Heaven Is a Fairy Tale Says Physicist Stephen Hawking

[Abby Normal]

Dear Robert,

I understand what you are saying but am afraid I must disagree. As a scientist, Hawking knows that evidence is paramount. Science proposes 'models' i.e. ways of explaining the way things are, based on research and experimental data. The experimental data has to be able to be replicated by others for it to be taken seriously. Theories are then formed based on this. When further data comes along to conclusively disprove a theory, the theory is abandoned and new explanations are sought. So scientific models are the 'best fit' explanations of the data available. For example, ancient astronomers (extremely clever people) constructed complicated ways to explain the motions of the planets based on an Earth-centered universe. But these beliefs were abandoned eventually when it was seen that a better fit could be made for the data if it was considered that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system.

Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith which is belief without evidence. The argument that there is no evidence because you have to have faith is the biggest get-out clause of all time. The second best is the way that theologians insist that stories must be metaphorical when it is shown that they are truly laughable.

At various times in history, people have believed in turtles holding up the Earth, Ra and Osiris, Thor and Woden, Zeus and Apollo, Ganesh etc. etc. Their beliefs (at least the 'devout' among them) will have been equally strong as followers of, say, the Abrahamic faiths today.

Religion must have developed in the earliest times of human evolution as a means to explain the inexplicable. Later, it became a good way to get the masses to toe the line when their Earthly existence was hard. Try your best and, although your life is bleak now you will be rewarded later; buck against the trend and you will have the worst time imaginable ever. For ever.

But it is no longer the sixteenth century. It is time we let go of this dangerous claptrap and made the most of the time we have. Garry's reference to the Tooth Fairy may have been seen as faceitious by some but he is absolutely right. Religion is utter hokum and I find it astonishing that anyone can give credence to such drivel in these times.

Best wishes,
Steve.

you're too cool for school, dude

[Steven Russell]

you're too cool for school, dude

But not cool enough to understand what you mean, Abby. Are you agreeing or saying I am a knobhead?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Errata]

isn't dismissing religion as claptrap denying that there are still mysteries and inexplicable concepts out there? Even inexplicable concepts that science has already taken itself out of the running for?

I mean, if we look at it, is Syphilis a disease or a punishment for the sin of lust? Well, both really. Clearly it's a disease, but without the lust the disease doesn't spread. And what good is the scientific explanation of the structure of the disease, if scientists don't coordinate an effort to keep it from spreading (which is a social services thing). I'm not sure religion has outlived it's usefulness yet.

[Robert]

Hi Steven

Well, I myself am an agnostic. Religion requires faith, therefore I am not religious. That's because I am that kind of chap. Other people, who have a different temperament or who have had different life experiences, might prefer faith. One can argue about which way the evidence leads - enter Mr Hume and Mr Paley - but the actual choice of faith over evidence, or evidence over faith, is a question of personal morality, or temperament, or even taste. If a man insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he is a poached egg, then he is being unscientific. But the command "Thou shalt not be unscientific" is a moral injunction with which scientists qua scientists have nothing to do.

I welcome it when scientists step outside their narrow field of specialisation and put forward views on other topics. I have noticed that scientists tend to be quite knowledgeable about history, art etc, whereas the "arts" folk tend to be relatively ignorant of scientific matters, which is a shame. The scientists often have interesting opinions on all kinds of subjects. And inevitably, they sometimes talk BS too. The point I am making is, by all means let's have Prof Hawking's views on religion. But let's not regard him as an expert on religion, or the psychology of religious belief, or the history of religion, or the meaning of life. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be regarded as such.

[Steven Russell]

isn't dismissing religion as claptrap denying that there are still mysteries and inexplicable concepts out there? Even inexplicable concepts that science has already taken itself out of the running for?

I mean, if we look at it, is Syphilis a disease or a punishment for the sin of lust? Well, both really. Clearly it's a disease, but without the lust the disease doesn't spread. And what good is the scientific explanation of the structure of the disease, if scientists don't coordinate an effort to keep it from spreading (which is a social services thing). I'm not sure religion has outlived it's usefulness yet.

Yes, there are still things we don't understand. But looking for a supernatural cause is not the answer. Do you believe that AIDS is a divine punishment?

Condom use would significantly curtail the spread of all STDs. But will the Pope have it? This is one of the best examples of religion harming the human species I can think of!

Religion never moves unless to back away. Science is fluid and understands that previous belief systems may be superceded if and when a better idea comes along. That is the difference.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Livia]

Yes, there are still things we don't understand. But looking for a supernatural cause is not the answer. Do you believe that AIDS is a divine punishment?

Condom use would significantly curtail the spread of all STDs. But will the Pope have it? This is one of the best examples of religion harming the human species I can think of!

Religion never moves unless to back away. Science is fluid and understands that previous belief systems may be superceded if and when a better idea comes along. That is the difference.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Yes, and then there's infants born infected with congenital
syphilis, AIDS, and other STDs. What did they do to deserve
their fate?

+1 what Steven Russell has posted, plus this:

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Christopher Hitchens

[Robert]

But then, one's own dismissal can be dismissed, and so on.

I think it would help people if they would divide the subject into its components. E.g.

1. Is there a god?
2. If there is, what kind of god are we talking about?
3. If there is, does this god enjoin any beliefs or practices?
4. If so, do we like these beliefs and practices?
etc

#1 seems to be logically prior. I don't really see the point in arguing that religion has had bad consequences, therefore there is no god.

[Abby Normal]

But not cool enough to understand what you mean, Abby. Are you agreeing or saying I am a knobhead?

Best wishes,
Steve.

I pretty much agreed with you until you got here:
It is time we let go of this dangerous claptrap and made the most of the time we have. Garry's reference to the Tooth Fairy may have been seen as faceitious by some but he is absolutely right. Religion is utter hokum and I find it astonishing that anyone can give credence to such drivel in these times.



Regardless of your personal views of Religion why attack with such self righteousness and vitriol? Why demean the many people and organizations around the world who give aid, donate millions and sacrifice so much in the name of religion? Are you or Stephen Hawking so sure of yourself that you would respond with such all knowing smugness? Is that not what you accuse "religious" people of with their faith? How can anyone be so sure of themselves in these things (on either side of the debate)-I would say its type of arrogance. You (or I) are not that wise my friend. Nobody is.

[Errata]

Yes, there are still things we don't understand. But looking for a supernatural cause is not the answer. Do you believe that AIDS is a divine punishment?

Condom use would significantly curtail the spread of all STDs. But will the Pope have it? This is one of the best examples of religion harming the human species I can think of!

Religion never moves unless to back away. Science is fluid and understands that previous belief systems may be superceded if and when a better idea comes along. That is the difference.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Of course I don't think that AIDS is a divine punishment. Am I going to tell a guy who stopped going to prostitutes because he believed that he was going to be divinely punished that he is wrong? Nope. Whatever works.

What I'm saying is that science is science, and then there is all the other important stuff that isn't science. Science tells us that education is the surest method of preventing STDS. Experience tell us that's not all that true. People can be experts in the field and still somehow think that all the facts and figures don't apply to them. So education and a healthy dose of fear is really the best way to go, and religion can provide that. Religions set up charities, treatment centers, counseling services. Religions try to address social ills, science doesn't.

For the most part, religion and science don't overlap. Faith and science do, but not religion. Religion is as flawed as any other governing force. And it is the height of madness to think that we need to, or even could eradicate faith. The lesson is, learn to make it work for you.

[The Good Michael]

I'm not saying there is absolutely no God. I am saying that there can be no more logic in believing in God than there is in believing in any one of a million things that people dismiss as nonsense. Did Kosminski actually hear voices, or was he mad? If he was mad, what about those of you who try and prove the existence of God? One man's belief are hallucinations (Kominski) and group belief in simliar things are somehow rational? Religion at its best is an individual concept that never leaves a person's mind in order to infect others. At its worst, well look around you. It is typically at its worst. No book can possibly be the word of God. Anyone who believes so is as delusional as Kominski was. Or was he?

Mike

[Steven Russell]

Regardless of your personal views of Religion why attack with such self righteousness and vitriol? Why demean the many people and organizations around the world who give aid, donate millions and sacrifice so much in the name of religion? Are you or Stephen Hawking so sure of yourself that you would respond with such all knowing smugness? Is that not what you accuse "religious" people of with their faith? How can anyone be so sure of themselves in these things (on either side of the debate)-I would say its type of arrogance. You (or I) are not that wise my friend. Nobody is.

You're right, Abby. I can be a smug, arrogant git at times. And it can't be denied that some religious organizations do good work. But so do many secular ones.

I'm all for having a moral code and a compassionate nature but these days it doesn't have to be based on belief in supernatural beings or a fear of damnation.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Robert]

The argument that it's a good idea for people to have faith, because it has various good consequences, is an interesting but strange argument. That's because for it to work, the people having the faith mustn't be swayed by the argument! The two motivations - faith and utility - just won't hang together.

[Abby Normal]

You're right, Abby. I can be a smug, arrogant git at times. And it can't be denied that some religious organizations do good work. But so do many secular ones.

I'm all for having a moral code and a compassionate nature but these days it doesn't have to be based on belief in supernatural beings or a fear of damnation.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi Steve
That was a very admirable response-Thank you.

I'm all for having a moral code and a compassionate nature but these days it doesn't have to be based on belief in supernatural beings or a fear of damnation.

Totally agree.

[Garry Wroe]

my brother in law "died" in a motorcycle accident and was revived his experience was very similar to other peoples who died and came back to life. Experiences which were all similar yet unique to each individual and leads one to beleive there is some sort of afterlife.

The out-of-body near-death experience has been scientifically tested, Abby. Shelves were placed high on the walls of intensive care units, upon each of which was placed a white card bearing a unique three-digit number. Each time a patient reported an out-of-body experience, he or she was interviewed under rigorous scientific conditions. In all of the years during which this procedure continued, not a single interviewee reported seeing the white card, let alone the numeric identifier. Since this would be impossible amid a true near-death, out-of-body experience, I think it likely that the brain continues to function for a short period after death at a quantum level - in other words, at a level that cannot be detected by present day hospital equipment, and that the perceived after-death experience is merely a cognitive artefact of such a condition.

[Robert]

I had a near death experience once. I was walking down a long, dark tunnel. There was light at the end of the tunnel. As I emerged from the tunnel I found myself in a beautiful landscape. And then...I was eaten by a ferret.