PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Hawking..Again



sandyr1
10-Jun-10, 14:10
Have been doing my reading, thus...... these comments are interesting!

Hawking.....Why is there something greater than nothing? Does not believe in the God of Abrahamic Revelation 'whose creative love is why we are here''
Theology has no significant place in the Modern University.

Hitchens.....Religion has run out of justification, thanks to the telescope, and the microscope. It no longer offers an explanation of anything important.

brandy
10-Jun-10, 14:26
yet more highly intelegent people being ignorant.
im not saying that to be cheeky, but as a truth plain and simple.
scientist and people who have to over process thing to the nth degree can not accept
that not everything has to be put into a little compartment and labeled.
not everything has to be explained.
we live in a time of elightenment, where science has come so far..
yet we are still infants and it is arrogance to think that we know anything much less everything.
i love tech. and advancment, i think it is great.
i love that as a people we are reaching to the stars that we are not putting limits on
what we can do.
but wait, we are...
by saying that faith and religion is ridiculous and outdated,
that belief is a deity is foolishness.. we are giving ourselves limits.
just because you cant see or touch something does not mean it does not exist.
i think shakesphere had it perfect when he wrote
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
we do not know everything, and what we do know is pitiful in the scheme of things.
there is so much more to learn so much more to grasp.. we just need to be open to the possibilty that all things are possible..
and i will end on another of my fav. quotes..
Nothing is impossible, only improbable

cesare
10-Jun-10, 14:43
to see whats really going on people need to understand the reasons behind why we dont no

http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197# (http://http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#)

brandy
10-Jun-10, 14:56
link dosent work?

Leanne
10-Jun-10, 15:17
I had the very same debate with my RE teacher when I was 14. He said if I wanted to be excused from his lessons I'd better have a good argument. My argument was this...

I exist. This is my firmest belief. I accept this because it requires no act of faith upon my part. I can sense - I can see, I can hear, I smell, touch and I can even think. All this is irrefutable. I am. As for anything else, I'm not really interested in that question, let alone the philosophy behind it. Rely on fact rather than faith and you will never become disillusioned. What's more you will never be let down by anyone but yourself. I may not believe but I can live with you believing if that will help?

sandyr1
10-Jun-10, 15:33
I had the very same debate with my RE teacher when I was 14. He said if I wanted to be excused from his lessons I'd better have a good argument. My argument was this...

I exist. This is my firmest belief. I accept this because it requires no act of faith upon my part. I can sense - I can see, I can hear, I smell, touch and I can even think. All this is irrefutable. I am. As for anything else, I'm not really interested in that question, let alone the philosophy behind it. Rely on fact rather than faith and you will never become disillusioned. What's more you will never be let down by anyone but yourself. I may not believe but I can live with you believing if that will help?

Yes.....sounds pretty objective....but....do you think there is something else/ perhaps a small piece missing?

ducati
10-Jun-10, 16:08
Plenty of deeply religious scientists :eek:

rich
10-Jun-10, 16:25
Leanne, were you allowed to be let off the religion class?

It's not clear from your post.

I have a question or two:

What is the strongest single reason you can think of not to believe in God?

And for the religious, what is the single strongest reason to believe.

northener
10-Jun-10, 16:31
What about those of us who cannot prove or deny the existance of a being(s) that may have created us, but do not believe that this 'supreme' being takes an active or compassionate interest in our lives?

brandy
10-Jun-10, 16:34
hmmm thats a really good question.. i really dont know how to put it down as one single reason why i believe ... Faith is one thing.. but why do i have faith?
they say that seeing is believing.. i have seen the love of God, in so many little ways.
there is so many things that are beyond explanation at the moment.. and even when they are explained away whos to say that it isnt the way God does it?
i have seen how prayer has brought people together and how something that was supposedly impossible become possible.
I have felt the hand of God guide me so many times and not just when i have been in an hour of need.
Many times i have felt the love and peace that i associate with God when doing nothing or everything.
Every time one of my children smile at me, or i kiss them good night, I thank the Lord for the blessing that i have.
on a more practicle side however.. *G* well paranormal side.. once youve seen a few dead people.. kinda hard not to belive in the ever after..
and nope not to nuts... but ghosties spirits what ever you want to call em.. follow my family around.
even my granny who was the most no nonsence and down to earth woman i have ever met.. admitted to seeing ghosts.
even though it embarrased her!
so do i believe yup, am i conventional? no way... but im happy being odd... makes life interesting!

brandy
10-Jun-10, 16:35
*grins* northerner i belive that makes you agnostic..

rich
10-Jun-10, 16:40
To me, Northener sounds religious rather than agnostic.

rob1
10-Jun-10, 16:54
What is the strongest single reason you can think of not to believe in God?

For me its not about finding a reason for not believing it more about evidence. Why should I believe? As far as I am aware there is not a single piece of credible evidence to suggest that a god exists.

Religion is essentially based on holy books most of which are over 2000 year old, been translated through many languages and in many cases the events described were often written sometime after the event by people not even there. And the jist of these books have been interpreted in hundreds/thousands of different ways by many many people. it reminds me of playing Chinese whispers as a kid.

It is called faith for a reason, Where a believer must essentially abandons logic and reason to believe in what is effectively a supernaturally entity.

rich
10-Jun-10, 17:14
For me its not about finding a reason for not believing it more about evidence. Why should I believe? As far as I am aware there is not a single piece of credible evidence to suggest that a god exists.

It is called faith for a reason, Where a believer must essentially abandons logic and reason to believe in what is effectively a supernaturally entity.

One piece of credible evidence might be the fact that most every country I've ever heard of has a religion or religions. So where does this sense of the divine come from?
Is it hard-wired into us or is it simply a mistake? Could it be an illness like diabetes or cancer?

rob1
10-Jun-10, 17:29
One piece of credible evidence might be the fact that most every country I've ever heard of has a religion or religions. So where does this sense of the divine come from?
Is it hard-wired into us or is it simply a mistake? Could it be an illness like diabetes or cancer?

I think we would be hard pressed indeed to find a country that has no religion.

There are many natural phenomena that occur such a eclipses, volcanoes, earthquakes etc. We know what causes these events. However thousands of year ago, we did not. In fact plate tectonic theory has only been established in the last 100 years. When early man/woman were around and an eclipse occurred, they would have know it to be unusual, perhaps a frightening experience. They would naturally begin to wonder what caused it and it would not take long for someone to come up with the idea of a 'god' of some sort. Hence religion is born.

As for a sense of the divine, I don't have one.

Boozeburglar
10-Jun-10, 18:25
There are many natural phenomena that occur such a eclipses, volcanoes, earthquakes etc. We know what causes these events.

Yes. It's the wizards!


it would not take long for someone to come up with the idea of a 'god' of some sort. Hence religion is born.

Seems reasonable enough.

rich
10-Jun-10, 19:00
In a pre-literate society (most of our time on the planet) religion could function as a sort of shorthand/metaphorical means of delivering the news you need to survive. (Like not eating pork in hot countries)

Not covetting your neighbour's spouse or the goat could be more advice you'd be well advised to follw. Hence all the commandments and prohibitions we associate with religion could have practical uses.

And life used to be short and brutal. For my great hero, James Boswell, life was one long battle against the clap. Today modern medicine would have him cured in a few days. And could it be that we live in a Godless age,as a result the rise of medicine and the decline of religion?

I don't believe a word of my argument. Hoplessly infected Boswell was as great a rarionalist as anyone.

But when we move religion out of the substitute science category and put it in the emotional category things suddenly get a lot more interesting...

Boozeburglar
10-Jun-10, 19:25
That is a good point Rich.

Lately thanks in no small part to Dawkins, religion has been set up in false opposition to science.

If you go back only a short time both sat confortably together, many great thinkers of the time straddling both fields.

My grandfather was deeply religious as well as a scientist. I don't see any conflict that cannot be thought around.

Equally I understand the viewpoint of those who think there is a mutual exclusion inherently, even if I don't agree.

Thankfully there are many pro religion scientists who believe there is more to life than the apparent.

Thing is, the unexplained, (or that which is not subject to an explanatory scientific theory at least), is decreasing over time. Is that decreasing arena the one in which religious belief must fight to survive?

Of course intelligent design is the catch all that addresses that problem neatly. If you believe in intelligent design, there is nothing yet discovered that can challenge your belief.

Ultimately I think people will believe whatever they feel is right, what comes instinctively.

It would be harmful to freedom of thought to stigmatize religious belief in the scientific community. Thank God scientists tend to keep their minds open rather better than religious zealots. (Dawkins aside, the zealot to trump all zealots.)

Angel
10-Jun-10, 22:30
I had a thought.
That thought existed, at least for me. You can not see, hear, smell or feel it but it existed.
The very fact that you are asking if god exists, makes god exist. Who or whatever 'God' is, is what you want, need, expect god to be.
God is all, God is nothing, God is!

Religion on the other hand is man made, almost always by men for power and control purposes...

Does this make me religious or a beliver or what...

Angel...

rich
10-Jun-10, 22:34
if religion didn't exist we might have to invent it!

How otherwise to explain the proliferation of wire coat hangers in closets? Are they somehow reproducing themselves.... Have they just touched down from Alpha Centurae; can you hold them up and smell the deep heavens.....

So I'm joking.

Well,only partly.

I subscribe to the theology of clutter. We have got more than we will ever need for survival.

We put up a sign saying "beware of the wooly mammoths" and our particular tribe reads this and avoids being trampled and gored.

But is that enough for us? No way, we take this simple direction sign and proceed to expand language until we have Dante and Proust and the Broons. Is this really necessary?

What use is Beethoven or Miles Davis or the Eurovision Song Contest?

They serve no utility at all.

They are a gift, a sign of the richness of life. Within us all flickers that little bit of...er...um..how to say this...all right then - the Godhead.

Otherwise how could we do what we do, feel like we feel, make such a creative fuss of our tiny time here.....the human situation: it ends badly, there is always blood in the third act.

I'll conclude by saying that Hawkins and Dawkins are simply immature, thoughtless, and a net drag on the lives of their audiences.

Next please...

ducati
10-Jun-10, 22:40
I don't believe in a deity. I see things every day that prove the existence of god.


Ironic 'eh?

sandyr1
10-Jun-10, 23:53
So now that we have the 'Best Minds' back, perhaps if these two aforementioned 'Gods' don't believe, but most people do, why do we worship these two individuals??

Boozeburglar
11-Jun-10, 00:16
Good question.

There certainly seems to be more of a cult of personality going on with Dawkins. I know a lot of people who quote him in exactly the same way my wife quotes the bible. People who have not even paid heed to his scientific work.

I think what is different is that Hawking's genius speaks for itself; it is derived from his works.

Dawkin's main source of fame now, and the arena in which it breathes, is his polemic against religion rather than his scienctific achievements. His icon status as an advocate of antitheism has long overtaken that endowed by his very succesful career as a scientist.

I feel Dawkins is exploiting the very same human needs that the organized church exploits.

Leanne
11-Jun-10, 11:38
I feel Dawkins is exploiting the very same human needs that the organized church exploits.

Having read him, I feel the same. He is very good at emotive language to fill in the 'gaps' in his prose. He does have a couple of fundamentally good ideas - unfortunately for him those ideas are not his own...

sandyr1
11-Jun-10, 15:19
Leanne/ Boozeburglar.....
So am I lead to believe that both theories are correct/ both theories are wrong/ is there something in the middle or do we just play with words...one contradicting the other and really no one knows...or should I say...to each his own.
Rich feels that we have this incredible asset visiting Canada, whom I am sure is getting paid 'Megabucks', but if he is negating that which we have been brought up with, and doth perhaps believe, then who should we believe.... Is something out there in the Wilderness?
Could this just be a riddle?

Leanne
11-Jun-10, 15:30
Leanne/ Boozeburglar.....
So am I lead to believe that both theories are correct/ both theories are wrong/ is there something in the middle or do we just play with words...one contradicting the other and really no one knows...or should I say...to each his own.
Rich feels that we have this incredible asset visiting Canada, whom I am sure is getting paid 'Megabucks', but if he is negating that which we have been brought up with, and doth perhaps believe, then who should we believe.... Is something out there in the Wilderness?
Could this just be a riddle?

We were talking about Dawkins not Hawkins - I get them mixed up too. I read the whole of Dawkin's 'Greatest Show on Earth' with a robotic Hawkin's narrative - oops. They are two very different authors - Dawkins is a very good orator but has very little original thought, whereas Hawkin; well new thought is what makes him a little unpopular with the science fraternity (they don't like having current, established theories challenged ;).

Dawkin's is good as long as you don't take what he writes too literally. He writes in a manner that makes it very easy for the layman to understand. He does have some views that he states as facts though that are just one of a few ideas...

It is not about who to believe. It is about what to believe IMHO the facts speak for themselves.

sandyr1
11-Jun-10, 15:39
Yes I did realize that was what was being discussed/ just wondered which end is up with all these 'experts'.
Pillars of the Earth/ World Without End...Ken Follett....v interesting reading.....