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

[DavisBJ]

1) Without God, morality is a non sequitur.

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

I’m glad the atheists I know don’t suffer from such a complete abrogation of decency.

 

[Sherman]

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

That is the looong stretch of the imagination.:kookoo: Did you bang your head this morning getting into your car?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

. . . there's a guy where I work who has exactly this attitude where is shown (proved) to him his deity doesn't exist.

I’m glad the atheists I know don’t suffer from such a complete abrogation of decency.

:crackup:

 

[Silent Hunter]

1)If we are made, the One who made us would get to dictate that.

. . . that's why I go to such lengths to not anger my parents excessively . . .

2)If there is no specific source of existence from meaning, there is no tangible meaning to morality.

. . . how humans treat each other is meaningless?

Without God, morality is a non sequitur.

. . . without human interaction . . . morality is a non sequitur.

. . . see also this post.

 

[GuySmiley]

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

I’m glad the atheists I know don’t suffer from such a complete abrogation of decency.

This is the typical silly atheist response. I knew it was coming when Lon posted. You are missing the point.* The point is that since you don't suffer from a complete abrogation of decency, God exists.

*Don't feel bad, no atheist ever gets it; it seems its almost on purpose.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Science certainly has a purpose, but studying humans as objects is a far cry from a subjective understanding of humans in a serious philosophical or spiritual sense. When Socrates claimed that we ought to know ourselves he was not speaking about objective scientific knowledge. Using science as a means to know and understand ourselves in a meaningful way is extremely limited imo, and the neutrality of science with respect to the hard questions makes it somewhat ineffective in such a venture in the first place.

I think one of the most important truths in life is the fact that when we look into the eyes of another human being we are not looking at an object so much as a subject, which is something that science inevitably misses.

:e4e:

 

[DavisBJ]

The point is that since you don't suffer from a complete abrogation of decency, God exists.

You are right, God exists. But I didn’t realize you would so quickly acknowledge that the great and only God Thor does exist.

 

[csuguy]

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.

Yes science does offer us answers about how things work and possible explanations for how things came to be, but that still doesn't compare to any of the things I listed before. Science tells me that the reason something accelerates is because a force is applied to it. Great! So what does that tell me about how to live my life? Does it give me purpose? Does it teach us how to address problems in society or how to avoid them? Does it teach us logic? Does such knowledge even begin to compare to the importance of language?

I'm not saying science doesn't have its place, that it doesn't have some good merits too it. I'm saying that in comparison to many non-scientific forms of knowledge, science doesn't even come close in importance.

 

[csuguy]

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?

Just because you like the epistomology of science better than that for morality, that doesn't tell us anything about their respective importance for humanity.

 

[DavisBJ]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 16th, 2011 12:49 PM

toldailytopic: Stephen Hawing says Heaven is a 'fairy story', what do you think about that assertion?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Who is Stephen Hawing? Any relation to the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking?

 

[Ktoyou]

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

I agree, there are many anthropomorphous subjects in scripture. It all makes sense when one considers the purpose, communication. As the Roman lawyer, who spoke best won the case, so would speaking old French be more meaningful in 9th century France than classical Latin. The goal is communication; now we think more abstract, much of the anthropomorphism is now obsolete.

Regarding the OP, why would I care what someone has to say about heaven being a fairytale?

 

[DavisBJ]

If you think about it for a little bit you will realize that science is unimportant compared to various other fields of knowledge.

…

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 agree that there are vital things that science does not provide. But this seems like an argument over whether the arms and legs or the heart are the most important to the body. If the heart is gone, the body is dead, and the arms and legs are useless. Although the reverse is not true, still there is an immense difference between just a living torso and head, and a full healthy body.

So I still contest your claim that “of all forms of knowledge, science is relatively unimportant”. It is science that has provided us with a way to find that a lot of what was thought anciently to be “knowledge” was in fact wrong, and to show the correct idea. You are welcome to go back to a middle-ages approach to learning, but I rather value this immensely productive and unique tool called science.

 

[DavisBJ]

Regarding the OP, why would I care what someone has to say about heaven being a fairytale?

I think that is one of the downsides of being recognized as a world authority the way Hawking is. Certainly he has had to ponder what will become of himself within the next decade or two, but when he expresses his conclusions about an afterlife, it gets reported around the world.

I agree with him, but if I typeset my opinions on heaven and delivered them to the newspaper office ready for press, I would be laughed out of the building.

 

[csuguy]

I agree that there are vital things that science does not provide. But this seems like an argument over whether the arms and legs or the heart are the most important to the body. If the heart is gone, the body is dead, and the arms and legs are useless. Although the reverse is not true, still there is an immense difference between just a living torso and head, and a full healthy body.

So I still contest your claim that “of all forms of knowledge, science is relatively unimportant”. It is science that has provided us with a way to find that a lot of what was thought anciently to be “knowledge” was in fact wrong, and to show the correct idea. You are welcome to go back to a middle-ages approach to learning, but I rather value this immensely productive and unique tool called science.

Mankind has survived a long time without modern science - so it can hardly be compared to a limb or a vital organ of the body in importance.

 

[alwight]

Just because you like the epistomology of science better than that for morality, that doesn't tell us anything about their respective importance for humanity.

Nevertheless my preferences are not really the point here since it seems rather likely that theists will never be able to conclude how it would be decided universally what an ultimate morality is.
Yes, I understand that theists may claim that God decides morality, but how exactly are we meant to know what that is from personal opinion?
Theists themselves don't seem to know what that morality is from their own or indeed have any better mores than those of non-believers?

IOW what would be the point of any such morality navel gazing when clearly there is no chance of an ultimate falsifiable outcome, only ever a very human opinion?

 

[csuguy]

Nevertheless my preferences are not really the point here since it seems rather likely that theists will never be able to conclude how it would be decided universally what an ultimate morality is.

One is foolish to only consider what can be universally demonstrated/accepted. In fact, such an argument borders on, if it isn't fully, ad populum.

Yes, I understand that theists may claim that God decides morality, but how exactly are we meant to know what that is from personal opinion?
Theists themselves don't seem to know what that morality is from their own or indeed have any better mores than those of non-believers?

It's kind of ironic that the most important forms of knowledge are not scientific and not universally demonstrable. I believe this reflects the fact that in order to acquire the most important knowledge, one must personally seek truth.

IOW what would be the point of any such morality navel gazing when clearly there is no chance of an ultimate falsifiable outcome, only ever a very human opinion?

So we should do away with morals because people can't agree on the subject? Seems to me you are bordering on ad populum again.

 

[Selaphiel]

Science certainly has a purpose, but studying humans as objects is a far cry from a subjective understanding of humans in a serious philosophical or spiritual sense. When Socrates claimed that we ought to know ourselves he was not speaking about objective scientific knowledge. Using science as a means to know and understand ourselves in a meaningful way is extremely limited imo, and the neutrality of science with respect to the hard questions makes it somewhat ineffective in such a venture in the first place.

I think one of the most important truths in life is the fact that when we look into the eyes of another human being we are not looking at an object so much as a subject, which is something that science inevitably misses.

I agree that science can't give the complete answer who we are or what we should be.
But I do think science plays a role in it. I think that any account of the human person must at least reflect on what we know about human beings and our origins, since those things are very much a part of who we are, but they are not all we are.
Treating humans as subjects is a concern of religion and philosophy, only those can argue for that. But I think science can (like I said, brain science is in its infancy) tell us what (not who) those subjects are and how they arise. But do not misunderstand me, I do not suggest that such an understanding should determine things like ethics. But I do think they are a part of our self-understanding.

Yes science does offer us answers about how things work and possible explanations for how things came to be, but that still doesn't compare to any of the things I listed before. Science tells me that the reason something accelerates is because a force is applied to it. Great! So what does that tell me about how to live my life? Does it give me purpose? Does it teach us how to address problems in society or how to avoid them? Does it teach us logic? Does such knowledge even begin to compare to the importance of language?

I'm not saying science doesn't have its place, that it doesn't have some good merits too it. I'm saying that in comparison to many non-scientific forms of knowledge, science doesn't even come close in importance.

I would say that science offers more than possible explanations of origins. Those theories are so strong that there practically speaking is little room for doubt, or at least practically little room for major revolutions in understanding.
I think the processes of how we evolved from elements formed in stars to formation of planets to the origin of life, then through the entire course of evolution to where we are today are extremely important to how I understand myself (although as I have said, not by any means the only factor). Science describes (at least with abstract models) the reality I live in and has done so in revolutionizing ways. The nature of the reality I live in is also crucial to our self-understanding. We do live in a very strange reality after all, far more complex than anyone could have imagined.

Does it give us purpose? No, but I do think it should be an influence or at least be taken into consideration when we reflect on our purpose.

 

[csuguy]

I would say that science offers more than possible explanations of origins. Those theories are so strong that there practically speaking is little room for doubt, or at least practically little room for major revolutions in understanding.
I think the processes of how we evolved from elements formed in stars to formation of planets to the origin of life, then through the entire course of evolution to where we are today are extremely important to how I understand myself (although as I have said, not by any means the only factor). Science describes (at least with abstract models) the reality I live in and has done so in revolutionizing ways. The nature of the reality I live in is also crucial to our self-understanding. We do live in a very strange reality after all, far more complex than anyone could have imagined.

Does it give us purpose? No, but I do think it should be an influence or at least be taken into consideration when we reflect on our purpose.

Even if you assume science is 100% correct it still doesn't make it come any where close in importance to those other things I've listed. Again, I'm not saying science isn't good, interesting, and useful - I'm merely pointing out that the idea that science is the end all be all of knowledge and that we should judge all other forms of knowledge in terms of science is ludicrous.

 

[DavisBJ]

Mankind has survived a long time without modern science - so it can hardly be compared to a limb or a vital organ of the body in importance.

Yes man survived, and that is about all. In early history, man learned to build and use chariots. Several thousand years later, while those other fields held sway – those fields you declare that are so vastly more important than science – man progressed from chariots to stage coaches. Then science as a formal discipline came along, and within a century and a half hundreds of people at a time travel across oceans, in comfort 7 miles high at 40 times the speed of your old horse-drawn contrivances. Now because of science every generation generates more new knowledge than the entire previous 4 millennia.

Included in that is how to extend our knowledge of history back far beyond man’s arrival, and curing diseases that ravaged the world for centuries, and producing enough food for multitudes. Unimportant science.

(and why heaven is a fairy story)

 

[Selaphiel]

Even if you assume science is 100% correct it still doesn't make it come any where close in importance to those other things I've listed. Again, I'm not saying science isn't good, interesting, and useful - I'm merely pointing out that the idea that science is the end all be all of knowledge and that we should judge all other forms of knowledge in terms of science is ludicrous.

I do not disagree with that. I just got a very instrumentalistic impression from the first post I quoted by you. There are of course more things to existence than scientific theories, scientism is an absurd and self-contradicting position.