The Fear of Hell

[Charlemagne_III]

A local TV station (part of PBS I think) did a broadcast based on things he said some years ago. While it was made clear that he didn’t think there were any Gods and that he thought that the need for one in the initiation of the universe wasn’t necessary I don’t think he ever said anything that actually argued against the existence of a God.

Try this.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/stephen-hawking-atheist_n_5882860.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believed in God with NO evidence, where would you place me?

Would you say that I was arrogant and had a willful desire to believe in God since I had no evidence that God Is.

Easy fella!

You have submitted to the natural desire to know God that God planted in your heart when he created you. You have not arrogantly dismissed God as so many atheists do, and as I did when I chose atheism as a young man. You don’t need evidence, and that’s good. As Jesus said to his doubting Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Try this.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/stephen-hawking-atheist_n_5882860.html

I read it. It mentions the declaration that “There is no God” in the title (and I am assuming he is specifically talking about Yahweh here) but there’s no actual argument against a God in there. It shows that Hawking doesn’t see any gods as being a necessary part of the explanations that he has in mind.

I thought I would find the argument against God through the link labeled “a more convincing explanation” but there seems to be a bit of a language barrier.

Note: On the same page Hawking is quote as saying:
"Stephen Hawking:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

I did find the quote by Asimov on the page to be a little entertaining though.

Did he have any ideas on what was necessary? We been drawing a blank on the point thus, mystery, God etc.

I don’t recall him saying what was necessary. In the article that Prof. Charles posted it’s said that in 2007 Hawking said:
"Hawking:

I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.

So it sounds like he considers a deistic position to be possible, but he’s not necessarily convinced of it.

I think we all need to concede we are interconnected in consciousness, necessarily. It would make the whole theory issue less problematic.

There’s lots of positions that share this view. Pantheism and panentheism immediately come to mind. But they are not the only positions that might share this view. I dug through the images at the bottom of the page and found mention of one other person that seems to interpret what was said the same way.
Victor J. Stenger (1935-):

“With pantheism…the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself…when modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention ‘God’ in their writing, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I read it. It mentions the declaration that “There is no God” in the title (and I am assuming he is specifically talking about Yahweh here) but there’s no actual argument against a God in there. It shows that Hawking doesn’t see any gods as being a necessary part of the explanations that he has in mind.

I’m wondering how many more websites I’m going to have to cite to show you that Hawking is a self-declared atheist.

nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

By the way, you don’t have to have an argument against God (there isn’t one anyway) to be an atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m wondering how many more websites I’m going to have to cite to show you that Hawking is a self-declared atheist.

I already knew he was an atheist.

By the way, you don’t have to have an argument against God (there isn’t one anyway) to be an atheist.

On that we agree. There is difference in our terminology though. Often times you use “atheist” the way that I use “strong atheist.” For other terminology (agnostic, agnostic atheist,ignostic, apatheist, deistic and others) I’m not sure there’s a one to one mapping.

BTW: We ended up down this pathway after I indicated mutiverse hypothesis are not necessarily an argument against God. That Hawking is not convinced of the existence of any gods wasn’t in question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On that we agree. There is difference in our terminology though. Often times you use “atheist” the way that I use “strong atheist.” For other terminology (agnostic, agnostic atheist,ignostic, apatheist, deistic and others) I’m not sure there’s a one to one mapping.

Are there varying degrees of atheism? Aren’t you either an atheist or something else?

What is a weak atheist as opposed to a strong atheist? A difference in temperament or certainty? Possibly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are there varying degrees of atheism? …]

What is a weak atheist as opposed to a strong atheist? A difference in temperament or certainty? Possibly.

I think Wiki’s answer’s might be sufficient.
wikipedia:

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist…]Because of flexibility in the term god, it is possible that a person could be a positive/strong atheist in terms of certain conceptions of God, while remaining a negative/weak atheist in terms of others.

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

Aren’t you either an atheist or something else?

Someone can be an atheist and something else. It’s not mutually exclusive of other categories. Though with respect to a specific deity there are some classifications that are mutually exclusive to each other.

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes we hear unbelievers say they cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare for us a place of everlasting suffering. Such a God is petty and vindictive. How would you answer this critique of the Christian hell?

Best explanation I’ve read:

From Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, “Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.” That is hell.

He goes on to say, “Hell follows from two other doctrines: heaven and free will. If there is a heaven, there can be a not-heaven. And if there is free will, we can act on it and abuse it. Those who deny hell must also deny either heaven (as does Western secularism) or free will (as does Eastern pantheism).”

Thus, it is precisely because there is a loving God that there is a hell. There has to be a place for those who find God’s light so odious and hateful.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Someone can be an atheist and something else. It’s not mutually exclusive of other categories. Though with respect to a specific deity there are some classifications that are mutually exclusive to each other.

I don’t understand how you can be an atheist and an agnostic.

If you are an atheist, you believe there are no gods.

If you are an agnostic, you believe it is unknowable whether there are or aren’t gods.

The atheist says he knows there are no gods.

The agnostic says he doesn’t know if there are gods.

I just get the feeling that this semantic game is too much for me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t understand how you can be an atheist and an agnostic.

Hmmmmm…that’s going to be a bit of a communications barrier between you and other people that identify as a type of atheist.

If you are an atheist, you believe there are no gods.

Or you don’t have the belief (conviction) of a god. Can you recognize the difference in this and what you said above?

IIf you are an agnostic, you believe it is unknowable whether there are or aren’t gods.

Which isn’t mutually exclusive to the position I described above.

IThe atheist says he knows there are no gods.

Specifically, strong atheists.

IThe agnostic says he doesn’t know if there are gods.

Correct.

II just get the feeling that this semantic game is too much for me.

It’s no game. Theseems are some of the terms used in the typology of non-religious positions. But people that you speak to that refer to themselves as “atheist” might not be expressing the position that you might otherwise have thought from their usage of the word alone. Iff you are interested in knowing someone’s actual position it might be necessary to ensure you both use position labels in a similar way.

 

[AyJSimon]

Specifically, strong atheists.

Or gnostic atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmmmm…that’s going to be a bit of a communications barrier between you and other people that identify as a type of atheist.

Or you don’t have the belief (conviction) of a god. Can you recognize the difference in this and what you said above?

Which isn’t mutually exclusive to the position I described above/

What is your answer to the question: does God exist?

Is it: I don’t know?

Or: no?

 

[BarbTh]

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s no game. Theseems are some of the terms used in the typology of non-religious positions. But people that you speak to that refer to themselves as “atheist” might not be expressing the position that you might otherwise have thought from their usage of the word alone. Iff you are interested in knowing someone’s actual position it might be necessary to ensure you both use position labels in a similar way.

I’m all for clarity.

Would you clarify for me the difference between an atheist and a strong atheist?

 

[inocente]

I thought I would find the argument against God through the link labeled “a more convincing explanation” but there seems to be a bit of a language barrier.

The reporter reminds Hawking that on the one hand in History of Time, he wrote we might one day know “the mind of God”, but then in The Grand Design he said that the Universe could create itself out of nothing by spontaneous generation without the need for God. The reporter asks if, given this apparent contradiction, Hawking changed his view, and whether he thinks of himself as agnostic or atheist. The reporter then writes:

‘His answer is very clear, that although many have come to describe as “a miracle” the fact that Hawking is still alive, half a century after being diagnosed with a disease where life expectancy is usually a couple of years, the astrophysicist rejects all religious beliefs: “In the past, before we understood science, it was logical to believe that God created the universe. But now science provides a more convincing explanation. What I meant when I said we would know the mind of God was that we would understand everything God would be able to understand if he existed. But there is no God. I am an atheist. Religion believes in miracles, but they are not compatible with science.”’

 

[tonyrey]

The reporter reminds Hawking that on the one hand in History of Time, he wrote we might one day know “the mind of God”, but then in The Grand Design he said that the Universe could create itself out of nothing by spontaneous generation without the need for God. The reporter asks if, given this apparent contradiction, Hawking changed his view, and whether he thinks of himself as agnostic or atheist. The reporter then writes:

‘His answer is very clear, that although many have come to describe as “a miracle” the fact that Hawking is still alive, half a century after being diagnosed with a disease where life expectancy is usually a couple of years, the astrophysicist rejects all religious beliefs: “In the past, before we understood science, it was logical to believe that God created the universe. But now science provides a more convincing explanation. What I meant when I said we would know the mind of God was that we would understand everything God would be able to understand if he existed. But there is no God. I am an atheist. Religion believes in miracles, but they are not compatible with science.”’

Science itself is a miracle!

Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapour, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.

• Pascal

 

[onenow1]

Science itself is a miracle!

• Pascal

:thumbsup:Tony, here is another take on Pascal in my opinion : Even if it were only 10% possibility of Gods existence that’s a whole lot to bet against ?

God Bless

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m all for clarity.

Would you clarify for me the difference between an atheist and a strong atheist?

It’s like the difference between a vehicle and a car. One is a sub-classification (more specialized) than the other. The common attribute among people self identifying as atheists is that they are not convinced that the god-concepts to which they have been introduced to be real. It’s possible that such a person didn’t find the existence of such an entity to be something for which she has sufficient information to draw a conclusion one way or another (agnostic atheist). It’s possible the person has concluded that no such entities exists (strong atheist). It’s possible the person doesn’t care one way or another and thinks the existence of a god wouldn’t have much of an impact on her life (apatheistic). There are those that think too many assumptions must be used to have a discussion about God and other theological topics such as heaven, hell, and other topics (Ignostic). As pointed out by another poster there are synonyms for some of these phrases. Strong = Positive = Gnostic in this context.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s like the difference between a vehicle and a car. One is a sub-classification (more specialized) than the other. The common attribute among people self identifying as atheists is that they are not convinced that the god-concepts to which they have been introduced to be real. It’s possible that such a person didn’t find the existence of such an entity to be something for which she has sufficient information to draw a conclusion one way or another (agnostic atheist). It’s possible the person has concluded that no such entities exists (strong atheist). It’s possible the person doesn’t care one way or another and thinks the existence of a god wouldn’t have much of an impact on her life (apatheistic). There are those that think too many assumptions must be used to have a discussion about God and other theological topics such as heaven, hell, and other topics (Ignostic). As pointed out by another poster there are synonyms for some of these phrases. Strong = Positive = Gnostic in this context.

The atheist and the strong atheist both have to deny the existence of God, which is the point you refuse to make.

My own distinction between the two is that the atheist does not believe in God(s), but is indifferent about whether others do; whereas the strong atheist not only does not believe in God, but actively campaigns against those who do (such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et.al.).

Do you disagree with this distinction? If so, why?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The atheist and the strong atheist both have to deny the existence of God, which is the point you refuse to make.

Based on the common usages of “deny” with which I am familiar (to say something is not true) I don’t agree with you. To not be convinced of a proposition isn’t the same as saying the proposition is false.

My own distinction between the two is that the atheist does not believe in God(s), but is indifferent about whether others do; whereas the strong atheist not only does not believe in God, but actively campaigns against those who do (such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et.al.).

I’d describe such a person as an activist and and possibly an anti-theist depending on the message of their campaign. That a person hasn’t been convinced of the existence of a God or that a person is convinced that there are no gods doesn’t indicate that the person wants to convince others to take the same position.

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.