Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[yankee_doodle]

I believe that many great scientists believed in God. Here is a list of some of the better scientists in history who have believed in God:

1. 
   *]Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   *]Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
   *]Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   *]Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   *]Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   *]Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   *]Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   *]Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   *]Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
   *]William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
   *]Max Planck (1858-1947)
   *]Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
   
   And that’s just 12!

1. 
   At least one on that list is wrong (Einstein). Moreover, most of your list is comprised of scientists from the medieval period, who pre-date the enlightenment, Darwin, etc. Of course they believed in god.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Holly , Great List, Keep em coming, I also saw part of the debate on the history of the resurrection, and actually used part of that to respond to an atheist that claimed that there was no unbiased evidence for the resurrection outside of the bible and that there was no evidence before 30 after the event happened. I first presented my unbiased evidence outside of the bible showing conclusively that unbelievers validated the resurrection by writing about it. After that I debunked his theory of nothing before 30 years by talking about the latters of paul to the corinthian church about the resurrection (and some of those were written just 5 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

Please show me this alleged evidence (a link would be much appreciated)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

But he says that he does not believe in a personal God, and thereafter states “you may call me an agnostic”, therefore stating he is agnostic when it come to believing in a personal God. Anyways, here’s a few quotes I scrounged up (and they are dated);

I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

— From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.

— C. Seelig, Helle Zeit—Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.

— Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

— Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

— Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

I believe that Einstein was a deist in that he believed in an impersonal God that was the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe, and was agnostic towards the personal (religious) God.

Are you kidding me

 

[josie_L]

but you’re saying because we can’t figure out how else the universe could have been created – therefore god. That’s a classic argument from incredulity.

I didn’t say “therefore God” you did, however, there must be (an eternal) first cause that for intents and purposes is rational, what or who that first cause is is something you must seek out?

I won’t argue with the fact that it’s difficult to imagine something without a preceding cause, or something being created by and from nothing. However, modern religion is in my view simply more in a pattern of mankind saying – mythology is the best we can come up with?

I’m sorry that can’t be said of Catholicism because we believe faith and reason do not conflict (it’s in our cathechism), therefore, the Church has no fear of science. John Paul II stated that truth was found in both faith and reason and likened it to the wings of a bird in that one without the other would fail to set the bird flying. Furthermore, just this year the Catholic Church held a convention for scientists which by the way included Stephen Hawkings.

 

[josie_L]

Are you kidding me

Did you not read what I said at the bottom of my post, and look at the dates please?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I didn’t say “therefore God” you did, however, there must be (an eternal) first cause that for intents and purposes is rational, what or who that first cause is is something you must seek out?

It sums up your logical argument.

I’m sorry that can’t be said of Catholicism because we believe faith and reason do not conflict (it’s in our cathechism),

I don’t know of any church that claims its own ignorance.

therefore, the Church has no fear of science. John Paul II stated that truth was found in both faith and reason and likened it to the wings of a bird in that one without the other would fail to set the bird flying. Furthermore, just this year the Catholic Church held a convention for scientists which by the way included Stephen Hawkings.

Yes I know Hawking attended a Catholic forum (he talks about it on a youtube video). Anyway, the church doesn’t fear science anymore because it can’t get away with it.

But overall I don’t trust the motives of the CC. Think about it, the only way they can avert extinction today is through evengalizing in the third world (among the illiterate). They’re declining at such a fast rate in the western world that unless they succeed elsewhere, or there’s large influxes of low educated immigrants into western countries, they will die.

Everything acts in the interest of its own survival. Therefore it’s reasonable to imagine the church will fight against the interests of western citizens.

 

[josie_L]

At least one on that list is wrong (Einstein). Moreover, most of your list is comprised of scientists from the medieval period, who pre-date the enlightenment, Darwin, etc. Of course they believed in god.

Excuse me Yankee, but I believe 6 out of the 12 are post enlightened scientists, moreover I don’t believe the list was meant to be exhaustive. For example, Pasteur, Le Maitre were not on that list, and here’s some more:

Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule’s Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson’s partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Age.
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

 

[yankee_doodle]

Excuse me Yankee, but I believe 6 out of the 12 are post enlightened scientists, moreover I don’t believe the list was meant to be exhaustive. For example, Pasteur, Le Maitre were not on that list, and here’s some more:

Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule’s Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson’s partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Age.
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

All these people were born one or two centuries ago – but it doesn’t matter. I could easily drum up a list of dozens of modern scientists who are atheist or agnostic, but what’s the point? This whole thing is a red herring, because you guys really don’t have a shred of credible evidence supporting your views. Ay

 

[gearhead]

For all practicle purposes, yes I believe Hilter to be an atheist. You forgot to mention the influence Karl Marx had on him.

If you mean the influence that prompted Hitler to have all the Marxists he could find rounded up into concentration camps and executed, then I agree: Karl Marx had an influence on Hitler.

Many an atheirst was brought up religious. Hilter had an agenda that included subverting religion. One way to do that was to use correct language to draw them in. No knowlegable Christian is anti Jewish.

And no true Scotsman has sugar on his porridge.

There’s a long history of anti-semitism in Christianity. Hitler largely built on ideas that originated with Martin Luther (who I know isn’t most Catholics favourite person, but who is a leading figure of Christianity).

I’d agree the problem doesn’t lie in religion or non religion but with the wickedness of the human heart.

Not even that: the problem lies with trying to get people to think and believe in a certain way, whatever way that is.

 

[josie_L]

It sums up your logical argument.

The first cause would have to be eternal, right, as whatever the first cause was, created space and time, and I would think it would have to be rational as the laws of physics require that it be so.

I don’t know of any church that claims its own ignorance.

The Catholic Church is not claiming ignorance, but that truth itself can be found in faith (theology and morality) as well as reason (the two should not conflict).

Yes I know Hawking attended a Catholic forum (he talks about it on a youtube video). Anyway, the church doesn’t fear science anymore because it can’t get away with it.

The Church never feared science, Galileo (I’m not aware of any other instances apart from this) was an exception, and I’ve already explained why it was. Furthermore, this does not discount the many steps the Church has taken to bridge science and religion (even after the Galileo affair quite a few priests and/or Catholics contributed their share to science) such as the annual conferences at the Vatican (attended by many world scientists) or the fact that it uses (think of the International Medical Tribunal at Lourdes) stringent criteria to evaluate the alleged or real miracles of the Church.

But overall I don’t trust the motives of the CC. Think about it, the only way they can avert extinction today is through evengalizing in the third world (among the illiterate). They’re declining at such a fast rate in the western world that unless they succeed elsewhere, or there’s large influxes of low educated immigrants into western countries, they will die.

If you think Catholics (the Church) in the West are just going to up and die, then you haven’t bothered to read much of Church history, in fact, the more that the Church has been persecuted or under attack (indirectly or directly) the stronger she becomes, many saints have come out of her during such trials.

Everything acts in the interest of its own survival. Therefore it’s reasonable to imagine the church will fight against the interests of western citizens.

The Church will only fight “against the interests of Western citizens” when it sees a threat to morality and society in general, and remember there was a time when the majority of western citizens believed eugenics was necessary for the common good of our race (or were enamoured with Hitler) while the Church fought against it.

 

[josie_L]

All these people were born one or two centuries ago – but it doesn’t matter. I could easily drum up a list of dozens of modern scientists who are atheist or agnostic, but what’s the point? This whole thing is a red herring, because you guys really don’t have a shred of credible evidence supporting your views.

You unfortunately do not hold a PH.D in biblical studies and/or archaelogy and/or ancient history, and other such supportive fields, so please stop acting like you do. The evidence (not proof) is there for you to see, you just refuse to read or acknowledge the sources we give you (I’m thinking of the false nexus you make between Christian beliefs and ancient mythology) despite the credible scholars referenced or material used in cataloguing the information. Also, Jesus did exist and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the 1st century under the rule of Tiberius (there are sources outside of the Bible that state this). He also resurrected as there is no other logical explaination for the growth of the Christian movement (which was peaceful and under severe persecution) nor the absolute turnabout that the apostles made only a few days after his death. They willingly suffered (even Josephus records the death of James by stoning) and died for these beliefs, they could not have lied.

 

[Dokimas]

GearHead: And no true Scotsman has sugar on his porridge.

There’s a long history of anti-semitism in Christianity. Hitler largely built on ideas that originated with Martin Luther (who I know isn’t most Catholics favourite person, but who is a leading figure of Christianity).

One good thing about ‘following’ the Bible is that we can forget the ‘history’ of Christianity since the 1st century and go to the Book. Could you please show me where the Bible is anti-semetic?

 

[yankee_doodle]

You unfortunately do not hold a PH.D in biblical studies and/or archaelogy and/or ancient history, and other such supportive fields, so please stop acting like you do.

You don’t need a PhD in a worthless occupation to know it’s worthless

The evidence (not proof) is there for you to see, you just refuse to read or acknowledge the sources we give you (I’m thinking of the false nexus you make between Christian beliefs and ancient mythology)

the nexus I draw between Christianity and mythology is a very loose one, nevertheless the hypothesis is reasonable on its face. There are too many parallels to ignore. Even the History Channel did a show illustrating the parallels between Odysseus, the hero of Homer’s Odyssey, and the depiction of Jesus in the gospel of Mark (now believed by many scholars to be the first of the synoptic gospels). Justin Martyr wrote an entire discourse called the “Origin of Heathen mythology” where he details these parallels, advocating the notion that they were diabolical attempts at mockery, created even before Jesus was born. Origin, in his apologetic work “Against Celsus” defends against parallels between the virgin birth of Jesus and the mythological virgin birth of Plato. I can go on and on with these parallels, but the point should be clear enough, these parallels were striking and they did exist. Furthermore, they flourished in the same culture as Christianity.

despite the credible scholars referenced or material used in cataloguing the information. Also, Jesus did exist and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the 1st century under the rule of Tiberius (there are sources outside of the Bible that state this). He also resurrected as there is no other logical explaination for the growth of the Christian movement (which was peaceful and under severe persecution) nor the absolute turnabout that the apostles made only a few days after his death. They willingly suffered (even Josephus records the death of James by stoning) and died for these beliefs, they could not have lied.

Yes, there’s Celsus, who wrote roughly 150 years after Jesus was said to be executed, and Lucian (from roughly the same time period).

The one reference that is interesting is Mara Bar Serapion. Not only because the writing dates from just after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, or even because it mentions the crucifixion, but most interestingly because it does not mention the resurrection (and the tenor of the letter treats Jesus as dead, just as it does Socrates and Pythagoras). What you view as the best evidence in support of your religion, is perhaps the best evidence against it.

It must be fairly noted that Serapion does not mention Jesus by name, instead referring to him as the “wise king” (however, I think it’s generally believed that Serapion is referring to Jesus).

Anyway … food for thought (happy eating).

 

[josie_L]

Yes, there’s Celsus, who wrote roughly 150 years after Jesus was said to be executed, and Lucian (from roughly the same time period).

The one reference that is interesting is Mara Bar Serapion. Not only because the writing dates from just after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, or even because it mentions the crucifixion, but most interestingly because it does not mention the resurrection (and the tenor of the letter treats Jesus as dead, just as it does Socrates and Pythagoras). What you view as the best evidence in support of your religion, is perhaps the best evidence against it.

It must be fairly noted that Serapion does not mention Jesus by name, instead referring to him as the “wise king” (however, I think it’s generally believed that Serapion is referring to Jesus).

Anyway … food for thought (happy eating).

I think you missed Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger (they were all historians), and a couple more who wrote about Jesus. I will find the full text of what they said at a later date (although I believe I already quoted Josephus and Tacitus to you before).

p.s. Mara Bar Serpion would not have mentioned the resurrection as the Jewish community believed his followers stole Jesus’s body. By the way, who was he writing to when he penned this letter?

p.p.s. I will deal with the rest of your post later. Good night and God bless.

 

[buffalo]

I think you missed Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger (they were all historians), and a couple more who wrote about Jesus. I will find the full text of what they said at a later date (although I believe I already quoted Josephus and Tacitus to you before).

p.s. Mara Bar Serpion would not have mentioned the resurrection as the Jewish community believed his followers stole Jesus’s body. By the way, who did he have in mind when he wrote this letter?

p.p.s. I will deal with the rest of your post later. Good night and God bless.

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.
- Antony Flew

 

[buffalo]

No, Stephen Hawking (scientist) is agnostic/atheist.

“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous… I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”

- Stephen W. Hawking

 

[josie_L]

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.
- Antony Flew

There are some who will claim Anthony Flew is senile (I’ve already heard it being said) despite being a well-reputed twentieth century (atheist) philosopher.

 

[buffalo]

There are some who will claim Anthony Flew is senile (I’ve already heard it being said) despite being a well-reputed twentieth century (atheist) philosopher.

He was a poster boy for atheism.

Correct - following the evidence where it lead caused him to go senile and convert.

It has that effect you know.

 

[yankee_doodle]

“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous… I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”

- Stephen W. Hawking

Question, do you guys worship Stephen Hawking or Jesus? You sure put a whole lot of merit in what this guy says. First consider the fact that this quote is taken grossly out of context. In the next sentence he explains scientists usually shy away from the religious aspect of it (he’s not making a personal statement, rather he’s making an observation).

Stephen Hawking was a great scientist, but even great minds are wrong, as Einstein was numerous times. Modern cosmologists now believe there was stuff before the big bang, perhaps even a prior universe. It wasn’t long ago that men like Hawking believed there was nothing (no time) before the big bang. It’s beginning to look like he may have been wrong.

Recently scientists have instead suggested the Big Bang might have just been the explosive beginning of the current era of the universe, hinting at a mysterious past.

space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html

They are finding evidence of what they think may indicate the universe is older than previously believed. Even multi-verses (something viewed as almost pseudo-science just a few years ago), is gaining steam due to advancements in physics.

I guess if I were religious, I wouldn’t put much stock in the idea of conflating science with theology. You’re only setting yourselves up for likely future embarrassment (but I guess what’s new right? ).

 

[yankee_doodle]

He was a poster boy for atheism.

Correct - following the evidence where it lead caused him to go senile and convert.

It has that effect you know.

boy, I never even heard of this Flew guy. But anyway, let me get this right, if I can point to a bunch of religious men who went senile does that mean I’m right?

Hey let’s have a competition, who has more senile, demented adherents … atheists or Christians

Whoever has more loses

I’m gonna love this game. Oh yeah, I also thought I’d point out (for the sake of irony) your shining Christian character … that love of Jesus shines so wonderfully when we mock the disabilities of others. I get so warm and fuzzy inside when I pick on handicapped people