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

[csuguy]

The fairy tale is the idea that all knowledge should be judged by science, as if science were the end-all-be-all. Science is great, don't get me wrong, but it only properly applies to certain fields of study. There is plenty of knowledge well beyond science which it would be foolish to dismiss just because its not science. History, morality, math, logic, etc.

In fact, of all forms of knowledge, science is relatively unimportant.

 

[Nick M]

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.

Actually, the cowboy with the 45 hit the nail on the head. Thanks anyway. :up:

 

[Nick M]

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

That is pretty stupid to do so. However, it is not stupid to believe in a creator, since a rock can not create itself out of nothing.

 

[Persephone66]

That is pretty stupid to do so. However, it is not stupid to believe in a creator, since a rock can not create itself out of nothing.

Well you are half right, a rock cannot create itself out of nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[zippy2006]

apologetics

apologetics

Hello :e4e: A few thoughts:

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.

I don't think the general format of theology is circular at all, and this is because of revelation or authority. For example, you could have an argument saying that Jesus is God, and once that is established you can take the words of Jesus and form more complex theology. Of course it is more complicated than that, but there is no inherent circularity in theology.

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.

You commit a few common sloppy atheistic errors here:

1. Trying to dismiss cosmological arguments as a group. We can define cosmological arguments broadly: arguing from facts about the world to God, but they take so many varied forms that to try to dismiss them all at once is troublesome. Not all cosmological arguments are even asserting a need for an uncaused cause, and different thinkers will define "cause" drastically differently, etc. Many of these arguments are operating at a metaphysical level which isn't even accessible to scientific criticism in principle.

2. Complaining that the thing doesn't point to God as you have conceived Him but rather to something else entirely. Some arguments may commit this error, but certainly not all of them do, and if you think of God in a simplistic way that is primarily informed by the sort of words Hawking is using, then there will probably be no rational argument to lead to such a thing at all. It is important to remember that the early philosophers and theologians were forming the concept of God itself from these arguments, not using artificial arguments to try to arrive at a preconceived idea as is sometimes thought.

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 see the question as rather trivial and closely connected to divine simplicity. The universe is clearly a composite thing made up of contingent pieces. In a modern causal sense, the universe does not account for itself any more than a single contingent event within the universe accounts for itself. Classical theism has rather clear arguments against these things, but it seems that modern thought and Protestantism has lead in an anthropomorphizing direction which gives rise to a number of what should be irrelevant questions. When we start thinking of God as one being among many, it is hard to get out of the rut.

-zip
:e4e:

 

[DavisBJ]

In fact, of all forms of knowledge, science is relatively unimportant.

The music, fine art, and some other areas of learning from centuries ago is sometimes equal to what we have today. Yet in the world we live in today the common man lives with luxuries that the kings of old couldn’t dream of. That difference is due to the filed of learning that you dismiss as “relatively unimportant”.

 

[zippy2006]

The music, fine art, and some other areas of learning from centuries ago is sometimes equal to what we have today. Yet in the world we live in today the common man lives with luxuries that the kings of old couldn’t dream of. That difference is due to the filed of learning that you dismiss as “relatively unimportant”.

What the kings truly wouldn't have dreamed of is the suicide rate among the richest in society; then again they may have understood it quite well. Relatively unimportant indeed.

 

[Sherman]

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

You don't like God's light. Do you fear a 'Sonburn?' Go head and crawl off into your dark corner.

 

[Persephone66]

You don't like God's light. Do you fear a 'Sonburn?' Go head and crawl off into your dark corner.

Do you have an excuse or are you just plain stupid?

 

[csuguy]

The music, fine art, and some other areas of learning from centuries ago is sometimes equal to what we have today. Yet in the world we live in today the common man lives with luxuries that the kings of old couldn’t dream of. That difference is due to the filed of learning that you dismiss as “relatively unimportant”.

Like I said - I like science, it definitely has provided us with some nice gadgets and makes life more comfortable in many ways (although on the flip side its also brought about mass destruction, is destroying the environment, etc. as well). This doesn't make it important however, not when you compare it to morality, logic, language, history, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Classical theism has rather clear arguments against these things, but it seems that modern thought and Protestantism has lead in an anthropomorphizing direction which gives rise to a number of what should be irrelevant questions.

As a life long classical theist, I am quite certain that the full orb of Protestantism does not fits your claims. Moreover, no one, Catholic or Protestant, doubts that anthropomorphisms are contained in Scripture. Yes there are folks on both sides who like to think of God as a old man with flowing white hair and grey beard...and some in both these camps actually think it is not a violation of Scripture to even represent members of the Trinity thusly. I'm just sayin'. :squint:

AMR

 

[Sceptic Force]

Like I said - I like science, it definitely has provided us with some nice gadgets and makes life more comfortable in many ways (although on the flip side its also brought about mass destruction, is destroying the environment, etc. as well). This doesn't make it important however, not when you compare it to morality, logic, language, history, etc.

Perfect technology and science would only compliment instead of destroy. It is the curse of sin that allows technology and science to do damage to this earth. They have discovered some pre-flood drawings of what might be air-planes & batteries.......

 

[DavisBJ]

Like I said - I like science, it definitely has provided us with some nice gadgets and makes life more comfortable in many ways (although on the flip side it’s also brought about mass destruction, is destroying the environment, etc. as well). This doesn't make it important however, not when you compare it to morality, logic, language, history, etc.

It sounds like what you want to deem as important is determined by your customized criteria. I have no idea what it means to meaningfully evaluate the importance of science as compared to history or language. And it is not science that causes mass destruction or environmental problems, it is man’s misuse of science – aka lack of morality – that takes the blame there.

 

[zippy2006]

As a life long classical theist, I am quite certain that the full orb of Protestantism does not fits your claims. Moreover, no one, Catholic or Protestant, doubts that anthropomorphisms are contained in Scripture. Yes there are folks on both sides who like to think of God as a old man with flowing white hair and grey beard...and some in both these camps actually think it is not a violation of Scripture to even represent members of the Trinity thusly. I'm just sayin'. :squint:

AMR

Fair enough, but I think it holds on a deeper level as well. For example, it seems to me that your own thought (Calvinism) has created, or maybe solidified would be a better word, the idea that God's will and our will are in some sort of opposition; that man's free will is not compatible with God's sovereignty. I think this has on one hand created a notion of God as a sort of anthropomorphic competitor with humans, but could also go in a different direction along with the Reformed themselves and deny man's free will. In either case the pitting of God's freedom against our own has played a part in the competitive anthropomorphic conception of God.

So maybe my knowledge is incomplete, but I don't think classical theism could be said to deny man's free will and support the anthropomorphizing dilemma noted above.

:e4e:

 

[Lon]

It is quite convenient that theology is so much simpler than a lot of science. Makes it much more accessible.

This was kinda naively cute, well except for Chemistry, that one I might give ya. That and space/light travel and, but that tends to be fiction to most too.

 

[csuguy]

It sounds like what you want to deem as important is determined by your customized criteria. I have no idea what it means to meaningfully evaluate the importance of science as compared to history or language. And it is not science that causes mass destruction or environmental problems, it is man’s misuse of science – aka lack of morality – that takes the blame there.

If you think about it for a little bit you will realize that science is unimportant compared to various other fields of knowledge. As pointed out above, science doesn't tell us how to use it - we must determine how to use it, and we can and have used it quite destructively. In life generally too, science does not and cannot inform us about how to interact with others, how we should conduct ourselves in public or private. Obviously this, morality, is more important than anything science can offer us.

Science can extend our lives and fix up our bodies, but it can't give meaning to our lives. Obviously having purpose and meaning with whatever time you have is far more important than living a little, or even a lot, longer. Purpose is found in religion and philosophy.

Science can help us to communicate over long distances instantly, but it is meaningless if we don't have an established means of communication before hand. Society, science, philosophy, history, etc. really nothing as we know it would be possible without language. Obviously language is more important that science.

Science can't tell us how to deal with problems in society and how to avoid disaster. What teaches us not fall into the same old problems? History. By studying those who came before us we can see what they got right, what they got wrong, and thus make educated decisions with regards to society and its problems. Obviously the knowledge given to us via history is more important than science.

In short, science, as cool as it can be and as comfortable as it can make our lives, is relatively unimportant in comparison too so many non-scientific fields of knowledge. Science doesn't even compare.

 

[Selaphiel]

If you think about it for a little bit you will realize that science is unimportant compared to various other fields of knowledge. As pointed out above, science doesn't tell us how to use it - we must determine how to use it, and we can and have used it quite destructively. In life generally too, science does not and cannot inform us about how to interact with others, how we should conduct ourselves in public or private. Obviously this, morality, is more important than anything science can offer us.

Science can extend our lives and fix up our bodies, but it can't give meaning to our lives. Obviously having purpose and meaning with whatever time you have is far more important than living a little, or even a lot, longer. Purpose is found in religion and philosophy.

Science can help us to communicate over long distances instantly, but it is meaningless if we don't have an established means of communication before hand. Society, science, philosophy, history, etc. really nothing as we know it would be possible without language. Obviously language is more important that science.

Science can't tell us how to deal with problems in society and how to avoid disaster. What teaches us not fall into the same old problems? History. By studying those who came before us we can see what they got right, what they got wrong, and thus make educated decisions with regards to society and its problems. Obviously the knowledge given to us via history is more important than science.

In short, science, as cool as it can be and as comfortable as it can make our lives, is relatively unimportant in comparison too so many non-scientific fields of knowledge. Science doesn't even compare.

I do not disagree that there are others things that are important as well, but I think you left out a fundamental role of science and in general you offer a view of science that is too instrumentalistic for me.
Science can tell us about the planet we live on, the solar system it exists in and the galaxy that contains the solar system and the universe that contains it all.
It also helps us understand our origins. We understand how man came to be through an evolutionary process, it even helps understand that the elements that we consist of came from the stars.
This goes beyond mere pragmatic concerns. An understanding of reality through critical research helps (not necessarily to the exclusion of other perspectives) us to understand ourselves, to understand our place in this universe.
It also tells us about ourselves. We can know what we truly are made of. Research on the brain is still in its infancy, but I have little doubt that given the time it will reveal some remarkable things about human beings which will help us further when it comes to understanding ourselves.

So science is more than just developing medicines and engineering. Remove all the practical applications and science would still be worthwhile because it tells us of our origins, the reality we live in and what we are.

 

[alwight]

If you think about it for a little bit you will realize that science is unimportant compared to various other fields of knowledge. As pointed out above, science doesn't tell us how to use it - we must determine how to use it, and we can and have used it quite destructively. In life generally too, science does not and cannot inform us about how to interact with others, how we should conduct ourselves in public or private. Obviously this, morality, is more important than anything science can offer us.

Science can be tested, verified and falsified if wrong, whereas morality is rather a different kettle of fish maybe.
How do you test and verify a morality above that of simple general opinion perhaps?
Who actually gets to decide what is officially moral?

 

[Lon]

How do you test and verify a morality above that of simple general opinion perhaps?
Who actually gets to decide what is officially moral?

1)If we are made, the One who made us would get to dictate that.
2)If there is no specific source of existence from meaning, there is no tangible meaning to morality. Without God, morality is a non sequitur.

 

[alwight]

1)If we are made, the One who made us would get to dictate that.
2)If there is no specific source of existence from meaning, there is no tangible meaning to morality. Without God, morality is a non sequitur.

Put it another way then...
Who gets to decide what God says is moral? Perhaps for those of us with a less than tuned in peception of God or indeed any gods.
Please don't claim its all there in the Bible btw, it isn't. lain: