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

[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.

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."

That's fine by me. But your failure to see the argument that I made casts doubt on your ability to 'unbiasedly' apply scientific reasoning.

BTW I am a scientist. I know first hand what science is and isn't. As someone that has had several papers published in scientific journals and a few rejected I'll certainly agree that you are correct that a remote viewing paper would be denied...does that mean it isn't real? NO. It means science doesn't concern it self with such things.

But we aren't talking about remote viewing. We are talking about merging with something that is so completely "real" that it challenges ones disbelief's in God. It's not something that someone can just design up a lab experiment and pass off to his colloquies at the next university. However this does means that science isn't qualified to even postulate on this experience because by definition it is a personal non shareable experience.

Does that make it any less useful? That entirely depends upon how one defines useful.

Will meditating in a cave for 30 years get you a fancy house in the burbs and a solid lead on the Jones next door? Absolutely not.

Is the materialists path the only valid path? That is the primary question I feel you are trying to defend...and I'm not willing to accept that...unless of course you can prove it to me or anyone else for that matter. Science is grand and it keeps the false gurus and snake oil sales men at bay, but to pretend that the religion of science is the end all be all is a fallacy by definition in my book. IMHO.

 

[jamie]

this is sort of one of those threads that can go on and on and on and on and on and on back and forth back and forth forever.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Just outta curiosity...when did everyone get on a first name basis with Stephen Hawking?

 

[SWIMfriend]

That's fine by me. But your failure to see the argument that I made casts doubt on your ability to 'unbiasedly' apply scientific reasoning. It is precicly

I directly addressed your argument when I said that the reports are unverifiable in a scientific manner.

BTW I am a scientist. I know first hand what science is and isn't.

Unfortunately, not all scientists have a clear grasp of the fundamentals of their process.

As someone that has had several papers published in scientific journals and a few rejected I'll certainly agree that you are correct that a remote viewing paper would be denied...does that mean it isn't real? NO.

That's correct. Rejecting data doesn't mean the data are incorrect, only that they are not verifiable.

It means science doesn't concern it self with such things.

I'm afraid the phrase "such things" is a bit of a "fudge." It was YOU who brought up experiments and looking at bacteria through microscopes. It was you who implied science was somehow "biased" because it "wouldn't do the experiments" to verify the reports of heaven.

Simply, a scientist doing what a scientist does, must reject reports of "heaven." You've done a lot of hand-waving, and citing of your own scientific authority, but you haven't explained what is incorrect about Stephen Hawking's dismissal.

But we aren't talking about remote viewing. We are talking about merging with something that is so completely "real" that it challenges ones disbelief's in God. It's not something that someone can just design up a lab experiment and pass off to his colloquies at the next university.

Let's give a practical example that most people can easily relate to. I've had dreams of having sex that were MORE real to me than really having sex! (and probably better, sadly). Are my dreams real? Should I approach the woman in them and inform her that she loves me, because of the mind-shattering sexual communion we shared?

However this does means that science isn't qualified to even postulate on this experience because by definition it is a personal non shareable experience. Does that make it any less useful? That entirely depends upon how one defines useful. Will meditating in a cave for 30 years get you a fancy house in the burbs and a solid lead on the Jones next door? Absolutely not. Is the materialists path the only valid path? That is the primary question I feel you are trying to defend...and I'm not willing to accept that...unless of course you can prove it to me or anyone else for that matter. Science is grand and it keeps the false gurus and snake oil sales men at bay, but to pretend that the religion of science is the end all be all is a fallacy by definition in my book. IMHO.

Here's where I think you're over-reaching. Stephen Hawking is not a guru, so he didn't give a guru's answer, he gave a scientist's answer.

And regarding whether science is the be all and end all...I think it IS worth noting that it has so far been the ONLY source of VERIFIABLE knowledge that we have found. It's worth noting that it has produced (what should be seen as) MAGIC on a scale that gurus of two hundred years ago COULD NOT HAVE CONCEIVED even given their union with the source of all knowledge and wisdom.

I think it's....hmmm, INTERESTING...that many speak of science dismissively while at the same time RAGING about the "truth" inside their own heads. Sometimes I have the urge to recommend to such people a bit of quiet reflection...

 

[joedirt]

Simply, a scientist doing what a scientist does, must reject reports of "heaven." You've done a lot of hand-waving, and citing of your own scientific authority, but you haven't explained what is incorrect about Stephen Hawking's dismissal.

What I have a problem with is people acting like Science is the only authority on reality.

Reply if you want, but I'm done.

Peace.

 

[SWIMfriend]

Simply, a scientist doing what a scientist does, must reject reports of "heaven." You've done a lot of hand-waving, and citing of your own scientific authority, but you haven't explained what is incorrect about Stephen Hawking's dismissal.

What I have a problem with is people acting like Science is the only authority on reality.

Reply if you want, but I'm done.

Peace.

I don't know of anyone who said science is the only authority. I doubt that Stephen Hawking would be so naive as to make such a claim. He (and others) might well make the claim that science is the most RELIABLE authority we have about (at least) some things/issues.

Again, I think a case can easily be made that Stephen Hawking made a "scientifically styled" dismissal of reports of a "heaven." It's up to those hearing his dismissal to determine what weight it should carry with them. I think it's good to be CLEAR, and I think Hawking was CLEAR regarding what an objective and unbiased scientist would say in response to a report of heaven.

It's a good thing that people have a clear idea of the operations and limitations of science.

And it's CERTAINLY a good idea for people to report their experiences for others to consider.

...but we ARE left, in those cases, with the problem of trying to sort through the reports to decide, SOMEHOW, which ones might be worth following up with more consideration, and which ones not.

 

[Rising Spirit]

I think it's....hmmm, INTERESTING...that many speak of science dismissively while at the same time RAGING about the "truth" inside their own heads. Sometimes I have the urge to recommend to such people a bit of quiet reflection...

See, now here is where you are simply trying to instigate a negative response. There is a resistance to the dismissive proclamations of Dr. Hawking, but that's all. Why is someone who openly mocks contemporary philosophy and negates an entire segment of the Earth's population as dim-witted fools, even being discussed in this subforum?

Shouldn't the ideas for a pure logician be spoken in the Science forum? And shouldn't the public statements he offers shed light on what he truly knows about, astronomy? I guess I don't get it. why is his opinion so important as to discuss? Now, if he's talking black holes... I'm all ears! Still, there are plenty of intelligent spiritually insightful people who DO have philosophical and spiritual ideas.

"When in Rome do as the Romans", is a two way street. There is no fanaticism happening in this discussion, so don't try to manipulate the facts and imply religious hysteria from the other camp. We just want to approach the Divine with scientific inquiry, and would appreciate some reciprocation.

No one was "raging" over anything, let alone, "the truth inside their own heads". Must things always be ONLY on your terms? Exchanging blow for blow? Chill out, amigo.. I think it's fair to say that a large number of us sit in quiet reflection, on a regular basis. Again, the mocking. I am tempted to say, "practice what your preach" but I suspect that is precisely what you are after, more conflict and opposition. Can't we shift this discussion to a more productive direction? Say, a mutation of original topic? Just sayin'... Now I'm off for some quiet reflection and a little taijiquan.

 

[gibran2]

Simply, a scientist doing what a scientist does, must reject reports of "heaven." You've done a lot of hand-waving, and citing of your own scientific authority, but you haven't explained what is incorrect about Stephen Hawking's dismissal.

I’m wondering how you define “reject”? “To deny the existence of” or “to not consider for scientific investigation”? If the latter, that’s reasonable. If the former, that’s arrogant.

Here’s a thread I started a while back that is relevant to where this discussion seems to be going. As discussed in that thread, the physicist Lawrence Krauss describes the universe in the very distant future: In a hundred billion years or so, due to the accelerating expansion of the universe and other factors described by Krauss, galaxies will be so far apart that light from neighboring galaxies will no longer reach any given galaxy.

So if there was a civilization in a hundred billion years similar to us as we are today, they would have a completely different view of the cosmos. They would discern stars in the galaxy of which they were a part, but beyond their galaxy would be nothingness.

Now if someone suggested the possibility of a universe filled with billions of galaxies, all but their own too far away to be observed, how would scientists respond? Would “a scientist doing what a scientist does, reject reports of “billions of galaxies”? According to you, a scientist MUST reject such reports.

Here’s a quote from Krauss’ talk:

And those scientists will discover Quantum Mechanics, discover Relativity, discover evolution, discover all the basic principles of science that we understand today - use the best observations that they can do with the best telescopes that they will build – and they will derive a picture of the universe which is completely wrong. They will derive a picture of the universe as being one galaxy surrounded by empty space that’s static and eternal.

Falsifiable science will produce the wrong answer.

Scientists can be wrong about science, and if they can be wrong about science, they most certainly can be wrong about that which lies beyond science.

 

[SWIMfriend]

I’m wondering how you define “reject”? “To deny the existence of” or “to not consider for scientific investigation”? If the latter, that’s reasonable. If the former, that’s arrogant.

This question is addressed by Russell's Teapot.

I agree with you that it's important that people are clear about it: rejecting data/reports is ONLY rejecting the data. But OTOH, the fact that it is not DISPROVING the reports or assertions cannot be used by those making the reports as anything POSITIVE to their position.

Here’s a thread I started a while back that is relevant to where this discussion seems to be going. As discussed in that thread, the physicist Lawrence Krauss describes the universe in the very distant future...

Right. I'm aware of Krauss' talk. It can't be denied. But we do have to consider that if we REJECT one method of gaining knowledge in favor of another, then we ought to be concerned whether we're making an improvement. Science does very well, and we should UTILIZE IT as much as we can.

...and one reason it has done so well is it's INSISTENCE on rejecting unverifiable data/reports--it has been PAINFUL to many, but it has also cleared the way toward some productive paths.

 

[gibran2]

This question is addressed by Russell's Teapot.

The BELIEF “I believe there is a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars” is not the same as the factual CLAIM “there is a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars”.

If one makes a factual CLAIM, the burden of proof is on that person. Beliefs can be categorized into those which can, at least in theory, be proven, and those which can’t be proven. Reasonable people understand that beliefs in the latter category must never be stated as claims or facts.

To believe that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars is an odd belief, but as long as it’s stated as a belief, the believer is under no obligation to prove the statement.

There are many such beliefs, and as long as they’re not stated as facts, they are perfectly acceptable. And we are free to speculate as to why people might hold and express such beliefs.

It’s also perfectly acceptable to express the negation of such beliefs as beliefs: “I don’t believe there is a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars”. But it is not acceptable to say, without accepting the burden of proof “there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars”.

When someone makes a factual claim, the burden of proof is on that someone.

This is why I originally posted in this thread – Hawking didn’t say “I believe the concept of an afterlife is a fairytale”, which would have been acceptable, but rather he said (paraphrasing) “the concept of an afterlife is a fairytale”. The burden of proof then shifts to him, and since we can’t prove the non-existence of something, the statement is invalid.

 

[SWIMfriend]

^^ I think your use of the term "acceptable" is probably vague and arbitrary--and not something that needs to be picked apart and heavily considered.

Reports that cannot be verified or substantiated in some manner are NOT acceptable for scientific use. Other manners of "acceptance" are idiosyncrasies of the people doing the accepting.

EDIT: Didn't see your "fairy tale" comments. Well, I think it's SOMETHING like "fairy tale." Certainly, the source is SIMILAR--the assertions of people who spent a lot of time MYTHOLOGIZING about such things. I'm not sure we actually know the true motivations and intentions of those who created ancient "fairy tales" and those who created ancient "myths."

If he had said "myth" would you be happier? Perhaps his word choice was sloppy--but I don't think he was trying to make an extremely PRECISE comment....

 

[gibran2]

^^ I think your use of the term "acceptable" is probably vague and arbitrary--and not something that needs to be picked apart and heavily considered.

Reports that cannot be verified or substantiated in some manner are NOT acceptable for scientific use. Other manners of "acceptance" are idiosyncrasies of the people doing the accepting.

Well, at least we agree that Stephen Hawking is idiosyncratic.

What I have often observed, and am troubled by, is the double-standard held by scientists and other intellectuals regarding stating beliefs as facts. They rightly criticize theists when they express their un-provable beliefs as fact, then in the next breath express their own un-provable beliefs as facts.

When theists say “there is a God and he lives in heaven”, they must accept the burden of proof (but they never do).

When atheists say “there is no God and there is no heaven”, they must accept the burden of proof (but they never do).

 

[SWIMfriend]

^^ What you say is more involved with the meanings of words and the problems of communication than anything else.

 

[jamie]

^^ What you say is more involved with the meanings of words and the problems of communication than anything
else.

What are you talking about? How is what gibran said more involved with meaingings of words than what you say is? He basically examplified how both theists and atheists claim things as truth that they cant verify objectivly. What about that sounded like it was open to interpretation to you?

..unless you call "proof" the inability to really prove something as fact?

 

[Entropymancer]

Fractal, most atheists are fully aware of the fact that they cannot prove that a god does not exist. Most atheists do not define atheism as an explicit denial of the possibility that god exists, but rather simply as a lack of belief in god. That is not an illegitimate claim to truth, merely a statement that they have no personal experience which leads them to make a radical and unfounded claim on truth. While some might say "There is no god and there is no heaven" when engaging in polemic discourse, they rarely hold this assertion as an absolute truth; instead it's generally used to provoke the other party into making unfounded claims which can be exposed as such, and which often reveal contradictions and ill-considered lines of reasoning that underlie the worldview of the theist with whom they're speaking (this is in fact not terribly productive, to be sure, but that's life).

If the implication is that one must have explicit evidence on which to stake their rejection of an uninvestigable notion, then I must cry "Poppycock!". I do not believe that leprechauns or the tooth fairy or the easter bunny are real... I cannot explicitly prove that they don't exist, but I am comfortable rejecting the notions (as in I do not deign to consider them, not as in I explicitly deny them). The burden of proof is not on me; I have chosen to simply ignore the possibility until there is some pressing reason to reconsider. Similarly with atheists (at least the ones who do not believe in any gods, not those who explicitly reject that the notion might even be remotely possible), the burden of proof does not rest with them; they have merely chosen to abstain in the face of an abundance of claims without an iota of legitimate evidence.

Notice how crucial it was that I specified atheists as people who do not believe rather than people who explicitly disbelieve? Without that important qualification, my statements here would have been incorrect. And unless I'm very much mistaken, that is what SWIMfriend meant when he said that Gibran's statement was more involved with the meaning of words and the problems of communication. Maybe the atheists I know are of a very different character than those Gibran knows, but Gibran's statement about the burden of proof makes absolutely no sense with respect to any level-headed atheist I've ever met.

 

[SWIMfriend]

^^ That's right. Atheists "deny" a god exists IN SO MUCH AS they deny Leprechauns exist: they judge the reports as unfounded, so they DISMISS them, and DENY the claim.

And it's in those areas where miscommunication occurs.

It IS a denial, but it's not a positive statement of the reverse, or a DISproof.

And the point is made in Russell's Teapot example: A rational person would simply dismiss someone's casual report that a teapot was between Earth and Mars...and...it's, well, quite close to saying "there IS no teapot there." The report is unfounded, so there's no reason TO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. And if we reject that it's true, well, that's rather like saying it's FALSE. But that's not QUITE the same as positively ASSERTING that there's no teapot there--that too would be quite an EXTRAORDINARY assertion. How can anyone be so certain of that?

For an empiricist, all knowledge is provisional. So an atheist can say "there is no god," because no evidence is presented that there IS one; and then tomorrow acknowledge the existence of a god when he's SHOWN one.

This is a perfectly rational and serviceable situation, since we can't go around all day insisting we know NOTHING. So we take a position, provisionally. One can't DO nothing, so one MUST take certain positions and act on them when relevant situations arise.

And regarding gods and afterlives, there's CERTAINLY a position that requires "action." For those who conclude life simply ends at death, it's important (and enjoyable!) to live NOW, with a full feeling of THIS IS IT, so make the most of it. OTOH, those who believe in an afterlife have a LOT of things to think about regarding it (typically). A LOT of effort and worry can go into it; and a lot of emotional energy can be spent reinforcing the idea, and trying to convince others, etc.


EDIT: And then I won't even MENTION the difficulties involved regarding what "god" is. Some people have in mind a very specific entity (like a god who visited with the jews), while others just mean "the ultimate mysteries," or some such thing--physicists seem to love to invoke "god" in terms of "what they don't yet know about the ultimate causes of things." I certainly don't believe in "gods," but if someone wants to assert "God is EVERYTHING, and EVERYWHERE at once," I'd be inclined to agree with them.

 

[polytrip]

I think this dissussion can go on and on, because it's a battle between almost incommensurable views.

And the irony and paradox is that a rational atheist and a rational religious person would not even differ thát much about many basic things.

 

[Rising Spirit]

I think this dissussion can go on and on, because it's a battle between almost incommensurable views.

And the irony and paradox is that a rational atheist and a rational religious person would not even differ thát much about many basic things.

Well said. Thank you polytrip for such a cool, clean assessment of this ideological tussle. And we do agree on far more issues, than we disagree over. Only a lunatic would think that we should all share the identical perspective, as that would be quite boring (and who really wants to conform to the sterility of a consensus?).

I sincerely admire the brilliant workings of any intelligent mind and I do believe it is very important that we continue to show each other the mutual respect, which has become the hallmark of this fine community. Isn't that why we are here, communicating on the Nexus, to share our insights and facilitate a greater collective understanding? Is is most ironic, indeed.

Peace, love & light

 

[gibran2]

...And the irony and paradox is that a rational atheist and a rational religious person would not even differ thát much about many basic things.

Key word = "rational".

 

[Saidin]

No, he's making a PRECISELY correct claim: concepts of "afterlife" are fantasies/myths that people have created. As far as anyone (that I'm aware of) knows, such claims have NO OTHER source.

Afterlife assertions may turn out to be TRUE, but I agree with Hawking that it's worth restating (for the benefit of people who don't think much about these things), that the ONLY information about "the afterlife" we currently possess is information found in fairy tales.

You make it sound like these concepts were created as a narrative out of thin air, and that could not be further from the truth. There is an enormous body of evidence to support these 'myths', but it is subjective. Subjective yet consistent over time and across cultures. Many of these concepts grew out of peoples personal experiences.

There is a staggering amount of documented 'evidence' from near death expeirences and past life regressions. Of course the materialist rejects these out of hand as they are not independently verifyable, but how many thousands of people irrespective of age or culture have to say the same thing for it to be considered possible and not dismissed arrogantly out of hand?