toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[John Mortimer]

For example, Christ compared false prophets to bad trees that cannot (have no ability) bear good fruit. Here is a clear case of moral inability. They cannot bear good fruit. So does this mean that God releases such men from their responsibility to bear the good fruit of godly living?
No!.

Yes He does! That is precisely why...

Our Lord makes this very clear: "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).

They are thrown in the fire because they can never be responsible, or response-able.

 

[Skavau]

Then where does it derive?

Humanism.

Where does it derive? From whence comes morality?

Morality comes from humanism. Humanism is concerned with the interest and welfare of other humans. It is a good thing that comes with the survival of social species.

Can he have consideration for the acts of others upon himself? Can he feel cheated?

I'm not sure. Like autism there are probably degrees of sociopathy. I am sure some can feel cheated and then very possibly desire full-blown vengeance. But if someone is cheated, then their integrity and possibly their property have been compromised for the self-gain of others. It is an anti-social activity that leaves us with more victims than profiteers and we rightly condemn it.

Differently yes. But what makes one's reactions moral and another's immoral?

That depends on the circumstances and context. A feeling of indignation can be misdirected but at other times appropriate.

Moral imperative.

To what end? Why is it necessary?

Can he feel cheated? If someone steals his victim from under his nose, will he not feel cheated? If so, then he does conceive justice. What makes his response to stimuli less moral than your own?

Supposing he can, then he can in part conceive of injustice to himself. It would be a very self-serving form at the very most and I suspect they would not be able to coherently distinguish between being cheated and being rightly denied. In any case, if they could feel rightly cheated (and I am sure some can) then their reaction would be appropriate in that context. So?

Prove it.

I think something has been lost in translation here. I said "Elimination of the worst growth prevents mass poverty in the third world". That would be to say that substantially cutting the extortionate birth rates in third-world nations would alleviate poverty. It would almost do so by consequence of the demographics but it wouldn't do it by itself, and we would have to take other measures to bring down the birth rate in order to stabilise and progress them. It would be a consequence rather than a cause of less poverty.

Have you ever seen Logan's Run? The writer of that suggested it. The abortion founders of this nation suggested it.

Yeah, that's a movie. It is fiction. You're conflating the objectives of the characters with that of the writer. I see there's a remake planned for 2012. Might have to watch it when (if) it comes out.

I'm not completely familiar with the founding fathers of America. They suggested methods to quell overpopulation?

So no murder until overpopulation becomes a burden in the USA?

Excuse me, I did not say that. I said that if overpopulation became an obscene problem then an argument would have to take place on it. I did not say and I would not consider murder as a resolution for it. It is anti-humanistic in its methods. You seem so desperate to have me endorse this overpopulation genocide fantasy of yours.

Do you have any evidence, historical or otherwise to back up this assertion?

I'm interested in the existence of a tribe that allows all of its members to kill anyone they like.

Okay, so random murder is immoral because, in your opinion (since you've given no evidence), it would mean the death of civilization, but purposeful murder? What's your argument against purposeful murder of the weak - like what the Spartans and Vikings did? Isn't that productive toward higher evolutionary ground?

No, because evolution doesn't work like that and even if it did I am not a transhumanist and so I do not measure success to that end. And again, what do you suppose the consequences of those societies would be to those living in it? What sort of life do you think people there would live? You have no idea as to what kind of totalitarianism follows from these ludicrious concepts (even if they are meant to be a caricature of social darwinism).

Explain to me why, from the perspective of atheism, art is important.

I don't talk from the perspective of atheism. That is like asking me to speak from the perspective of athorism or azeusism. I talk from the perspective of a humanist, a rationalist and an empiricist who happens to appreciate entertainment in life.

What makes culture more desirable than thuggery? I mean from an evolutionary perspective, where survival of the species is key?

Not a lot. A good job then that I am not a social darwinist.

If these do not improve survivability, then why did we evolve them?

We gained sentience.

Wait a minute. Before you were saying that it would lead to anarchy.

No, I said that allowing random murder would lead to anarchy. The government imposing obscene anti-population measures and killing people based on genetics would lead to an abject dystopia.

Why would anyone support it? Because he has a realistic expectation of landing on the top of the heap for a time. Because he serves someone who has a realistic expectation of landing on the top of the heap.

To what end? For what cause?

Because of selfish survival of the species - if we want to evolve, we must be merciless in getting rid of the weak.

Except that is not how social species evolve. The key here is social.

You clearly haven't thought this out very far. Consider: you are the product of millions of years of random mutation and natural selection - an organic machine refined through the eons. And here you stand, with your brain doing its thing and you assume that sentience is anything other than what it really is: a programmed response to stimuli.
To believe in evolution is to believe in natural causes for everything - even thought, even sentience, even love of beauty, and love itself. We are just biological machines without purpose other than to survive and cause the rest of the human race to survive. That's it. If you have something to add to that, please share.

The fact that we don't fully understand consciousness does not lay credence to assuming that we are progammed automatons.

But you do. If we evolved to no purpose than survival, then we are just a mass of biological circuitry running the programs based on input.

Survival is not a purpose. Survival is simply what is required for a species to persist living. It is an individual purpose (and to much greater reason historically) to work on survival but now it can be taken for granted by many of us until impaired by an extreme illness, injury or old age and even then advances take a lot of it out of our hands. We invoke our own purposes in life.

What makes one bit of output better than another? Nothing but survival of the species. Stuff like "interesting, funny, and though-provoking" are just inventions of the brain to aid in the survival of the species - they aren't real. They have no purpose but survival of the species. How dismal.

Don't presume to speak for my interests.

The guiding hand of a creative creator certainly would endow me with appreciation of art, beauty and creativity. For the Christian there is no "not withstanding" of God. He is the reason that we have purpose, the reason that we can laugh, find things interesting or think with any intent. Without God we are only biological machines.

So your answer is a credulous as mine. "Because I can". Nevermind the insert of a God, the essence is still exactly the same.

Dangerous for whom? Certainly dangerous for the weak and for those who would not band together against others who would rape and murder them. Not dangerous for the murderer or the rapist, though. Not dangerous for the strong and charismatic.

You say that as if murderers act as a united front, or rapists act as a united front. It would be dangerous for everyone regardless of their strength or intent. You want an example of what I'm talking about look no further than Somalia, or the Western Sahara.

Would I like it? Not on your life. I'm a Christian, after all. I believe in protecting the weak from the cruel.

As do I. As a humanist.

That wasn't my point My point was that availability of contraception will not overcome cultural bias toward large families.

Of course. But it is telling that most first-world nations have significantly smaller birth rates than third-world countries.

I'll have to read this later. But brace yourself, I require a high standard of quality for scientific research.

Given your waffling on evolution, I don't think so.

It seems to be the goal of evolution. Which makes one wonder

As I said. Evolution has no goal. What are you talking about?

What is the goal of evolution? What drives the processes?

It does not have a goal and I note the complete non-answer to the literal most successful life form on the planet known as bacteria. I'll also add that if you're seriously asking what drives the processes of evolution then you seriously need to just do some basic reading. A quick glance at even the Wikipedia article reveals the four main mechanisms of Evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

We've not even come close to discussing my own morality. Had you not noticed?

PS: I'd like to see some links to these "sanctimonious tendencies" that you've noted

It is apparent when you preface things with "As a Christian..." Earlier on you seemed to imply Christian or at least theist exclusivity on declaring both rape and murder as wrong. Earlier than that (which prompted my indignation) you thanked God for being merciful (you can't begin to consider how abhorrent that looks to me in recognition of the hell doctrine).

 

[Psalmist]

For - toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'


A thumbs up, bravo, the wave, cheers to


nicholsmom...Town Heretic...Ask Mr. Religion...Knight


:thumb: :BRAVO: :the_wave: :cheers:


Having done all to stand, they stand!​

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Yeah, that's a movie. It is fiction. You're conflating the objectives of the characters with that of the writer. I see there's a remake planned for 2012. Might have to watch it when (if) it comes out.

You ought to read the book. Death at 21 instead of 30. The whole society is a bunch of kids.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I agree. Lots of armies have been known to stop short of the wanton killing of infants. But not this one. Very different character indeed, and one I hope never to meet.

Actually, this isn't uncommon when it comes to total war. Fortunately, we haven't really had a conflict like that since World War II.

 

[kmoney]

:mock: nicholsmom

You need to get to know your Bible (and your imaginary friend) better . . . :loser:

SH looks good in the color red. :think:

 

[kmoney]

In short, I have heard you and many other Calvinists claim that:

1. Adam could not have acted otherwise than he did
2a. Adam was a morally responsible agent
2b. Adam had freedom in a meaningful sense

Now it seems clear to me (and very many other quite bright and learned people throughout history) that both 2a and 2b contradict 1. I have put quite a bit of time and energy toward discovering whether I missed something, and no one has convinced me that I have. In fact moral responsibility is essentially nothing else than being able to do otherwise along with the existence of some objective moral standard.

It will probably take me a long time to read those you reference, mainly because I strongly believe they are wrong on that particular topic and I prefer to spend my time reading people who do not make those mistakes. I've also done quite a bit of inquiry into the question of whether Calvin addresses the contradiction, and it seems that he doesn't.

Your referral to Catholic doctrine is not false but is vastly misleading. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in libertarian free will or the lack of free will, and it certainly doesn't believe those are the only two options. I know you do and I know that is why you defaulted to "libertarian free will," but as I said that is a misleading comment. Catholic doctrine holds that man is free (and therefore a responsible moral agent). I've explained to you elsewhere why your dichotomy is circular, requiring a deterministic description of free will or none at all. If freedom could be deterministically described by our inclinations and othersuch Reformed explanations, then it wouldn't be freedom at all, just as it isn't in the Reformed tradition.

Unless someone gives me a plausible way to resolve the following dilemma I will be understandably slow to read up on the Reformed tradition.

1. Moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise
2. Calvinism denies the ability to have done otherwise

-zip :e4e:

Good post. I don't see how the Calvinistic god can be called anything but unjust. :idunno:

 

[Quincy]

I don't see how this is as big a deal as some of you are making it. He is just one guy with a belief. Sure, he is an incredibly smart guy, but :idunno: , who cares really?

Atheists: Would you become a theist if he was a theist?
Theists: Would you still act like it doesn't matter if he was a theist or would you use it as an example of your claims that atheist are [insert whatever you think]?

 

[Town Heretic]

SH looks good in the color red. :think:

:think: And you have to admit, now and again, silence does become him.

Re: Q's inquiry:

Wouldn't move me one way or the other. I've used Newton and others to counter the intellectual posturing of some atheists, but that's about the extent of it.

 

[kmoney]

I don't see how this is as big a deal as some of you are making it. He is just one guy with a belief. Sure, he is an incredibly smart guy, but :idunno: , who cares really?

Atheists: Would you become a theist if he was a theist?
Theists: Would you still act like it doesn't matter if he was a theist or would you use it as an example of your claims that atheist are [insert whatever you think]?

I could see theists pointing to Hawking to counter the belief that modern science and religion are incompatible. I see Einstein get thrown around from time to time. Hawking might be used in the same way.

 

[alwight]

:think: And you have to admit, now and again, silence does become him.

Re: Q's inquiry:

Wouldn't move me one way or the other. I've used Newton and others to counter the intellectual posturing of some atheists, but that's about the extent of it.

Newton?
Isaac Newton was so 17th Century TH, if you ever get a bit closer to Charles Darwin's time then let me know, you might start getting somewhere.

 

[zippy2006]

It will probably take me a long time to read those you reference, mainly because I strongly believe they are wrong on that particular topic and I prefer to spend my time reading people who do not make those mistakes.

I see. Reading those that disagree with you are out of bounds. Until you can appreciate the positions of others you will never grasp the strengths or weaknesses of your own. Sigh.

And that's not what I said at all now is it? I will read a mathematician who holds that 2+2=4 before I read one that believes 2+2=5. If that doesn't make sense to you then I don't know what to say. I already noted that it will take me longer to get to them, meaning that I do intend to read them.

That you assume responsibility assumes ability is the very heart of your confusion and the libertarianism you are straining mightily to deny.

This philosophical argument is that moral responsibility implies moral ability, that ought implies can. According to this axiom, since God holds fallen man accountable for believing in Christ, then fallen man must have enough spiritual life and goodness within himself to savingly believe. If fallen man ought to believe, then fallen man can believe. And, by implication, if fallen man does not have within himself sufficient moral goodness to obey the Gospel command, then God cannot hold him accountable for this moral failure. In other words, ability limits responsibility.

If you carefully read Scripture you will find the "ought implies can" axiom to be resoundingly denounced. If ought implies can, then every person has the moral ability to live a sinless life because living a sinless life is what everyone ought to do. The consistent application of this axiom leads to pure Pelagianism, the teaching that fallen man has the moral ability to save himself by living a morally perfect life.

I want to thank you for the clarity and pointedness of this reply of yours. It is something I don't see so often, especially on TOL. :e4e:

You have denied the idea that ought implies can. Now to be perfectly honest I think that's absurd. I could give any number of absurd scenarios drawn from your idea, but for brevity's sake I will consider one. Joe sees a baby lying by the side of the road crying. It is clear that the baby needs nourishment, and that it ought to nourish itself. Except it can't. According to your logic, the fact that the baby can't nourish itself has absolutely no relevance with respect to the question of whether it ought to and whether it can be held responsible for failing to nourish itself. Joe watches the baby die, condemns it for dying, maybe even for committing suicide, and walks away in disgust at the baby's failure to do what it ought. AMR sees nothing logically wrong with what Joe has just done, though he no doubt sees something morally wrong with it.

Moreover this axiom implies that a perverse and corrupt heart is an excuse for sinning.

No, it teaches us that if you have absolutely no capacity to not sin then it wouldn't even be a sin. But we've all read Paul who says that he was without sin before he had the law, thus confirming the obvious truth that without ability there can be no responsibility.

If responsibility implies ability, then no ability implies no responsibility.

Right.

For example, Christ compared false prophets to bad trees that cannot (have no ability) bear good fruit. Here is a clear case of moral inability. They cannot bear good fruit. So does this mean that God releases such men from their responsibility to bear the good fruit of godly living? No!. Our Lord makes this very clear: "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 7:19). Our Lord here very directly contradicts your view that responsibility implies ability.

Mortimer addressed this. Here's a question for you: why did Christ come? Why did God create the world at all? You believe that creatures can effect absolutely nothing at all with respect to salvation. Why do we need a world? Why not just separate every soul out at the very beginning, throw them into Heaven or Hell, and be done with it? The world, the human life, Christ's coming are all superfluous on your reading.

An evil heart is no excuse for sin. On the contrary, a hardened and incorrigible heart is all the more reason for judgment.

Only because it was hardened by man's free will.

We are responsible because we are accountable.

This says nothing at all, since responsible and accountable have the same meaning in this context. It would be as fruitful for you to say "We are responsible because we are responsible," or "We are accountable because we are accountable." And this highlights the arbitrary and unintelligible will of God in Calvinism. It is because God says so, there is no other reason. We are damned because God said so, not because of anything we do or don't do (noting here that "do" implies a positive action that could have been otherwise. On the Calvinistic reading a ball could be damned for rolling down a hill, it simply doesn't matter that the ball has no ability to not roll down a hill. And this brings us to another fact: the human being is nothing more than a ball in Calvinism, albeit a more complex one--no true personality or freedom. In Calvinism, a human being damned is no different than damning a ball for rolling down a hill.)

To God. Period. Our abilities have nothing to do with our accountability any more than your incompetence on the job excuses your being held accountable for failing to perform it as judged by the one holding you accountable.

Incompetence is judged because it is a free act, because the worker had the ability to be competent. This is as obvious as the fact that the incompetence of a long-jumper without legs is not actually a failure on their part, even if you believe you could justifiably tell that long jumper that they failed and could be theoretically punished for their failure.

AMR

- zip :e4e:

 

[Traditio]

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." - Stephen Hawking

SOURCE

Plato debunks this view in the Phaedo. Stephen Hawking should keep his mouth shut about stuff that isn't physics. Heaven, the soul, etc. are philosophical/metaphysical problems. Stephen Hawking isn't qualified to talk about them.

 

[John Mortimer]

Plato debunks this view in the Phaedo. Stephen Hawking should keep his mouth shut about stuff that isn't physics. Heaven, the soul, etc. are philosophical/metaphysical problems. Stephen Hawking isn't qualified to talk about them.

Agreed. Socrates in the Phaedo also debunks the idea that each and every individual soul only has one lifetime in embodiment.

 

[DavisBJ]

Stephen Hawking should keep his mouth shut about stuff that isn't physics. Heaven, the soul, etc. are philosophical/metaphysical problems. Stephen Hawking isn't qualified to talk about them.

Kinda hard on him, aren’t you? He’s been a highly respected physicist for most of his life, and his contributions to science have been even more remarkable because of his long-term physical sickness. So when some reporter sticks a microphone in front of him and asks a very obvious question about what he envisions after death, he is supposed to clam up and refuse to answer?

As to the Phaedo, I have never read it, but if wiki’s treatment of the core arguments in it are accurate, then it sounds like Plato’s and Aristotle’s way of looking at things were very similar. Aristotle’s ideas were a good stab for his time, but hardly convincing today. Plato’s ideas similarly sound like almost ephemeral abstractions. I go with Hawking.

 

[Town Heretic]

Kinda hard on him, aren’t you? He’s been a highly respected physicist for most of his life, and his contributions to science have been even more remarkable because of his long-term physical sickness.

He wasn't hard on him as a scientist. Though I do think raising his health issues is key to understanding Hawking's thoughts on religion and the idea of God.

As to the Phaedo, I have never read it, but ... I go with Hawking.

And that's you all over. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

Agreed. Socrates in the Phaedo also debunks the idea that each and every individual soul only has one lifetime in embodiment.

No he doesn't. He tries, but he fails. There are alternative theories of knowledge. See Sts. Augustine and Bonaventure. :noid:

 

[John Mortimer]

No he doesn't. He tries, but he fails. There are alternative theories of knowledge. See Sts. Augustine and Bonaventure. :noid:

I'll stick with Plato, thanks. :loser:

 

[Traditio]

So when some reporter sticks a microphone in front of him and asks a very obvious question about what he envisions after death, he is supposed to clam up and refuse to answer?

Yes!

 

[Quincy]

Re: Q's inquiry:

Wouldn't move me one way or the other. I've used Newton and others to counter the intellectual posturing of some atheists, but that's about the extent of it.

I think that is most gracious and sane of you sir, :e4e: . I think ultimately, Mr. Hawking is just being intellectually honest about his person view and that is about all it is. I don't read that he is attacking anyone personally on a malicious level, or anything like that.

I could see theists pointing to Hawking to counter the belief that modern science and religion are incompatible. I see Einstein get thrown around from time to time. Hawking might be used in the same way.

I agree with you, that there would be theists who would use it to say atheists are stupid and that theists are all on his level. My view is that, if you're using someone else's opinion to try to make others believe or disbelieve something like theism, then you're probably missing the whole point of how serious the matter should be taken.