Stephen Hawking's did god Create the Universe discovery documentary

[twofish-quant]

and while i like Gould, i don't believe that his non-overlapping magisteria quite applies to some/many religious claims. there are certainly some religious claims that intrude upon the magiseria of science. probably the foremost is resurrection which is certainly something that should never go into a physiology textbook.

Sure, and Mormons have issues with Meso-American archaeology.

However, sometimes science gets you out of a problem. For example, the Buddhist concept of reincarnation. Buddhists believe that when you die, you are reborn into another living organism. Now, if you confine yourself to this universe, then you can just check birth certificates, and it quickly becomes apparent that there is no reincarnation.

However, if you start thinking about multiverses, then the Buddhist concept of reincarnation no longer becomes falsified, it likely because unfalsifiable. I can prove using ordinary rules of evidence, that I wasn't reincarnated from someone in this universe (check birth certificates). Once you allow parallel universes to exist, then it becomes more difficult.

Seculari humanists like Dawkins, seems to believe that as science advances, that "God of the gaps" will disappear. But he is a biologist not a cosmologist. Something that I think is true is that a lot of the latest thinking in cosmology creates "new gaps for God." Heaven or Hell or Nirvanna doesn't exist in our solar system. But once you argue for the existence of multiverses, then you create new places for those things to exist.

But, I trying to keep my science separate from my religion. For example, I can come up with the theory of Buddhism in which Nirvanna is a place in the Western part of the multiverse. The trouble is that if I start *believing* in that and it becomes an integral part of my world view, it becomes harder to critically think that *I might be wrong*.

Personally, it seems to me that there is a set of neurons in the mid-brain that controls "belief". From personal experience, my suspicion is that "belief in God" comes from the mid-brain, and that there are neural structures that respond to "parents" and to "belief." The fact that people call God "Father" and not "rubber ducky" says that there is some neurological connection between "belief in God" and the neurons that fire when we respond to our parents. There is another set of neurons that control "belief." When I think I've discovered something, I can feel certain neurons firing.

When I do science, I try to keep those neurons from firing. When I write love poetry, I try to make those neurons go off.

i've known since high school that theologically Young-Earthers were on shaky ground describing a Universe and Earth that was "created with a history". terrible explanation of the astronomical and fossil record. and really crappy theology.

The theological arguments against creationism are as interesting as the scientific ones.

There is one thing that has changed. In the 1980's, the argument was over public school curricula. It has already been decided that US public schools were going to teach science and they weren't going to teach religion. Hence, you just had to argue that young Earth creationism wasn't science that evolution was, and you won that argument.

However, that's only part of the issue, and today when we have all this stuff on Youtube, what happens in US public schools is much less important. One reason I find myself (weirdly) on the same side as young Earth creationists, is that when I talked to some of them, their attitude was "we really aren't scientists, and our main concern is that we don't like this conspiracy to get rid of God so that's why we are screaming."

In that situation, you could just "argue a truce". I could say "we aren't trying to get rid of God." However, I was wrong about this. I'm not. Stephen Jay Gould wasn't. Dawkins was and is. One thing that makes Dawkins interesting, the young Earth creationists understood him better that I did. He really thinks that the world would be better off without the "God delusion."

i've had this problem on this very forum that when i would pipe in, rather than remain silent, the thread would heat up and a moderator would kill it.

Again. I wouldn't have said anything if Hawking didn't. Part of the truce was that we draw a line between science and religion. Scientists talk about science. Preachers talk about religion, and everyone is happy. That works for me, but it doesn't work for Stephen Hawking.

There's also a very strong US/European thing. My impression is that the idea that "religion is superstious non-sense" is an idea that's more popular in Europe than in the US. Someone mentioned that if you go to a church in England, you don't see many people there, and the people that are there are old people. Religion is *very* strong in the US.

 

[Chronos]

Hawking is a bitter man lashing out against the unfairness of his life in his declining years. I pity him. Sometimes you need to lift your eyes away from the chalkboard to see the room.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Hawking is a bitter man lashing out against the unfairness of his life in his declining years. I pity him. Sometimes you need to lift your eyes away from the chalkboard to see the room.

I suspect he would not want nor require your pity.

 

[Chronos]

Any scientist who takes a public stance for, or against, 'god' has issues entirely unrelated to science, IMO.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Any scientist who takes a public stance for, or against, 'god' has issues entirely unrelated to science, IMO.

Maybe so but to claim a "bitter man lashing out at the unfairness of his life" has about as much validity and authority as Hawking opinions on god.

Any scientist has a right to take a public stance on God, so long as they do not determine or promote their stance to be any more important or valid than any other stance. Then can hold personal opinions made public, at least IMO.

 

[Chronos]

Maybe so but to claim a "bitter man lashing out at the unfairness of his life" has about as much validity and authority as Hawking opinions on god.

Any scientist has a right to take a public stance on God, so long as they do not determine or promote their stance to be any more important or valid than any other stance. Then can hold personal opinions made public, at least IMO.

I agree. However, within the context of an event where he was a guest speaker, his anti-theist diatribe was irrelevant, inappropriate and potentially offensive to an audience expecting an entertaining discussion about science.

 

[Tanelorn]

"Sometimes you need to lift your eyes away from the chalkboard to see the room."

I think you are being very unfair to Hawking. He is sincerely looking for the truth and trying to show that there are natural alternative explanations instead of supernatural explanations. And he is also not persecuting others to try to get others to believe him. He could perhaps use an alternative word for God to describe whatever is responsible for creating the Universe, either sentient or not, but that is the term which most people would understand. I really don't think he is being bitter or malicious, like myself he has reached stage in life where he is able to discuss the subject freely and openly. He may have forgotten that some still find such discussion uncomfortable. I also always prefer simple natural explanations over complex or supernatural explanations, and Hawking has every right to say this at a Cosmology discussion.


twofish, to clarify what I meant, I was saying that I occasionally question whether the CMBR was produced by what we call the BB. There is an extremely small possibility that signals we receive on Earth could be being produced by another source and we mistakenly built up a huge cosmology out of it. Very advanced theories such loop quantum gravity or the epryatoric universe I have not even read so for me they are still as fanciful as supernatural type agencies.

Yes I agree not shooting oneself because we feel depressed for a day or two is a good rule for life and staying alive.

I think moderators are particularly against religious discussion, crackpoint ideas and links, and strong arguing, so let's try not to go there. One solution might be that Cosmology could split into two parts, the rigorous, mathematical, scientific, Physics, CMBR, BB analysis part (isnt this astrophysics?) and the philosphical approach outlining all known possible ways in which the Universe could have come into existence type Cosmology (metaphysics?).

twofish, If the God delusion as you put it, turns out to be correct, then I really believe it would be better to live free of all Gods in this one short life we have, than waste it living a lie, especially if there is conflict as a result. Others are free to do as they wish, and I am a pragmatist, if the world and society is better off for it one way or the other then so be it. I am from the UK and I agree that more people there tend to grow out it as they grow older and accept the world as they see it, here in the US people seem to cling to it more in quiet desperation. I have seen the birth place of all man's religions when I spent an hour inside the tomb of the great pyramid. I do not see much resemblance in any of these religions to any kind of sentient creator as we would understand one today, if one actually exists.

I am finished with religious aspects to this discussion, let's talk about other parts of this documentary. eg.

"It is a zero sum game, positive energy in matter is balanced by negative energy in space itself".
"And time slows down to zero and actually begins at the big bang singularity".

 

[rbj]

I agree. However, within the context of an event where he was a guest speaker, his anti-theist diatribe was irrelevant, inappropriate and potentially offensive to an audience expecting an entertaining discussion about science.

i think you're being a little harsh with Hawking, too. if "Hawking" were replaced with "Dawkins", i would not say you're being harsh.

but i have never been particularly impressed with Hawking's philosophizing.

 

[rbj]

...

Part of the truce was that we draw a line between science and religion. Scientists talk about science. Preachers talk about religion, and everyone is happy.

how is everyone happy if the religion preachers talk about has in it supernatural miracles such as resurrection or virgin birth? *i* am also one of those religious types and i recognize a problem of overlapping magesteria when preachers talk of that.

 

[twofish-quant]

Any scientist has a right to take a public stance on God

It's not a matter of *right* rather than of responsibility.

If you interview a famous scientist and that scientist says "drink Pepsi" that could be taken as a celebrity endorsement even if it is unintended.

So long as they do not determine or promote their stance to be any more important or valid than any other stance. Then can hold personal opinions made public, at least IMO.

There are different levels of "public." If Hawking posted his ideas on God on his personal blog, that's not a big deal because everyone can post their own blog. If he is doing on a Discovery Channel documentary, that's different because not everyone has that sort of media access.

 

[George Jones]

I have closed this thread, as it doesn't have science content.