Stephen Hawking claims a belief of heaven or an after life is a "fairy story"

[SWIMfriend]

Are not all concepts projected by the frailty of human intellect? Even in kindergarten level metaphysical philosophy, the nature of reality is challenged as a completely subjective speculation. Before life, living in the material world, afterlife... all illusory phantoms, when seen in relation to the unfathomable nature of the Infinite. For while we believe what we think we know is sound, by way of our reasoning, how can we be so sure that what we perceive is actually the way things truly are?

Is this not just another variation of blind faith? Meaning, we have no way to be certain that this earthy existence is not some "fairy tale" dreamed up by another kind awareness, on another frequency of being? Again, I refer to the Hindu conception of Brahman (Indivisible consciousness) dreaming the entire universe of duality in being. The entire time, the whole drama is but a mirage flickering across the empty expanse of the Void.

The very fact that you attempt to make that case MEANS that you believe that "truth can be discerned" and that "some things are true, and others are not," or else why say anything at all?

In fact, human consciousness seems to be (at one level) a process for MODELING external reality, and for assigning symbols meant to describe reality--so that we can communicate them. That process requires discernment in order to work.

CERTAINLY, we know we need discernment in order to live. We surely need to discern that DMT is found in MHRB and NOT in stones.

So, even if we can never state things in an "absolute of absolute" manner, still, we NEED to discern, and most of us seem to WANT to discern/search/investigate/analyze/perceive in order to reveal previously hidden truths--even if they can't be declared in some "absolute" manner.

I find your position fatuous--if only for its disregard for "common, ordinary reality," which is apparently our BIRTHPLACE, our HOME, and, as far as anyone can tell, the EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN of our existence.

EDIT: In any case, I am suspicious of those who reject the very POSSIBILITY of defining reality, who nevertheless seem to EMBRACE a concept, "afterlife," while REJECTING those who REJECT that concept. Those who want to dismiss "conceptions of reality" should be the first to dismiss a concept of "afterlife"--as they should be eager to dismiss all concepts as "illusory."

 

[SWIMfriend]

I should say something further...

It's always useful to discuss what we KNOW; and I DO know at least one thing absolutely (and...maybe...ONLY this one thing): Humans (i.e., human consciousness) is FULLY CAPABLE of generating FALSEHOOD, LIES, and DELUSION. And it is capable of generating concepts that have NO RELATION to reality. It can generate concepts from random, non-harmonic fragments: "I like pythons made from argon."

So, surely, a process of discerning those sorts of things--the "non-realities" generated by human consciousness--could be useful.

I think it's that process that Hawking uses when he rejects heaven as a fairy tale. He is aware (it's common knowledge) that humans who report "heavens" are NOT offering reports in the usual, ordinary, conscientious manner. Instead such reports are (known to be) made by those attempting to PROMOTE BELIEF. What Hawking has said is really almost identical to saying that Harry Potter is a "fairy tale." The only distinction, a petty one really, is that in one case many people seem to have a strong emotional investment in making believe what they say is objectively true, while in the other case they don't.

 

[Jorkest]

smoalk moar!!!!

 

[Rising Spirit]

question: is the past and future also concepts fantasies/myths that people have created?

i would love to have some objective inconclusive proof of the past/future.

Exactly, I've often thought that I never really was able to locate the past. Sure, right now I can recall a long series of impressions about what I have witnessed, thought about and felt some kind of emotional response to. My thought process blends these together as a cohesive, working whole but it is not real, is it? Arguably, it was "real" or as real as the individual human being can comprehend... but now? Now is all that is.

Pardon me for emphasizing the obvious but I have come to understand that there is only the now, awareness has always existed right here in the now. Given the challenge of actually perceiving more than just a infinitesimally small fraction of the probable range of consciousness, existence and the awareness of said characteristics, how absurd is it to speculate about what will happen then and there? Or did happened back there and back then? these ideas lead us away from the present and this is just more mental stuff to transcend in the clear moment of awakening. Besides, how much of it was really what we thought it was, as it happened (given our limited parameters of cognition)? Again, the gibran2 Marbles in a Box Principle. Right?

That being said, it is the height of arrogance for folks like Dr. Hawking to mock the faith of millions of other dream-walking human beings. I can see why some of his assertions hold sway with our fellows but this is as far as it goes for me. He is a clever monkey but he is hardly any authority on the whole of consciousness. So, he is an important thinker and he feels he can wave his hand and dispel the validity of the concept of a Supreme Being? Give me a break. I find this most annoying...

Furthermore, I strongly feel that characters like hm are actually the fearful ones. Afraid of what? Not being able to reason out a Divine Presence? Or just afraid of not being able to see beyond the confines of logic? Yeah, I guess I do take some offense that he would lump all of the humanoids who have believed in a Unified Spiritual Essence, into some kind of derogatory dismissal of their spiritual beliefs.

Frankly, in my assessment, he is like a small child without a clue, when set beside many of the great souls who have been revered for their wisdom. I don't need to mention Zoroaster, Jesus, Patanjali or Shankaracharya, since their lives are so far removed in time from ours. Still, there are many recent souls who have recently walked this earth, like Sri Ramana Maharshi. Sages like he do not need to draw logical conclusions about the existence of the Divine, as they are living in harmony with such a plane of being. So much so, that he seemed to be a living transparency, an open conduit for the Light of Spirit. I mean in terms of his mind. His mastery of his thoughts had arrived to the point whereby he could hold it to a single point of concentration. In so doing, his fixation with a self/ego oriented on the dynamics of his thinking brain, was supplanted by the intelligence of Universal Mind. He called this level of awareness the Self. I have a penchant for the term Omniself.

Still concepts, most certainly, but concepts which are designed to devour themselves, so as to reveal another dimension of consciousness which exists in all of manifested being. Is this not what we can directly experience under the potent spell of psychedelics? Is this also not why NN-DMT is called the Spirit Molecule? I can't say that I recall hearing referred to as the Science Molecule.

This is echoed in the Zen Buddhist concept of stopping the mind. Stephen seems unable to do such a thing and therefore, he is trapped in a world of circular logic. The rationalist doesn't know where or how to begin searching for such a "God", as the One is not a product of the mind, it is a state beyond the boundaries of thought. In a manner of speaking, since no words can accurately convey that which lies beyond their reach.

 

[Rising Spirit]

I find your position fatuous--if only for its disregard for "common, ordinary reality," which is apparently our BIRTHPLACE, our HOME, and, as far as anyone can tell, the EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN of our existence.

EDIT: In any case, I am suspicious of those who reject the very POSSIBILITY of defining reality, who nevertheless seem to EMBRACE a concept, "afterlife," while REJECTING those who REJECT that concept. Those who want to dismiss "conceptions of reality" should be the first to dismiss a concept of "afterlife"--as they should be eager to dismiss all concepts as "illusory."

Now, now... please don't act so haughty and dismissive, nor put words in my mouth which I did not truly utter. I made no reference to the afterlife, except that is doesn't exist yet. I cannot know if it exists. When my experience of awareness, in the perpetual now, finds itself without a living material body to inhabit, I will find out. I'm in no hurry. What about my statements of how I feel about the here and now did you misunderstand? This is it, baby. It's essentially more an issue of how deep you want to go, in experiencing the now. In my system of belief, which is admittedly composed of potentially erroneous ideas, there is only one consciousness experiencing the vast panorama of awareness, which is immanent in all life forms; all expanse of space and throughout the ebb & flow of time. How is this "fatuous"? Mind you manners, Sir.

At what point did I dismiss earthly existence or even the rationale with which we translate our experiences of it by? I merely stated that since we cannot know if what we perceive is reality or not... it behooves us to claim God and the afterlife are "fairy tales". When we proudly raise ourselves up, to a self-appointed level of being a superior know-it-all, it may come back to kick us in the ass. Meaning? Stephen is a partially grown fruit. He has yet to develop, as an incarnated soul, to perceive anything beyond logic. But his IQ is so high, so how can this be?

It's really about a shift in awareness and the capacity to discover that living Spirit in all things. He is not yet able to access such high levels of consciousness, despite his egomania. I'm certain he would find this a derogatory comment but I am merely turning the tables, since the joke is on the materialists in the end. In a playful way I hope. I believe this may be one of the most annoying things about the Eastern realm of metaphysical thought (and Western too, if you dig a little), to overtly rationalistic humanoids. You know, the intellectual state of mind being assigned to the third chakra. That being less than halfway up the Cosmic Totem Pole? Therefore, strict logicians are less evolved than Sages and the like. I'm not saying I buy the whole Hindu chakra system, hook-line-&-sinker, I just find it amusing to consider the ramifications. Hehehe... :lol:

Many people who cannot reach transcendental stats of consciousness feel frustrated and after a point, dismiss it as a fairytale. Many don't even go that far and simply feel that there is no such thing as Divine Rapture or union with the Godhead. How ironic it really is, when seen from this perspective. While all of these overly rational fellows were busy brushing off the entire Spiritual aspect of existence, they have missed what may be the highest and most ecstatic joy... ONENESS. In other words, one man's fairytale is another man's scriptural doctrine. :idea:

 

[SWIMfriend]

I've seen this before. Describing others as "superior know-it-alls" and then--VERY nearly in the SAME BREATH--describing the state-of-consciousness of others in a specifically know-it-all (and deprecating) manner: "Stephen is a partially grown fruit. He has yet to develop, as a soul..."

It's not pretty.

I'm afraid "fatuous" may have been too weak a characterization for someone who insists only ONE consciousness is "real" while describing another's erroneous experience of consciousness.

Seriously. Those who "haughtily and dismissively" pontificate such things as "Many people who cannot reach transcendental stats of consciousness..." need to catch hold of themselves and reconsider their state of mind. They may have "transcended their ego" to an UNhealthy ego-state.

 

[gibran2]

At the end of the film “Solaris” (thanks for recommending it, jbark!), the main character is rather perplexed and asks his wife “Am I alive or dead?”

Her response sums it all up for me: “We don’t have to think like that anymore.”


Solaris Clip

 

[Rising Spirit]

Well said and, "Touche". And I never claimed that you were shadow boxing. I took exception to the very conceptual projection that any person would dismiss God. A speck in Infinity can dismiss the totality? I claimed I was irritated by Stephen's arrogance. I am. He is hardly alone in this belief. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I am just like any other human being. I get high and I return to my ego. Such is the plight of the psychonaut.

I'm just starting to feel that there is a growing rationalist/materialist mind-set proliferating here at the Nexus. I have been reprimanded for speaking about anything remotely spiritual on the Science subforum. In retrospect, I feel that it was justifiable. Each domain has it's parameters. Now, this is the Philosophy and Spirituality subforum. So what should we all do? Cling to reason and dismiss the Divine because science has yet to find ways of measure, quantify and analyze it from an objective stance? What is obvious to Sages is impossible to prove with scientific methodologies. I suggest we need a new and alternative approach, if we seriously are searching for the Spirit with conventional materialist technologies.

I cannot pretend I have not had the immersion within the Clear Light of the Void. I hold this as most Sacred. My Guiding Star and needn't give quarter to those who never step outside of the box of reason. So I err by being what I have been trained by my family and society to be, a person full of ego? My apologies if I seem like a two-face but if that's what you see... it does not prove your point or disprove mine. If this offends you as, "not a pretty sight", forgive my combativeness. I'm no Mahatma Gandhi, that's for sure.

I do understand the need for a certain degree of debate, when philosophy is concerned. It's all play, right? Metaphysical chess if you will? But don't mistake where you are, brother. If all you have to share about spirituality is the desire to battle with those who extol it's importance, what can be gained? If Stephen were a member and logged on, I'd have to raise the same question to him. Now, there are many academic forums on the Net to discuss the materialist agenda. But why drag this mind-set into this subforum?

BTW, when I said I have come to believe that there is only ONE consciousness experiencing awareness, through the lives of the many, I didn't imply that this meant that all of the other manifestations of said ONENESS were invalid. Just limited in experiential cognition of the totality, yet, composed of the very same Spirit. God awakening to Godself. It's a paradox. They are equally illusory. By "illusory", I do clearly suggest that there only appears to be a dualistic universe of random occurrences. God is everything and unlimited by any form. those who have seen the Grid understand the interrelationship between the Indivisible Spirit and the individual soul. Mirrored reflections of the same light, joining together to create another reality. Still, all remains Indivisible and unified as One being. This is the central tenet of Advaita.

Consciousness itself manifested this universe out of itself. The indivisible essence shining within all of creation, is said to have a need to know itself. I paraphrase but it has been said. So it looses itself in the dance. I don't know if this is so or not. It is also a humanly conceived conceptual marble and it lies hidden within gibran2's box of marbles. Or is it the interior core of all of these marbles? I believe it is. Now human mind can never know for a certainty, hence the significance to the Box of Marbles metaphor. So how could one isolated mind effortlessly sweep the Spirit out of existence, simply because it cannot yet perceive it? It can't, for such folly is sheer madness. That's all. What force caused quantum fluctuations to begin with? We don't know yet, intellectually, but I speculate is was God, the Omniself. :idea:

 

[SWIMfriend]

OK. I accept your intentions as good and honest. Here are some points

I took exception to the very conceptual projection that any person would dismiss God.

My point is that Hawking is rejecting the CONCEPTUAL PROJECTION OF GOD itself. He is (I'm VERY sure) giving reference to the dogma (i.e., man made concepts) of modern Abrahamic religion. I really don't think (given the context of him saying these things) that he means to be addressing any "transcendental realities."

At any rate, MY interest in what Hawking said relates to my first characterization regarding modern Abrahamic faiths.

I'm just starting to feel that there is a growing rationalist/materialist mind-set proliferating here at the Nexus.

hehehe. It may be ME that you're referring to. I'm returning to the Nexus after a two year hiatus--and returning only briefly. So you may be spared future rationalist/materialistic assaults soon.

As for me, I don't think there's ENOUGH rationalist presence here (except for where it COUNTS--extractions and such, where 99% of "spirituality" is dropped in favor of workable results). And personally, I SOUNDLY REJECT the idea that the rational has no place in spirituality. And (I'm a little hesitant to add), I say so after a solid FORTY+ YEARS of wrestling with precisely that issue--during which (to summarize with only SOME hyperbole) I've gone back and forth from lab research and technological invention, to living for weeks and months in desert caves with only one set of clothes, a sleeping bag, and a sitting cushion.

Rationality will not--ALONE--earn one transcendence. But it WILL help to INTEGRATE transcendence, and to better deal with the "ego we were born with," and are left with following transcendent experiences.

I cannot pretend I have not had the immersion within the Clear Light of the Void. I hold this as most Sacred. My Guiding Star and needn't give quarter to those who never step outside of the box of reason.

Many have had realizations, only to have BIGGER realizations later on--that allow them to see that their initial realization was partial, or even hollow. I like to quote the Zen master Bassui, from his "Sermon on One Mind."

With such realization you achieve true emancipation. But even now repeatedly cast off what has been realized, turning back to the subject that realizes, that is, to the root bottom, and resolutely go on. Your Self-nature will then grow brighter and more transparent as your delusive feelings perish, like a gem gaining luster under repeated polishing, until at last it positively illumines the entire universe. Don't doubt this!

Even in the most practical matters it PAYS to have the attitude of "keep on learning."

 

[Rising Spirit]

Nicely put, SWIMfriend.

The truth is that we agree about many issues and I respect you for your intelligence and insightfulness. My frustrations with Stephen may have been inadvertently projected towards you? If so, I am sorry. And it's never a pretty picture when we toss conceptual bombs back and forth.

Like I said, you are not shadow boxing and what would school kids be if they didn't occasionally get into a tussle on the playground? I do agree that the dogmatic stereotype of an isolated Deity sitting on a Heavenly Plane and toying with the universe, is most antiquated and quite useless for the individual soul to worship. I feel God is here. Here and now. I would qualify a difference to this idea and religion, per se. But when we do experience that shattering of self, which stops our mind, what is obvious to our awareness is that something beyond description is intelligently manifesting creation and drawing that same creation back into itself. No need to conceptualize it... but we still do. Why is that?

however it all is, is how it is. done.

Yeah. 8)

 

[Steely]

I believe the human mind has impassable limits to its' capability of comprehending whatever the truth might be, if there is one at all. So no matter what we believe, together, we are all wrong.

If a belief can replace fear or pain with love and happiness, then I will support it.

 

[polytrip]

I sometimes feel i'm being tossed, or rather, that my mind is being tossed around between feeling strongly the way swimfriend does and the way gibran, fractal and entropyman do....

I don't actually think there needs to be a conflict. One can get one's ideas and information from ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. I, for one, think ideas from the Buddhist tradition of thought have much of value to offer.

NEVERTHELESS,

1) In one's life, one must attempt to DISCERN the true from the false, in order to move ahead into (what one hopes is) ever greater, and more meaningful, TRUTH.

2) When one wants RESULTS in the real world, one quickly finds that scientific methods and logical/rational thought processes work VERY WELL INDEED to get those results.

PS: We already know that PERCEPTION can vary (and be altered), sometimes to very useful effect.

Yes. But the same logic applied to different perceptions may lead to different outcomes.

 

[imPsimon]

At the end of the film “Solaris” (thanks for recommending it, jbark!), the main character is rather perplexed and asks his wife “Am I alive or dead?”

Her response sums it all up for me: “We don’t have to think like that anymore.”


Solaris Clip

I recommend listening to the full cast (one actor for each person) audio book.
It's very, very good!

 

[SWIMfriend]

I sometimes feel i'm being tossed, or rather, that my mind is being tossed around between feeling strongly the way swimfriend does and the way gibran, fractal and entropyman do....

I don't actually think there needs to be a conflict. One can get one's ideas and information from ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. I, for one, think ideas from the Buddhist tradition of thought have much of value to offer.

NEVERTHELESS,

1) In one's life, one must attempt to DISCERN the true from the false, in order to move ahead into (what one hopes is) ever greater, and more meaningful, TRUTH.

2) When one wants RESULTS in the real world, one quickly finds that scientific methods and logical/rational thought processes work VERY WELL INDEED to get those results.

PS: We already know that PERCEPTION can vary (and be altered), sometimes to very useful effect.

Yes. But the same logic applied to different perceptions may lead to different outcomes.

I agree, and I think it's an important distinction particularly on this site: IMO "psychedelics" are best seen as offering an increased range of PERCEPTION, which, to achieve the highest value and meaning, has to be integrated further into one's mind, via (at least partly) rational and analytical means.

 

[Jin]

hawkings ya right ,
well the guy is a theory maker , he makes theories , hardly any of which can be proved because they cannot be put into practice making his claims as absurd as religious fanatics only he is a science fanatic (i've read some of his books including a brief history of time)

as far as i am concerned hawkings is the one scared out of his shits , living a miserable half life , the guy should have gone to amsterdam and commited assisted sucide long time back but he is just as scared of the dark i guess and living in denial (pls understand i am not suggesting anyone terminally ill to kill themselves , i have all the love for such people and i would ask them to enjoy life nonetheless i am only pointing to hawkings denial here)

he believes that the universe and the planet and everything in the cosmos happened by chance or accident thus basically there is no reason for anything , well this is the heights of hawkings ignorance :twisted: ,
science is that particular system which explains why things are the way they are ! the reason behind the apple falling to the ground gave us gravity , thus according to science there is a reason behind everything and science is the pursuit of uncovering those reasons and making them known to others , that is why we are able to build incredible machines , without the reasons we would have nothing ,

hawkings is a believer of chance , accidents or luck , probably he could start believing in GOD as well because he is no scientist that i understand from this statement for sure , for science is about reasons , the aircraft does not fly on chance , cars dont move on chance , nor does electricy happen by chance , we know the reasons and thus we are able to make these machines run , without reason we would have to wait for chance to move our cars or pray to GOD to help us move them , i simply put some petrol in my car for i know the reason behind some of its workings , i am not waiting for hawkings chance to help me out

well hawkings is probably a closet believer of religion and God for he is a believer of chance , accidents and luck ,
if he was a scientist he would believe in reason , (dumb fool, really he is ruining it for real scientists everywhere , real scientists are finding reasons and doing experiments and making machines , not writing and thinking silly theories to amuse themselves and the average human for hardly any who read hawkings books are scientists , mostly his books are for the uneducated public or movie makers who knows a zilch about science but are most interested to hear absurd theories )

hawkings is science fiction , his books and theories are what you call fairytales

 

[Rising Spirit]

Nicely said, Jin!!! 8)

 

[polytrip]

I've seen this before. Describing others as "superior know-it-alls" and then--VERY nearly in the SAME BREATH--describing the state-of-consciousness of others in a specifically know-it-all (and deprecating) manner: "Stephen is a partially grown fruit. He has yet to develop, as a soul..."

It's not pretty.

I'm afraid "fatuous" may have been too weak a characterization for someone who insists only ONE consciousness is "real" while describing another's erroneous experience of consciousness.

Seriously. Those who "haughtily and dismissively" pontificate such things as "Many people who cannot reach transcendental stats of consciousness..." need to catch hold of themselves and reconsider their state of mind. They may have "transcended their ego" to an UNhealthy ego-state.

I completely agree with this.
It's this kind of blindness that make stephen hawkings words especially legitimate.

Spirituality is an important thing in life but it has also been a word used to give legitimacy to the worst kind of terror and opression.

Any scepticism towards religious beliefs is totally legitimate and absolutely not a sign of 'lacking' in any way, but on the contrary something that can indicate a high moral awareness in people.

Spirituality on the other hand, can also be as rational and legitimate as hawkings scepticism is.

There are things we don't know, but there are also things we do know. There can be absolute certainty about things, as long as we're willing to accept that this certainty is limited by the framework by wich it can exist.

All in all, it can be as rational to both assume that there is a god, a soul and an afterlife, as well as to assume that there isn't.

It is not a matter of higher spiritual awareness or something, but of perspective.

 

[joedirt]

Simply, any scientist would instantly dismiss a report of "heavens" as an empty and useless assertion.

And likewise any scientists would also instantly dismiss any dismissal of heaven as well.

Interestingly enough there are quite a few people that claim there ARE methods of meditation that with enough practice do indeed lead to 'God'. Can anyone dismiss them without first running the experiment of serious practice? I mean that would be like dismissing bacteria as heresy while refusing to look through the microscope.

Personally I think Steven is a tool for even pulling this publicity stunt.

 

[Rising Spirit]

I completely agree with this.
It's this kind of blindness that make stephen hawkings words especially legitimate.

Blindness? Just who is being blind here? I freely admit I fell into trading blow for blow. Usually I don't. I guess it would have been more appropriate for me to sit quiet, here in the Philosophy and Spirituality subforum (of all places) and let such nonsense be propagated by fellows who are ignorant of their reality? No. Arguably, I did err in mixing-it-up and creating a polarity to such blatant arrogance (which sweeps away the direct experience of billions of human beings, throughout history and still, to this present moment). Or did I err? Hmmm... I'm not a Christian, so I honestly don't always turn the other cheek. My bad? It take two to tango. 8)

My point was that Stephen is hardly in any position to make such derogatory proclamations, which mock the faith of good people (and bad). He is a terribly blind individual himself, given his public stance and tone of superiority. So what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander? Turn about is not fair play? I impulsively interpreted this as an assault to those who know better and are too submissive to stand up in debate. Not because they are meek or less brilliant. Please... let's get real.

Spiritual humanoids often are introverted and/or shy by nature. Those sweethearts still can see more that the superficiality of the materialist agenda. They see a Divine purpose and a light beyond the darkness. Good for them, good for all of us. Excuse us for being conscious. I don't get guys like him and I hope we don't need to continue to lock horns in such hallowed halls, as a place like the Nexus. The SPIRIT Molecule? Nice, I like the sound of that. :idea:

Spirituality is an important thing in life but it has also been a word used to give legitimacy to the worst kind of terror and opression.

Any scepticism towards religious beliefs is totally legitimate and absolutely not a sign of 'lacking' in any way, but on the contrary something that can indicate a high moral awareness in people.

Sure, it's always good to question everything. You suppose that I do not? I sincerely admire agnostics for their neutrality and their honest, inquisitiveness. Just don't expect me to pretend I have not perceived an intelligence which makes tiny Stephen Hawking (and all those who also dismiss the faith of billions), rather insignificant. Those overtly rational atheists are the ones who are knocking the chalkboard erasers off the shoulders of others.

In other words, don't start a fight that you may not be able to win. No, I'm not talking about an us VS them scenario. We all answer to a higher power in the end. Just as we do right here and now. Frankly, I can't believe some of you folks have had access to psychedelics and are still so fixated on reason. God is a living reality. That Stephen and other sympathetic folks cannot perceive of this Omnipotent force... is his/your loss.

Please don't try to make some kind of mind game out of this thread. All I did was turn the same superior arrogance back at it's original source. I had an adolescent urge to be the wind which in it's windiness, returns the piss back to it's original pisser (in a manner of speaking). Now, you'd think that after nearly 53 years, I could just sit quietly and listen to the sound of one hand clapping. What's up with that?

If you identify with that... mores the pity. I wish no quarrel but I will not be used as a scapegoat for the religious right.

Spirituality on the other hand, can also be as rational and legitimate as hawkings scepticism is.

There are things we don't know, but there are also things we do know. There can be absolute certainty about things, as long as we're willing to accept that this certainty is limited by the framework by wich it can exist.

Agreed. I applaud your insights. Might I remind everyone that the people who are rapidly destroying this planet, who live for the almighty dollar without thought for future generations, also share Dr. Hawking's belief system. Many murderers are atheists and many, many crimes are committed by those who feel that there is no wheel of karma, during and at the end of this earthly lifetime. Make no mistake, we all know about the so-called "religious" folks who perpetrated the Inquisitions and Salem witch hunts. People can be really be evil, regardless of their ISMs, ICs, IANs or ISTs. Belief or disbelief in God (or the here after) is not the pivotal issue here. Heart, respectfulness and soul are. And atrocities committed in the name of God Almighty... are even uglier. I do agree with this assessment and support the condemnation of all violent acts of cruelty.

So cool your jets and don't throw around conceptual projections, as these ideologies can be turned back at you. I will try and heed this wisdom, as well. We all know about the abuses of "religious" human beings. They are quite blind and most horrific, at that. Essentially, it all boils down to heart and the lack of heart.

From my windowsill, there are a growing number of heartless people on this planet. Some claim to be religious, some claim to be atheists. I don't really care what they label themselves as, I care about love, mutual understanding and compassion. It is they who are the most blind, who hurt others for their own petty gains. Are we to be expected to shout, "Kudos for the materialists"? Do what you, but please don't attempt to decide for others.

All in all, it can be as rational to both assume that there is a god, a soul and an afterlife, as well as to assume that there isn't.

It is not a matter of higher spiritual awareness or something, but of perspective.

Agreed, once again. Anyone who has waded through St. Thomas Aquinas', Commentaries on Aristotle or St Augustine's literary achievement, City of God, knows that some tremendous rational thought goes into theology. Not my cup of tea... as I lean towards Advaita and Taoism. But I respect the workings of logicians. But let's be honest here, Stephen insinuates that he is of superior intelligence than those sad fools who believe in more than random chaos and absolute nothingness, at the end of this brief physical existence. This is nonsense. Genius comes in all faiths and even lack of faith.

I would never think to discredit Dr. Hawking's' contributions to science. So why can't said logicians restrain themselves from proudly proclaiming that there is no Divine Being or any life after material dissolution? Who knows about the afterlife... we will all find out when we get to it. So why speculate that it does not and cannot exist, except in "fairy tales"? This is most unreasonable. Now who is being a hypocrite?

 

[SWIMfriend]

Simply, any scientist would instantly dismiss a report of "heavens" as an empty and useless assertion.

And likewise any scientists would also instantly dismiss any dismissal of heaven as well.

Interestingly enough there are quite a few people that claim there ARE methods of meditation that with enough practice do indeed lead to 'God'. Can anyone dismiss them without first running the experiment of serious practice? I mean that would be like dismissing bacteria as heresy while refusing to look through the microscope.

Personally I think Steven is a tool for even pulling this publicity stunt.

I'll try to respond to that (and avoid the snarkiness).

Suppose a scientific journal were to receive an article in which the writer claimed he sat down to meditation and "saw" with his inner eye that there was human-like life on another planet 5000 light-years distant. The author claimed that the "experiment" required to verify it involved eating a LOT of tree bark, and staring at one's navel for at least 15 years (preferably at high altitude).

Would "scientists" dismiss the article? Oh yeah. If they took it seriously at all, they might request the investigator to go back to his mountain and come up with a way to demonstrate his remote viewing so it could be TESTED. For example, can he view a picture stored in an envelope in a distant laboratory--as well as life on a distant planet? If so, then he should resubmit an article on those terms, and then, when published, resubmit the original article as well.

Now what makes reports of "heavens" from introspection different? Well, social convention...and THAT'S ALL. There are many people who "believe" in heavens, and it's considered (by at least most believers) to be impolitic to "dismiss" their reports out of hand, as Stephen Hawking did.

But it's the same deal, the same LACK of evidence, and the same UNTESTABLE and UNREPEATABLE "experiment."

That's why a rational and unbiased scientist would reject all current reports of "heavens." The reports are not verifiable (in any practical, repeatable sense). Those who claim to "see and know" with an inward eye, must DEMONSTRATE the reality of what they see (by, for example, doing "tricks" with the ability), before the "experimental apparatus" discussed could be considered "scientific."