per methodological naturalism. It is also, is the more than science and is there a limit to science?

While you concentrate on 'measure' I think you leave out the other side of the equation? Or in Heideggerian terms -- what is dasien? Our beings interact with the world, but we do not begin in measuring. That is just one thing we do. So, there is something necessarily more primary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No he didn't. He just formulated a bunch of "I think"s and merely implied that our current level of scientific knowledge was sufficient to rule out all gods.

Trying to kill the messenger doesn't change the message.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
We have some very weak evidence that I think suggests that we aren't unique, but any conclusion in that direction should be extremely tentative. We really just don't know.

What's weak about finding all the elements to create life in multiple places in the solar system plus the enormous number of possible places life could emerge?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have not understand the first paragraph. Can you explain it otherwise? Thank you.

You said, "What explain belief in gods is a different question of the truth of these beliefs."

Are you claiming real gods explains god beliefs? Despite the fact none have ever been found?

“Why do Christians think that X?” is a double question.
What are the psychological/sociological causes to believe in X.
What are the evidence of X.
First answer: Because he was educated in a Christian family.
Second answer: Because miracles show that God exists.
I hope you see the difference. I am concerned in the second question. Not the first.

I am not searching to vote anything. I only say that if an issue is archaeological we can find it in archaeological editions. Two very different subjects again.

I see the difference but it doesn't change the facts. Said miracles are fictional. Said imaginary gods are fictional.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hope it is OK if I interject.

Correct, the evidence is overwhelming that all gods are fiction. The conclusion that no god exists is not absolute, however, because there is no way to prove absolutely that no god exists -- it's just the way that syllogistic deductive logic works. That type of thinking depends on a priori info/definitions of words and cannot really provide new information in the world -- the Socrates is mortal type of argument.

I know this argument and I reject it. One has to shift paradigms to recognize there is no need to prove the negative because gods are clearly fictional things.

There is no more reason one has to prove there are no gods to be certain anymore than one needs to prove there are no invisible dragons to be certain.

I don't see any problem saying that gods are off the table. It requires a slight leap -- from the overwhelming evidence demonstrating it -- to that's the way the world is. It's not much of a leap, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Very similar to "the sky is blue" type of leap. I look up, I see it, the sky looks blue. 'Nuff said.

Blah blah blah.. You do realize, I hope, that this is nothing new to me.

[snipped more of the same]

As for the evidence issue -- evidence is a function word. By that I mean that calling something evidence means that someone wants to use a fact about the world to support or deny some proposition. That something can be used as evidence does not mean that it will or even can prove the proposition, only that it can be used to support a proposition from some point of view.

So, a person having a revelatory experience is a fact about the world. [snip]

Get to the point. Are you calling the interpretation of the 'feeling' evidence? Because it is not.

ETA: Let me add, however, to the discussion about 'proof' that in the general way of using the word, the demonstration that all gods are human inventions is proof enough for me.

Unfortunately a good bit of philosophical discussion is about splitting hairs. Or hares, much more gruesome.

I'm strictly on the science side in my posts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the quest to create/understand strong AI, the cognitive neuroscientists are co-writing papers with "philosophy of mind" philosophy professors.

So, I dunno...

As soon as they figure out the biology of conscious thought, they will quit floundering in their efforts to describe AI.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As per the OP: ""If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?""
That depends on how you combine science, philosophy and morality???

In the end it is politics and not science.

That, IMO, is a mis-interpretation of "what role is there for God". He's talking about there being no gaps left. Scientists have not found any inexplicable magical component in the process.

He's not talking about god(s) having some spiritual role.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does god have to do with morality? I would say science has a far better grasp of morality than any religion.

I agree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the OP: "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

How you answer that question is not a question for science. That is depending how you slice politics, morality, sociology/psychology and what not.

Science can't do morality. Morality is not observer independent, science can describe it, but not do it.

See my post, 2 posts up.

Morality is biology based. Science can do more than describe it.

 

[psionl0]

Trying to kill the messenger doesn't change the message.

My post was exclusively about the message.

 

[Phlegm]

I know this argument and I reject it. One has to shift paradigms to recognize there is no need to prove the negative because gods are clearly fictional things.

Paradigm shift refers to modelling of worldviews -- all within inductive reasoning. It has nothing whatever to do with deductive reasoning involving a priori truths.

There is no more reason one has to prove there are no gods to be certain anymore than one needs to prove there are no invisible dragons to be certain. [/QUOTE}

That is demonstrably false. The invisible dragon is defined to be non-existent, so nothing need be done to demonstrate its non-existence. Much work went into demonstrating the fictional nature of gods.

Blah blah blah.. You do realize, I hope, that this is nothing new to me.

[snipped more of the same]

Get to the point.

There is no reason to be condescending.

Are you calling the interpretation of the 'feeling' evidence? Because it is not.

It is from the point of view of the theist because they are using the feeling as evidence in their argument. You don't consider it worthy of being used as evidence. But evidence is a function word, it isn't a thing in itself. It refers to how facts are used.

I'm suggesting a way to avoid getting into arguments about using this word. You can accept or not accept it.

 

[Roboramma]

As kellyb and I have already explained repeatedly, when I say "undetectable" I mean undetectable even in theory. In your example of light cones, it would theoretically be possible for me to detect things in your light cone if I changed position, for example.

You have explained your position, but it's false. You (and Darat) are right that my example was flawed, but I posted in response to Darat a better example which uses the expansion of the universe, did you see that post?

To restate it: there is a region to which it is in principle possible for me to travel but which is it in principle impossible for you to interact with at all, and if I were to travel there I could never get any information back to you about it, because I would have passed beyond your horizon.

Another example of something that exists but is undetectable: if many worlds is correct the other branches of the wave function exist, but can never interact with each other after decoherence. It's a valid question whether or not Many Worlds is the best interpretation of QM, but you can't discard it because it includes things that are undetectable yet exist.

 

[Roboramma]

What's weak about finding all the elements to create life in multiple places in the solar system plus the enormous number of possible places life could emerge?

It tells us nothing about how likely it is for life to emerge given the presence of those ingredients.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My post was exclusively about the message.

So how do the qualifications of a well known astrophysicist matter? What matters is does his statement hold up to scrutiny. And it does. And other than discrediting Hawking, you've not presented a credible argument that is does not.

 

[kellyb]

To restate it: there is a region to which it is in principle possible for me to travel but which is it in principle impossible for you to interact with at all, and if I were to travel there I could never get any information back to you about it, because I would have passed beyond your horizon.

Couldn't transmit info even via quantum entanglement? Or a series of relay stations in between?

Another example of something that exists but is undetectable: if many worlds is correct the other branches of the wave function exist, but can never interact with each other after decoherence. It's a valid question whether or not Many Worlds is the best interpretation of QM, but you can't discard it because it includes things that are undetectable yet exist.

I'd just say Many Worlds is an exception to the rule, and kind of doesn't count since it's not even in this universe.