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

[andyc]

John 5:44 "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?

Christ is the stumbling block to the intellectual mind.

 

[badp]

Christ is the stumbling block to the intellectual mind.

And the atheists and Darwinists as well

 

[rexlunae]

Dogmatic theology in the sense of preserving dogmatism (as opposed to studying the statements of dogmatic theology critically) is a failure to meet the standard of modern theology. You cannot assume the truth of the dogmas uncritically in modern theology. Philosophical theology is an essential part of any systematic theology (My master thesis is on systematic theology) done in university theology today. I must underline that when I refer to theology as a discipline, I mean modern academic theology which does not assume anything. It is normative, its formulations are tentative and its methods are critical according to the academic standard.

Nothing here that I really disagree with.

It may be true to a certain extent. Depends on your definition of properly interpret, to properly interpret a work like Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology (3 volume work) you do need to have a good understanding of what Tillich means by certain terms which means you need to have a good understanding of the theology of German idealism which means you have to have a good understanding of theology and philosophy leading up to that. Sure, you can read Tillich superficially and get a superficial understanding. Then again, I could read popular science and get a superficial understanding of what really are complex scientific ideas as well.

Sure. Of course, it doesn't necessarily take that strong a background to be able to understand Tillich reasonably.

Not by default, that is true. The verdict of him being seemingly incompetent lies within the statements he makes. I was not impressed by them, such fundamental mistakes reveals that little effort has been made to understand what he criticizes.

What would you say is his error?

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm all for theology being influenced by the natural sciences, it must take the worldview presented by the sciences seriously and take that into consideration when doing theological thinking, this is especially true in systematic theology that deals with some areas where what you say in theology must consider what the sciences say (The idea of divine agency is an example of this).
But it is also a bit too much folk theology in what you say. The idea in systematic theology is much deeper than God being a cause among causes, which essentially is a God of the gaps (an idea I suspect I despise just as much as you).

Well, most believers of Christianity are essentially folk theologians or worse, which is to say that his criticism would hit the form of Christianity that most Christians actually practice. And I think it is fair to call that a fairy tale, in that it is a form of fantasy wish-fulfillment. It's also most of what you hear about from the people who knock on your door to most television ministers.

And as for systematic theology, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), it is mostly focused on making Christianity self-consistent. So whereas it may be more rigorous than looser systems of belief, it is still vulnerable to any number of criticisms, such as circularity.

Even in principle, science cannot falsify the understanding of God as creator, because what is meant that God is the uncaused cause and the ground of all being.

Well, science certainly can ask and answer questions about causality, and in that sense it is perhaps equipped to someday deal with the notion of an uncaused cause. Personally, I've always considered that term to be mere special pleading, another god of the gaps, because it is the only uncaused cause that the arguers allow. I don't tend to believe in singular events or things. I assume that if there is one cause without its own cause, there must be the possibility of another. And as far as I know, there's nothing in theology that helps with the question. Cosmological arguments assert a need for an uncaused cause, and therefore they assume one, exactly one, and identify it with a god, to whom they then assign additional attributes in order to fit a very pre-defined mold.

Not sure what to make of the term "ground of all being". It seems mostly like an extraneous concept invented to give God a place to live when science finally removes him from the material realm. I don't see why existence cannot be self-"grounding" rather than relying on an external agent.

It all lies beyond the sciences which must only concern itself with the empirical.

No dispute there. In fact, there will probably always be material things that science can't explain.

If the universe can create itself with gravity and quantum fluctuations, great, that is a fantastic discovery. However, it does not do much to the theological idea of God as creator.

I suppose that depends on how tied the theological idea of God is to the material Universe. It's a catch-22. The more you tie theology to the material world, the more falsifiable it becomes. And frankly, the predictive history of Christianity in terms of scientific discoveries is not very good. But the more you divorce theology from the material world, the easier it becomes to dismiss the whole thing as circular and extraneous.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well in the most basic sense, if there's a God that creates everything then He can keep everything. So I think the prevailing opinion of the early church regarding the reconciliation and restoration of all is correct. Every other doctrine by necessity dictates that God loses at least part of creation and by association limits God. Thats my take anyway.

Well technically the doctrine was around at the outset. It simply wasn't the predominant overall and became more established through Augustine and Constantine among others.

. . . are you implying Christianity has a very real man-made component?

Why would you think Christians would fear the end of their human existence exactly? Can you expand on that?

. . . I think that Christians, deep down, aren't totally convinced of their theology . . . else they wouldn't cling to "this" life so tenaciously.

As to the latter then non existence. Bit of a no brainer that one....

:chuckle:

In which case you're still missing my point. Those "70" years are there for a reason. If love is of any value then those years could be spent loving your neighbour, helping those in need, raising a family etc. It's not about some selfish desire to 'speed up the process' as if belief is all about yearning for bliss.

. . . ah, so the rest of humanity can hold onto this "life" as long as possible . . . makes sense . . . :nono: . . . not really.

 

[Selaphiel]

What would you say is his error?

We might be talking a bit past each other here. I've been talking so much about his book The Grand Design in this topic that I almost forgot what the original topic was.
First I think it would be a gross misrepresentation of the teaching of Christ to portray it as some pie in the sky teaching. I can agree with Hawking if he talks about specific Christian theological ideas. For instance, I think the "faith alone, do whatever I want know and be saved" view is pie in the sky and can be seen as sort of a fairytale. However, I do not think that this applies to the teachings of Christ. He does not promise any rose tinted future, but rather that those that follow him will be subject to hatred and persecution. It is a call to radical love, even if it costs you your own life, which he refers to as picking up our cross. To quote Herbert McCabe: "If don't have love then you are dead, if you love they will kill you". That sums up the teaching of Christ pretty will.
I don't think that is a fairytale, I think that is more real and gritty than what most people live by.

Well, most believers of Christianity are essentially folk theologians or worse, which is to say that his criticism would hit the form of Christianity that most Christians actually practice. And I think it is fair to call that a fairy tale, in that it is a form of fantasy wish-fulfillment. It's also most of what you hear about from the people who knock on your door to most television ministers.

I think we live in different cultures, so it is hard for me to comment on that. Where I come from there is a state Lutheran church, which is spans rather wide when it comes to the theology that people hold. It is concerned with being open to the people, and large parts of it is oriented towards a more liberal approach to Christianity, with an important focus on things like the social gospel.
Door to door evangelists and television ministers are very exotic here. :chuckle:

And as for systematic theology, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), it is mostly focused on making Christianity self-consistent. So whereas it may be more rigorous than looser systems of belief, it is still vulnerable to any number of criticisms, such as circularity.

This is a complex issue. Because there tends to be a gap and a delay between academic theology and church theology.
Systematic theology strives for self-consistency, but I also think systematic theology must be plausible in light of other knowledge. I'm what you would call an integrationist when it comes to the relationship of religion and other knowledge such as science. I think theology must strive for coherence and plausibility in light of other knowledge and not just self-consistency. This means re-expressing old ideas in new language and sometimes dropping parts that are deemed untenable.

Cosmological arguments assert a need for an uncaused cause, and therefore they assume one, exactly one, and identify it with a god, to whom they then assign additional attributes in order to fit a very pre-defined mold.

As long as you separate the assigning of additional attributes from the cosmological argument in itself, then that is a decent description.

Not sure what to make of the term "ground of all being". It seems mostly like an extraneous concept invented to give God a place to live when science finally removes him from the material realm. I don't see why existence cannot be self-"grounding" rather than relying on an external agent.

Ground of being simply refers to God as the answer to why there is being at all. He is being and without him nothing could ever be. Whether God is an external agent is another question, personally I do not think God is external since I subscribe to a panentheistic theology.

The idea of God as a being among other beings is a fairly late theological development. In more antique theology, all things got their being from God because it was only God that had being.

I suppose that depends on how tied the theological idea of God is to the material Universe. It's a catch-22. The more you tie theology to the material world, the more falsifiable it becomes. And frankly, the predictive history of Christianity in terms of scientific discoveries is not very good. But the more you divorce theology from the material world, the easier it becomes to dismiss the whole thing as circular and extraneous.

The question is: Can theology live with more tentative formulations rather than with eternal dogmas? I think the answer is yes. I think we all are interested in truth, and I think the pursuit of truth requires us to be modest and to allow tentative formulations as we progress in knowledge. The difference is that I consider religious experience to be a valid form of experience, however I think that religious experience must be interpreted in a way that is coherent with our currently best worldviews.

:e4e:

 

[Nick M]

I regard the autonomous existence that atheists hold to as a fairy story for people afraid of the light of the creator.

:up:

Only John from the Holy Spirit could say it better. They don't like the light.

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

 

[Sherman]

Quote: Originally Posted by andyc Christ is the stumbling block to the intellectual mind.

And the atheists and Darwinists as well

More, He is a stumbling block to the proud. With high intelligence, often comes pride. Dispite his physical limitations, Hawking is an influential and powerful man. The influential and the proud are last to admit they have a need for a Savior.

 

[rexlunae]

We might be talking a bit past each other here. I've been talking so much about his book The Grand Design in this topic that I almost forgot what the original topic was.

Fair enough. I haven't actually read it.

First I think it would be a gross misrepresentation of the teaching of Christ to portray it as some pie in the sky teaching. I can agree with Hawking if he talks about specific Christian theological ideas. For instance, I think the "faith alone, do whatever I want know and be saved" view is pie in the sky and can be seen as sort of a fairytale. However, I do not think that this applies to the teachings of Christ. He does not promise any rose tinted future, but rather that those that follow him will be subject to hatred and persecution. It is a call to radical love, even if it costs you your own life, which he refers to as picking up our cross. To quote Herbert McCabe: "If don't have love then you are dead, if you love they will kill you". That sums up the teaching of Christ pretty will.
I don't think that is a fairytale, I think that is more real and gritty than what most people live by.

Well, the fairy tale is John 3:16. Those who believe in Jesus are promised eternal life. But I have no idea where that fits in your theology.

I think we live in different cultures, so it is hard for me to comment on that. Where I come from there is a state Lutheran church, which is spans rather wide when it comes to the theology that people hold. It is concerned with being open to the people, and large parts of it is oriented towards a more liberal approach to Christianity, with an important focus on things like the social gospel.

Sweden? Norway? Iceland? Denmark?

I come from a predominantly Lutheran part of the United States and was raised Lutheran, so perhaps there's more in common than you would imagine. But we also have a lot of hucksters here.

Door to door evangelists and television ministers are very exotic here. :chuckle:

Count yourself blessed.

This is a complex issue. Because there tends to be a gap and a delay between academic theology and church theology.
Systematic theology strives for self-consistency, but I also think systematic theology must be plausible in light of other knowledge. I'm what you would call an integrationist when it comes to the relationship of religion and other knowledge such as science. I think theology must strive for coherence and plausibility in light of other knowledge and not just self-consistency. This means re-expressing old ideas in new language and sometimes dropping parts that are deemed untenable.

Then we started out in about the same place. Where we differ is that attempting to integrate theology with other knowledge leads me to reject belief in a god.

Ground of being simply refers to God as the answer to why there is being at all. He is being and without him nothing could ever be.

I understand that, but I think it ignores some possibilities that are simpler. You being a panentheist changes things a bit, but for other Christians who view God as apart from the Universe we have to ask why they assume that that is something that God could do but the Universe couldn't.

Whether God is an external agent is another question, personally I do not think God is external since I subscribe to a panentheistic theology.

At which point, the lines between different things start to blur a bit. At some point the distinction between a pan(en)theist and an atheist is basically semantics. We can agree that there is a Universe. If you say that that Universe is God or is part of God, then it seems to me that your theology converges with science, in that describing the Universe is the process of describing what you call God. To me, that doesn't jive with Christianity in any form that I'm familiar with, but perhaps you have a different experience.

The idea of God as a being among other beings is a fairly late theological development. In more antique theology, all things got their being from God because it was only God that had being.

I guess I'm less concerned with when an idea came about. But interesting none-the-less.

The question is: Can theology live with more tentative formulations rather than with eternal dogmas? I think the answer is yes.

I really do think that's a good thing. I don't agree, but I think it's really healthy for people to be able to adopt a more skeptical attitude toward religion without losing the whole underpinning of their lives. At the same time though, I think it's also a good thing that we are seeing more and more people who don't need religion to get by.

I think we all are interested in truth, and I think the pursuit of truth requires us to be modest and to allow tentative formulations as we progress in knowledge. The difference is that I consider religious experience to be a valid form of experience, however I think that religious experience must be interpreted in a way that is coherent with our currently best worldviews.

I don't consider religious experience to be invalid. I just don't give it a lot of credence beyond the subjective.

:e4e:

 

[Sherman]

:up:

Only John from the Holy Spirit could say it better. They don't like the light.

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

You hit the nail right on the head. Too bad I can't rep you again. But you did give me a SPOTD. This is the heart of the matter as to why people reject God.

 

[rocketman]

BULL.

Sounds as if you are the one with fear of death, and for good reason...I know what the end brings for me you refuse to know or understand. Your Loss.

. . . or so you hope.

And that hope is still more than you have...

. . . my life has plenty of meaning . . . I don't need wishful thinking (as in the case of Christianity) to make it so . . . .

If nothingness has meaning more power to ya...

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sounds as if you are the one with fear of death, and for good reason...I know what the end brings for me you refuse to know or understand. Your Loss.

. . . whatever . . . :chuckle:

And that hope is still more than you have...

. . . a false hope equals no hope . . . in any definition of reality.

If nothingness has meaning more power to ya...

. . . nothingness doesn't frighten me in the least . . . but it does you . . . apparantly.

. . . what I won't be after I've "lived" will be no different than what I wasn't before I did . . .

 

[Selaphiel]

Well, the fairy tale is John 3:16. Those who believe in Jesus are promised eternal life. But I have no idea where that fits in your theology.

It definitely has a place, but I think theologies that only focuses on the future promises paint a very incomplete picture. This is an area where Christians could learn a lot from our Jewish brothers and sisters, the focus on the here and now and being a down to earth people concerned with the here and now as well as with the promises.

Sweden? Norway? Iceland? Denmark?

I come from a predominantly Lutheran part of the United States and was raised Lutheran, so perhaps there's more in common than you would imagine. But we also have a lot of hucksters here.

Norway.

I understand that, but I think it ignores some possibilities that are simpler. You being a panentheist changes things a bit, but for other Christians who view God as apart from the Universe we have to ask why they assume that that is something that God could do but the Universe couldn't.

I should probably change that to "I sympathize with a lot of panentheistic thought, it is a work in progress kind of thing :chuckle: But I think there is a sense in which Christian theology has always had panentheistic elements in it. There is an idea of participating in God's being as opposed to being beings separate from God. Augustine's image of the sponge in the infinite sea of God.

At which point, the lines between different things start to blur a bit. At some point the distinction between a pan(en)theist and an atheist is basically semantics. We can agree that there is a Universe. If you say that that Universe is God or is part of God, then it seems to me that your theology converges with science, in that describing the Universe is the process of describing what you call God. To me, that doesn't jive with Christianity in any form that I'm familiar with, but perhaps you have a different experience.

I agree on there being little difference between atheism and pantheism, but panentheism is a different story. Panentheists states that there is an eternal aspect to God as well, a mind of God that contains all possibilities (Similar to the Platonic ideas). So in panentheism there are both eternal and temporal aspects of God, the temporal aspects are identified with the world.
There are more classical models that are viable as well, but there are other topics up on this already.

 

[rocketman]

. . . whatever . . . :chuckle:

My sentiments exactly...Whatever

.. . . a false hope equals no hope . . . in any definition of reality.

Only false by your standards which doesn't mean much.

.. . . nothingness doesn't frighten me in the least . . . but it does you . . . apparantly.

It is not I that has nothingness, so there is no fear.

.. . . what I won't be after I've "lived" will be no different than what I wasn't before I did . . .

Good luck with that. :thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

My sentiments exactly...Whatever

:mmph:

Only false by your standards which doesn't mean much.

. . . as if your standards carry any additional weight . . . :rotfl:

It is not I that has nothingness, so there is no fear.

. . . so say your wishful thoughts . . .

Good luck with that.

( % )

Everyone has their favorite super-hero . . . mine's Unda-Dawg.

 

[Town Heretic]

"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

I regard Hawking as a brilliant theoretical physicist but I wouldn't pick him as a dance partner in a tango contest. lain:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I regard Hawking as a brilliant theoretical physicist but I wouldn't pick him as a dance partner in a tango contest. lain:

. . . how about as the Jammer in a Roller Derby?

 

[bybee]

. . . how about as the Jammer in a Roller Derby?

You might want me for that!

 

[Silent Hunter]

You might want me for that!

:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

. . . how about as the Jammer in a Roller Derby?

:rotfl: :thumb:

Okay. The point remaining that excellence in one particular is no proof of merit in another.

 

[Persephone66]

:up:

Only John from the Holy Spirit could say it better. They don't like the light.

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

I don't like the light, even with sunscreen I burn with in a few minutes.

Is believing in magic trees, talking animals and a magic man that is his own father going to change that?