Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design

[Prodigal_Son]

If the hope is very possibly false, it ought not to be indulged.

I wonder where this “ought” comes from. Will it be better for a person not to hope in salvation, even if it were to be admitted that salvation is implausible? Why?

Usually, false hope is a problem when we might be proven wrong. If my daughter has died, I shouldn’t maintain false hope that she will be resurrected tomorrow, since tomorrow will come, and I will certainly be devastated. But hope in life after death isn’t like that. If the atheist is right, there is no “tomorrow” – there is no time in which the Christian will ever be disappointed for his “false hope”.

So why shouldn’t a person indulge in this kind of “false” hope?

 

[Sair]

Suprise!
ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

“Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.”

Interesting. There seems to be much more at work here than religious beliefs or church membership.

Yet the study summary goes on to say,

“After other factors were controlled [my italics], it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts.”

Doesn’t sound like the other factors were controlled as much as they claim, if they didn’t take into account the social and psychological factors that accompanied belief or nonbelief. It doesn’t appear that they identified any causal relationship between lack of religious belief and feelings of social isolation, which is a key factor in depression and suicide.

Given that depression was a factor in common between the two groups, that seems to skew the study even more. Speaking as someone who has experienced a few bouts of severe clinical depression in my life (dating back to the time when I was a devout Catholic) I’ve found it no more difficult to deal with since rejecting belief in supernatural gods and afterlives…and in some ways easier.

And getting back to the topic at hand, it doesn’t appear that Stephen Hawking has succumbed to despair or depression. His writing, if anything, displays a sense of immense wonder at the intricacies and magnificence of the cosmos - all without having to appeal to anything outside of it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**And getting back to the topic at hand, it doesn’t appear that Stephen Hawking has succumbed to despair or depression. His writing, if anything, displays a sense of immense wonder at the intricacies and magnificence of the cosmos - all without having to appeal to anything outside of it. **

I think Blaise Pascal has a great comeback for Hawking:

“What use is it to us to hear it said of a man that he has thrown off the yoke, that he does not believe there is a God to watch over his actions, that he reckons himself the sole master of his behavior, and that he does not intend to give an account of it to anyone but himself? … Do such men think that they have delighted us by telling us that they hold our souls to be nothing but a little wind and smoke – and by saying it in conceited and complacent tones? Is that a thing to say blithely? Is it not rather a thing to say sadly – as if it were the saddest thing in the world?”

You cannot conceal the fact that Hawking believes we are all ultimately doomed, “immense wonder at the intricacies and magnificence of the cosmos” notwithstanding.

 

[Sair]

Sair

I think Blaise Pascal has a great comeback for Hawking:

I think he missed his chance by 350 years or so…

“What use is it to us to hear it said of a man that he has thrown off the yoke, that he does not believe there is a God to watch over his actions, that he reckons himself the sole master of his behavior, and that he does not intend to give an account of it to anyone but himself? … Do such men think that they have delighted us by telling us that they hold our souls to be nothing but a little wind and smoke – and by saying it in conceited and complacent tones? Is that a thing to say blithely? Is it not rather a thing to say sadly – as if it were the saddest thing in the world?”

Did Pascal suppose that people should be delighted to be told that their lives are worth nothing without a magic sky daddy to impose a purpose on them?

You cannot conceal the fact that Hawking believes we are all ultimately doomed, “immense wonder at the intricacies and magnificence of the cosmos” notwithstanding.

What’s so wrong about being realistic about what we are and what we can expect?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

“Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.”
Interesting. There seems to be much more at work here than religious beliefs or church membership.

Yet the study summary goes on to say,

“After other factors were controlled [my italics], it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts.”

Doesn’t sound like the other factors were controlled as much as they claim, if they didn’t take into account the social and psychological factors that accompanied belief or nonbelief. It doesn’t appear that they identified any causal relationship between lack of religious belief and feelings of social isolation, which is a key factor in depression and suicide.

Given that depression was a factor in common between the two groups, that seems to skew the study even more. Speaking as someone who has experienced a few bouts of severe clinical depression in my life (dating back to the time when I was a devout Catholic) I’ve found it no more difficult to deal with since rejecting belief in supernatural gods and afterlives…and in some ways easier.

I guess clinical research, conclusions that were peer reviewed and the fact the results published by the AJP are not sufficient for you. However, your personal anecdotal experience is good enough?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**What’s so wrong about being realistic about what we are and what we can expect? **

How do you know it’s realistic to die with nothing on the other side. Have you died and returned to life to tell us so?

Did Pascal suppose that people should be delighted to be told that their lives are worth nothing without a magic sky daddy to impose a purpose on them?

Obviously not. What Pascal is asking is why the atheist supposes (as Hawking apparently does) that anybody is really interested in being told they are doomed, and being told as though they had somehow profited by that?

Why is Hawking so bent on persuading others that they are doomed right along with him? Is it that misery loves company?

Why does it matter to any atheist that he must wear his atheism on his sleeve like a badge of intellectual honor, when there is nothing the least bit intellectual about atheism? It is merely a belief in ultimate doom … and nothing more. :bigyikes:

 

[tonyrey]

Did Pascal suppose that people should be delighted to be told that their lives are worth nothing without a magic sky daddy to impose a purpose on them?

Pascal understood very well that a man who believes in a Godless universe reckons himself to be the sole master of his behaviour and does not intend to give an account of it to anyone but himself. He has the enviable power of establishing purposes for himself - without being able to explain how he can do it!

What’s so wrong about being realistic about what we are and what we can expect?]

Because it’s not really realistic…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The agnostic Bertrand Russell had the courage to frankly admit the hopelessness of a universe without God in his “A Free Man’s Worship.”

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for man, condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, …”

What a useless and damnable philosophy! Realistic? Why? How did Russell know for a fact that he had no immortal soul?

He just preferred to wallow in the tragic heroism of the human condition.

 

[Sair]

Sair

**What’s so wrong about being realistic about what we are and what we can expect? **

How do you know it’s realistic to die with nothing on the other side. Have you died and returned to life to tell us so?

No, but then - various wish-thinking mythologies aside - no-one else has either. This would have to rank as the only thing that people hope for, en masse, without ever having any evidence that it happens, all because we can’t comprehend or cope with the idea of not being here. Why should death be such a bugbear? As Mark Twain said, we didn’t exist for millions of years before we were born, without any inconvenience to ourselves.

Did Pascal suppose that people should be delighted to be told that their lives are worth nothing without a magic sky daddy to impose a purpose on them?

Obviously not. What Pascal is asking is why the atheist supposes (as Hawking apparently does) that anybody is really interested in being told they are doomed, and being told as though they had somehow profited by that?

Hawking is endeavouring to explain the cosmos, and taking a hard look at the evidence and coming to conclusions based on that, not on what he or others might subjectively like to be the case. Obviously he’s made peace with the fact that he’s going to die and just stop existing as a person, as others have done before him and will do after him. Hundreds of years before anyone had even heard of Jesus or Christianity, Epicurus was teaching people to accept death with tranquillity. It’s confronting, but it’s no reason to despair over the life we actually have.

Why is Hawking so bent on persuading others that they are doomed right along with him? Is it that misery loves company? Why does it matter to any atheist that he must wear his atheism on his sleeve like a badge of intellectual honor, when there is nothing the least bit intellectual about atheism? It is merely a belief in ultimate doom … and nothing more. :bigyikes:

I don’t think he’s doing it just for yucks. He’s presenting the evidence and the mathematics and the physics as he understands them. If people want to run and hide from that, they’re free to do so. Why are believers so bent on persuading others - perhaps a little more gently now than they have historically done - that theirs is the only right way, and we are damned if we don’t believe what they believe? This is nothing more than the standard complaint from religionists - why don’t those pesky unbelievers just shut up? Well, faith-heads have had the floor for a long time now. You’d think they might be more gracious in letting others have time to speak.

 

[valentino]

breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4f8ccccd2e38de074f4c1305131c47e4.491&show_article=1

Does anybody know what Hawkings is talking about when he says there is no longer any need for the concept of God due to recent developments in physics? :confused

Yes,he’s saying he’s found a way that creation could have came about by itself without having a creator.I doubt that only his closest asssociates or those who know little about physics agree with him.Its just his theory.Can’t be proved.

 

[valentino]

No, but then - various wish-thinking mythologies aside - no-one else has either. This would have to rank as the only thing that people hope for, en masse, without ever having any evidence that it happens, all because we can’t comprehend or cope with the idea of not being here. Why should death be such a bugbear? As Mark Twain said, we didn’t exist for millions of years before we were born, without any inconvenience to ourselves.

Hawking is endeavouring to explain the cosmos, and taking a hard look at the evidence and coming to conclusions based on that, not on what he or others might subjectively like to be the case. Obviously he’s made peace with the fact that he’s going to die and just stop existing as a person, as others have done before him and will do after him.

I don’t think he’s doing it just for yucks. He’s presenting the evidence and the mathematics and the physics as he understands them. If people want to run and hide from that, they’re free to do so. Why are believers so bent on persuading others - perhaps a little more gently now than they have historically done - that theirs is the only right way, and we are damned if we don’t believe what they believe? This is nothing more than the standard complaint from religionists - why don’t those pesky unbelievers just shut up? Well, faith-heads have had the floor for a long time now. You’d think they might be more gracious in letting others have time to speak.

You’ve actually got it wrong way around.Its there modernists who are saying and have been saying for years why don’t these pesky creationists just take oour word for it that we can put together a bunch of unrelated facts and through our logical thinking come up with a theory that will prove man came from the dusst of the stars.

 

[tonyrey]

The agnostic Bertrand Russell had the courage to frankly admit the hopelessness of a universe without God in his “A Free Man’s Worship.”

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for man, condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, …”

What a useless and damnable philosophy! Realistic? Why? How did Russell know for a fact that he had no immortal soul?

He just preferred to wallow in the tragic heroism of the human condition.

The overwhelming consolation of his Free Man’s Worship was Free Love!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s confronting, but it’s no reason to despair over the life we actually have.

It’s no reason to despair but you believe you have to make the best of a very bad job, i.e. a spark in the dark!

 

[Sair]

It’s no reason to despair but you believe you have to make the best of a very bad job, i.e. a spark in the dark!

Well, for goodness’ sake - if you’re starting out with that attitude, it’s no wonder you’re so negative and eager to clutch at the straw of imaginary salvation.

The odds against you and me existing as individuals, as we are, are beyond astronomical. Just imagine, if your great-great-great grandmother and great-great-great grandfather had not got together, had not managed to conceive at a particular time, had not had that one more child, you as you are would not exist. The same goes for any one of us.

Now, you may say that this occurrence was foreordained, that we were all destined to exist, but from my perspective, that’s complete tosh. I see nothing to be unhappy about in the idea that I am pretty much just a marvellous accident. The fact that I am here, as me, that the forces of nature somehow came together to produce me, is something that fills me with wonder. In a way that I’m not sure how to explain, the idea that someone planned all this seems to cheapen the whole deal - it just somehow seems like a cop-out to say that we were designed this way. That leads to all kinds of resentment against the putative designer when things go pear-shaped. Alternatively, a life permeated with gratitude for the mere fact of our existence, for our ability to play the hand we’ve landed with, untainted with anger against some being who should have done better, is very far from being the bad job you suppose.

 

[Sair]

You’ve actually got it wrong way around.Its there modernists who are saying and have been saying for years why don’t these pesky creationists just take oour word for it that we can put together a bunch of unrelated facts and through our logical thinking come up with a theory that will prove man came from the dusst of the stars.

Well, sure - religions’ claims to provide answers to the questions of how life and the cosmos arose have gradually been forced to give ground to the march of scientific inquiry. Even the Catholic church conceded that evolution happens. But despite all that, religious faith has still been accorded an unaccountable respect, as something that is properly beyond science and rationality. Now people are tired of bestowing respect that in so many ways has not been earned, upon beliefs that have never been demonstrated to be true.

And, um…which ‘unrelated’ facts do you mean? The fact that elements heavier than hydrogen - of which our world and our bodies largely consist - are formed in stars? That’s actually a factual scientific proposition that draws a clear connection between us and the rest of the universe.

 

[valentino]

Hawking’s is a dreamer.He’s doesn’t have solid facts to back up his theories.One has to suppose (use logical thinking)to arrive at the places which he wants us to believe is reality.He assumes to much.He tries to make us believe the universe acts like the elements in an atom.His theory of everything which he been trying come up with will be the ultimate riddle that man has been seeking solve.He makes a fortune telling everybody he’s got theory of how all of creatioon came about and how God is something that ignorant man came up with to try to solve that which he can’t explain.He knows much about mathmatics and physics but little about man.

 

[MikeSar]

I agree with the comments and have only a quotation to add from “Mere Christianity”, C.S. Lewis Book II What Christians Believe, “A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up on my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own,
But, if I did that, then my argument against God collapses too -for the arguments depended on saying that the world is really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies, Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -namely the idea of justice-- was full of sense.
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should have never know it was dark, Dark, would have no meaning,” C.S. Lewis, “A Mind Awake”, Preface from “Mere Christianity”, Book II, Chapt I, Pg. 38 Harvest Book.

In short, we can believe God is just and there is a Heaven for the good only if we somehow have a sense of Justice. No God, no Justice, no Heaven. A Package Deal.
Who would prefer a world without them? Do animals have a sense of justice? Do some animals eat their young ones, or siblings, if hungry? Some especies depend on that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree with the comments and have only a quotation to add from “Mere Christianity”, C.S. Lewis Book II What Christians Believe, “A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up on my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own,
But, if I did that, then my argument against God collapses too -for the arguments depended on saying that the world is really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies, Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -namely the idea of justice-- was full of sense.
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should have never know it was dark, Dark, would have no meaning,” C.S. Lewis, “A Mind Awake”, Preface from “Mere Christianity”, Book II, Chapt I, Pg. 38 Harvest Book.

In short, we can believe God is just and there is a Heaven for the good only if we somehow have a sense of Justice. No God, no Justice, no Heaven. A Package Deal.
Who would prefer a world without them? Do animals have a sense of justice? Do some animals eat their young ones, or siblings, if hungry? Some especies depend on that.

That was a very good quote. Of course this is where the problem lies, the atheist refuses to admit that they experience real objective meaning in their experiences as persons, yet their very denial betrays them as being aware of the very thing they reject. They could not meaningfully argue for justice, as a truth, unless they know what it is. Such words are simply meaningless in so far as they apply to reality.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s no reason to despair but you believe you have to make the best of a very bad job, i.e. a spark in the dark!

Some one who leads a comfortable existence compared to the vast majority of people in the world obviously doesn’t regard this life as making the best of a bad job. Nor do you take into account the horrific injustice, cruelty and unnecessary suffering inflicted by human beings. It is easy to be positive when you’re not concerned about others…

BTW It was an atheist, Albert Camus, who described life as absurd and death as “le supreme abus”.

The odds against you and me existing as individuals, as we are, are beyond astronomical. Just imagine, if your great-great-great grandmother and great-great-great grandfather had not got together, had not managed to conceive at a particular time, had not had that one more child, you as you are would not exist. The same goes for any one of us. Now, you may say that this occurrence was foreordained, that we were all destined to exist, but from my perspective, that’s complete tosh. I see nothing to be unhappy about in the idea that I am pretty much just a marvellous accident. The fact that I am here, as me, that the forces of nature somehow came together to produce me, is something that fills me with wonder.

In a way that I’m not sure how to explain, the idea that someone planned all this seems to cheapen the whole deal - it just somehow seems like a cop-out to say that we were designed this way.

It’s a cop-out to dismiss life as “a marvellous accident” when you use your unexplained power of reason to conclude life is irrational.

That leads to all kinds of resentment against the putative designer when things go pear-shaped. Alternatively, a life permeated with gratitude for the mere fact of our existence, for our ability to play the hand we’ve landed with, untainted with anger against some being who should have done better, is very far from being the bad job you suppose

To refer to “our ability to play the hand we’ve landed with” doesn’t make sense if we are biological freaks which have no choice as to which cards we shall play. Nor is gratitude or anger something under our control if we are the playthings of the blind Goddess - Chance. We would be merely cogs in the vast machine of nature…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**I don’t think he’s doing it just for yucks. He’s presenting the evidence and the mathematics and the physics as he understands them. If people want to run and hide from that, they’re free to do so. Why are believers so bent on persuading others - perhaps a little more gently now than they have historically done - that theirs is the only right way, and we are damned if we don’t believe what they believe? This is nothing more than the standard complaint from religionists - why don’t those pesky unbelievers just shut up? Well, faith-heads have had the floor for a long time now. You’d think they might be more gracious in letting others have time to speak. **

Seems to me the skeptics had plenty of time to speak and have taken plenty of advantage of their opportunities judging by all the books advancing atheism in recent years. I may misunderstand your thrust here, but what does disagreeing with Hawking have to do with tolerance of his views. Surely Catholics in a Catholic forum have a right to take Hawking and Russell and others to task for poor reasoning skills without your whining “Foul!”

**Well, sure - religions’ claims to provide answers to the questions of how life and the cosmos arose have gradually been forced to give ground to the march of scientific inquiry. Even the Catholic church conceded that evolution happens. But despite all that, religious faith has still been accorded an unaccountable respect, as something that is properly beyond science and rationality. Now people are tired of bestowing respect that in so many ways has not been earned, upon beliefs that have never been demonstrated to be true. **

As if atheism earns your respect because it has been proven over and over!

I’m really impressed with this logic!