Was Stephen Hawking a Theist?

[hammegk]

If one hears a joke but doesn't understand it, is it still a joke?

 

[uruk]

As defined by dictionary.com ...

pan·the·ism (p

n

th

-

z

m)
n.

1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.

pantheism

n 1: (rare) worship that admits or tolerates all gods 2: the doctrine or belief that God is the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the universe as a manifestation of God

Take a closer look and read their website.
This is an excerpt from the link you provided:

"Most people have a sense that there is something greater than the self or than the human race. The WPM's naturalistic reverence for nature can satisfy this need, without sacrificing logic or respect for evidence and science. As one member put it, it is spirituality without absurdity.

It does not require faith in miracles, invisible entities or supernatural powers.
It accepts and affirms life joyously. It does not regard this life as a waiting room or a staging post on the way to a better existence after death.

It has a healthy and positive attitude to sex and life in the body.
It teaches reverence and love and active concern for nature. Nature was not created for us to use or abuse - Nature created us, we are an inseparable part of her, and we have a duty of care towards her.

It enthusiastically embraces the picture of a vast, creative and often violent universe revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope. We need a spirituality in keeping with this new knowledge, not one that seeks to deny or explain away parts of it.

It does not simply co-exist uncomfortably with science: it fully embraces science as part of the human exploration of the awesome universe. However, this does not mean we believe that science can answer all questions, nor that we endorse all modern technologies regardless of their impact on nature."

Take particular notice of the passage I put into bold.

 

[Iacchus]

Take a closer look and read their website.
This is an excerpt from the link you provided:

Take particular notice of the passage I put into bold.

So what? They basically worship nature as their God. As a matter of fact, I have held a similar reverence towards nature myself, and found this as a means of getting in touch with God. How so? Because nature doesn't argue with you, the way that people do. So in that sense you can begin to develop a genuine appreciation of it for the way it is, without getting a bunch of other opinions involved. There's almost a sense of timelessness about the experience of nature.

 

[l0rca]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've got 20 minutes at the terminal, and nothing much else to do, so I'll try not to come off as a lazy dotard again (glad though, that the discussion brought some kind of discussion).

Since I can't send out hyperlinks yet; the text I'm talking about can be found on Hawking's home page, under a lecture/essay about intelligent life in the universe.

He gives us an early argument that according to an intelligent definition, what we define as "life" could be applied to computer viruses. I think we could take his thinking on this as an example that although Hawking may follow the definitions the rest of us use, I think he tends to strip off the connotation (for better, or worse, I think, depending on what word he's stripping of it).

Maybe he uses the word "God" as a term which contains the laws and actions of the universe, and he probably chooses to use that term both for its familiarity, its retaining mysteries, and how the universe, at least to us, can come off as being "designed". So, I think it's figurative.

I could be wrong, but chances are that anyone who uses the history of Hawking's use of the word "God" as a confirmation or argument on behalf of what they believe, is making a mistake.

 

[uruk]

So what? They basically worship nature as their God. As a matter of fact, I have held a similar reverence towards nature myself, and found this as a means of getting in touch with God. How so? Because nature doesn't argue with you, the way that people do. So in that sense you can begin to develop a genuine appreciation of it for the way it is, without getting a bunch of other opinions involved. There's almost a sense of timelessness about the experience of nature.

The difference is that they don't see nature as a supernatural, intelligent entity or anything that would resemble the traditional notion of an anthropomorphic god. Nor do they believe in a traditional after life. Nor do they pray to nature hoping it will curry some favor or aswage any misfortune.

Here is a quote from their Q&A concerning god:
http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/faqs.htm

Is pantheism just theism in disguise?

No. Theism means belief in a personal God who is greater and older than the universe. This God may or may not be present in the universe.

Pantheism says simply that the universe is worthy of the deepest reverence. This is a statement about the attitude we should adopt towards the universe and nature - an attitude which we have no choice but to adopt of we open our eyes to the full awe and mystery of reality.

The universe has some features in common with the God of traditional religions - its power, immensity, and mystery. But it is not personal. It has no mind apart from the minds of intelligent species within it. It is neither loving nor vengeful. It does not sit in judgement over us and mete out rewards and punishments in an afterlife.

Before we can really understand the "numinousness" of the cosmos, we must forget everything we have learned about traditional gods, and learn to look at what is in front of our eyes with an open mind.

 

[uruk]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've got 20 minutes at the terminal, and nothing much else to do, so I'll try not to come off as a lazy dotard again (glad though, that the discussion brought some kind of discussion).

Since I can't send out hyperlinks yet; the text I'm talking about can be found on Hawking's home page, under a lecture/essay about intelligent life in the universe.

He gives us an early argument that according to an intelligent definition, what we define as "life" could be applied to computer viruses. I think we could take his thinking on this as an example that although Hawking may follow the definitions the rest of us use, I think he tends to strip off the connotation (for better, or worse, I think, depending on what word he's stripping of it).

Maybe he uses the word "God" as a term which contains the laws and actions of the universe, and he probably chooses to use that term both for its familiarity, its retaining mysteries, and how the universe, at least to us, can come off as being "designed". So, I think it's figurative.

I could be wrong, but chances are that anyone who uses the history of Hawking's use of the word "God" as a confirmation or argument on behalf of what they believe, is making a mistake.

I think your right. I think he may be using a specific definition of god as meaning a creative force rather than the anthropomorphic interpretation.

Seeing as he can't talk for himself, he is forced to choose his statments as succintly as time permits and lets the listener infer what they will.

 

[Iacchus]

The difference is that they don't see nature as a supernatural, intelligent entity or anything that would resemble the traditional notion of an anthropomorphic god. Nor do they believe in a traditional after life. Nor do they pray to nature hoping it will curry some favor or aswage any misfortune.

Here is a quote from their Q&A concerning god:

It still smacks of religion. In fact, here is what Albert Einstein has to say on the matter ...

Albert Einstein

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

The World as I See It

Hey, it works for me. Oh, in case you missed it, it's right at the very top of their page.

 

[uruk]

It still smacks of religion. In fact, here is what Albert Einstein has to say on the matter ...

Hey, it works for me. Oh, in case you missed it, it's right at the very top of their page.

I believe they are indeed calling it a religion. Just not a religion in the traditional sense.
If you would read the site contents instead of cherry picking you would see that they do not believe in the supernatural or a god in the traditional anthropomorphic sense.
Read this excerpt from thier FAQ:

Why do pantheists believe in pantheism?
There are several compelling reasons.

1. Most traditional religions have elements which are hard to believe or to reconcile with common sense, evidence or modern science. Most pantheists are reared in another religion, and as they mature come to question what they have been taught. This leads many people to atheism or humanism.

2. Atheism and humanism don't suffer from the logical or empirical problems of traditional religions - but many people find them too cold and dry. They don't provide a sense of positive belonging to nature and the universe.

3. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky. Most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children.

Pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion: they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings. They are a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

Pantheism takes those feelings as its basic foundation.

If you read the quote from Einstein you will notice that it makes no refrence to god but rather a deep reverence for the universe and the laws which govern it.

But hey, if it makes you happy to ignore every word and meaning in their web site except those which you choose to interpret to your own fancy, then have fun and enjoy your fantasy.

 

[uruk]

here is another relavent quote from their FAQ section:

What is the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

Panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is in some sense numinous.

However, pan-en-theos means "all-in-God" - that is, the universe is contained within God, not God in the universe. Panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe. In other words, God is greater than the universe. Often they also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally.

Pantheists believe that the universe itself is the prime focus for reverence. They do not believe in personal or creator gods.

 

[Iacchus]

Pantheists believe that the universe itself is the prime focus for reverence. They do not believe in personal or creator gods.

Yes, this was my mistake, because I think I was confusing them with Deists who, basically hold the same beliefs, except that they "do" believe in a Creator ... albeit not on a "personal" level. So really, when you look at it, Pantheism (as described) is only one step removed from the belief in God. In fact, the statement Hawking made, sounds very much like something a Deist would say. And, where a Deist might believe in ID, a Pantheist may or may not.

 

[tdn]

So really, when you look at it, Pantheism (as described) is only one step removed from the belief in God.

So is atheism, for that matter.

Seems to me like Hawking is skirting the issue, and toying with us a bit as well.

 

[Iacchus]

So is atheism, for that matter.

However, I don't think Pantheists would choose to argue against God, in-as-much-as they would simply not choose to argue about it.

Seems to me like Hawking is skirting the issue, and toying with us a bit as well.

Or, at the very least (in my opinion), he hasn't discounted the possibility.

 

[tdn]

However, I don't think Pantheists would choose to argue against God, in-as-much-as they would simply not choose to argue about it.

Not all atheists argue the point. On this board, in this forum, you'll get a lot of vocal atheists, sure. But in my experience, most atheists in the real world rarely discuss it at all.

 

[Iacchus]

Not all atheists argue the point. On this board, in this forum, you'll get a lot of vocal atheists, sure. But in my experience, most atheists in the real world rarely discuss it at all.

Yes, but do they come together and form themselves as a group, called Pantheists? Usually when Atheists band themselves together (for example the Atheists in this forum), there's usually a good reason behind it.

 

[Beerina]

Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

Larry King Live, December 25, 1999

Originally Posted by KingMerv00 :
Assuming this quote is accurate, what the #%$@! does it even mean? Are the laws of nature intelligent or are they just there?

Actually, it sounds very much like something a Pantheist would say.

Chalk one up for Iacchus! It has nothing to do with believing in Odin and Thor and other gods for whom our days of the week are named.

See? That's what you get for assuming Iacchus is wrong and not clicking the link. You didn't buy your lottery ticket, and by god, this is the time your family's birthdays hit!

Granted, the site gets borderline wooish, with it's "green", and references to Sitting Bull, and some of the labeled "Pantheists" just have quotes -- is this an assertion based on those quotes, or have these people actually joined?

In fact, they list Hawking's statement right there, yet it's clearly just a typical science statement: "If, by 'god', you mean science." which doesn't seem to imply any kind of deity concept, even a non-sentient one, but nor does it imply a reverence for the natural world other than the stunning awe many highly intelligent people feel. So why do they think this statement, or Hawking, go beyond that?

 

[Iacchus]

They do claim to be a religion, however.

 

[Ausmerican]

I wouldn't bother asking him, though you are welcome to try. I believe he was was once asked, "Do you believe in God?" at a lecture. Several minutes of silence passed as he prepared his answer with his computer interface. He finally said, "I don't do God questions."

Actually Your Mervness my answer was semi sarcastic due to the fact the OP seemed to be written from a past tense POV that seemed to assume Hawking was deceased. He doesnt answer his own emails anyway according to his website. He gets too many so he has a PA handle it for him.