Hawking posits false conflict

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a tiny… supposedly insignificant… planet in the vast “infinite” universe suddenly ceases to exist, and there’s nobody there to witness it’s destruction…

Does it cease to exist? 😉

Edit: Or, we can pose this question from the point of existence…

If a tiny… supposedly insignificant… planet in the vast “infinite” universe comes into exist, and there’s nobody there to witness it’s creation…

Does it really exist? 🍿
 
Stephen Hawking is a sacred cow of the Materialist Faction,however that does not make him omnipotent.I can remember reading an article where he did not rule out first cause(God)_although he would not refer to Him as such.
.Anyway,I’ll meet your Stephen Hawking and raise you an Albert Einstein who was a deist.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The idea that life on Earth is “special” or “unique” in the universe has no foundation in science.
Click to expand...
True science is based on facts and observations. Until evidence of other intelligent life is found in the universe, the idea that we are one among billions is blind speculation.

Hawking is not even that great of an astrophysicist. He is just a pop icon for science so he is frequently used by media to promote a type of atheistic/scientific religion.
 
Soutane said:
HAWKING POSITS FALSE CONFLICT

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.”

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1879
Click to expand...
Did any of you even bother to read what Hawking said? In his basic assertion he is correct. Religion is “based” on authority, and science is “based” on observation and reason.

He did not say, as Donahue seems to suggest, that religion is completely antithetical to reason, or that one can not accept some dogmas on authority and faith and then reason within a worldview based upon these.
 
PPeterson said:
Did any of you even bother to read what Hawking said? In his basic assertion he is correct. Religion is “based” on authority, and science is “based” on observation and reason.

He did not say, as Donahue seems to suggest, that religion is completely antithetical to reason, or that one can not accept some dogmas on authority and faith and then reason within a worldview based upon these.
Click to expand...
Really? Then what did he mean by “science will win because it works?” …sounds like he thinks religion is antithetical to reason to me…
 
rlg94086 said:
Really? Then what did he mean by “science will win because it works?” …sounds like he thinks religion is antithetical to reason to me…
Click to expand...
obviously, he meant that having an agnostic worldview, where the scientific method is given priority in determining fact from fiction is superior to having a worldview based on untested or untestable religious beliefs.

his statement is opinion and debatable, but it is not as this thread suggests “positing a false conflict.” It’s more like a “true” conflict.

For example, from Hawking’s point of view, you’d be free to make a hypothesis that aliens most likely exist based on the vast size of the universe. This is not held as dogma, and should evidence suggest the contrary you’d be free to change your views.

On the other hand, Catholics accept based on authority and tradition that the Pope is infallible when specifically addressing faith and morals in a certain manner. This belief can not be tested empirically, proved, or disproved. But it is binding on the faithful and can not be rejected. After accepting this, you are free to “reason” based on this principle, but not to test or reject the basic assumption.

So, the two worldviews are actually different and in conflict. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with Hawking when he says “science wins.”

On a side note, I think its a bit silly for Catholics to dismiss Hawking because he is primarily a physicist and speaking outside his primary area of expertise. Popes with little scientific background have spoken competently on scientific issues. Fairness dictates that we judge the argument itself, not the credentials of the arguer.
 
PPeterson said:
obviously, he meant that having an agnostic worldview, where the scientific method is given priority in determining fact from fiction is superior to having a worldview based on untested or untestable religious beliefs.

his statement is opinion and debatable, but** it is not as this thread suggests “positing a false conflict.” It’s more like a “true” conflict. **

For example, from Hawking’s point of view, you’d be free to make a hypothesis that aliens most likely exist based on the vast size of the universe. This is not held as dogma, and should evidence suggest the contrary you’d be free to change your views.

On the other hand, Catholics accept based on authority and tradition that the Pope is infallible when specifically addressing faith and morals in a certain manner. This belief can not be tested empirically, proved, or disproved. But it is binding on the faithful and can not be rejected. After accepting this, you are free to “reason” based on this principle, but not to test or reject the basic assumption.

So, the two worldviews are actually different and in conflict. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with Hawking when he says “science wins.”
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The scientific method has been used by Catholic scientists for centuries and has led to many scientific discoveries. There is no conflict…except to those who are still inside their egg. Revealed truth from the Creator of the universe wins out over the limited capacity of an agnostic materialist’s mind.
 
if hawking was reading this, and if he could move, i’m sure he’d be doing the frustrated, hand to head motion.

he didn’t say religious people can’t use science. he knows they do. he’s arguing that they are different in that they accept as unassailable dogma more assumptions that can not be tested by the scientific method.

can you test empirically whether the pope is infallible. No you can’t.

can you use the scientific method to conduct an experiment to determine whether Mary was conceived without sin? No you can’t.

can you test whether Jesus rose from the dead? No you can’t.

He’s arguing that having underlying assumptions such as these makes a religious outlook fundamentally different from a purely scientific outlook. It does. He is correct. That does not mean his opinion that science is better than religion is correct.
No where is he saying that you can’t be a believer and know science, or do experiments in a lab. Others are putting that argument on him, because they want to believe he is stupid and dismiss him.
 
PPeterson said:
if hawking was reading this, and if he could move, i’m sure he’d be doing the frustrated, hand to head motion.

he didn’t say religious people can’t use science. he knows they do. he’s arguing that they are different in that they accept as unassailable dogma more assumptions that can not be tested by the scientific method.

can you test empirically whether the pope is infallible. No you can’t.

can you use the scientific method to conduct an experiment to determine whether Mary was conceived without sin? No you can’t.

can you test whether Jesus rose from the dead? No you can’t.

He’s arguing that having underlying assumptions such as these makes a religious outlook fundamentally different from a purely scientific outlook. It does. He is correct. That does not mean his opinion that science is better than religion is correct.
No where is he saying that you can’t be a believer and know science, or do experiments in a lab. Others are putting that argument on him, because they want to believe he is stupid and dismiss him.
Click to expand...
“Science will win because it works.” - Stephen Hawking

Had he not made this conclusion, your argument would have validity. The implication is that ‘religion doesn’t work.’ You are claiming that he is just pointing out the differences, but making the statement that one side “wins” is a value judgment.

Anyway, he is wrong. Since our dogma is based on revealed truth from the Creator of the universe, and scientific conclusions are based on the limited ability of human minds and senses, there is no way that science can “win.” It’s like an Kindergarten student going up against an NBA player for a little one-on-one in basketball.
 
utunumsint said:
The application of you’re materialism to the value of human life is repulsive my friend. I pray that you change you’re view on the worth of human life.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
I wish you would say the same thing to the people that were so gun ho for the Iraq invasion.
 
PPeterson said:
. Popes with little scientific background have spoken competently on scientific issues. .
Click to expand...
Are you speaking of the three Popes, (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) who officially condemned heliocentrism as being opposed to Sacred Scripture?
 
From a pure scientific empirical POV human life is pretty insignificant unless we were capable of doing pretty significant things. What could be significant? Well for the creation or destruction of entire galaxies - that would possibly be significant. That’s one way of looking at this argument. Other way is that yes - perhaps there is an infinite number of earth like planets with intelligent (note- intelligent) life on them. If that’s the case - well yes from that POV it would be insignificant. Then of course philosophically speaking, since we are all human and we never existed - how would we even know that the universe was here - from that point of view - because our existence allows for us to observe everything else - we are significant. Would we still experience the universe if we were part of the asteroid belt?
I guess it depends on how you gauge significance. The ability to have emotions - is that significant? Rocks don’t have emotions. Etc.
“I think therefore I am”.

Hawking is a good physicist - a type of showman physicist too - but at philosophy he is an amateur :).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top