Heaven Is a Fairy Tale Says Physicist Stephen Hawking

[c.d.]

On the other hand, a number of people who have undergone near-death experiences have also undergone major personality changes and made drastic changes in their lifestyles. Make of it what you will.

c.d.

[Robert]

Well, CD, I will never eat rabbit stew again.

[caz]

It really bugs me when it is suggested - or believed - that religious faith comes first, and is what gives people the will to lead a moral life, doing good and helping others. Can't it just be accepted that some people are born with that will, and some will go on to have a religious faith while others won't? I realise that those who benefit probably don't care who is helping them or why. But on balance the people without faith who do good for its own sake sound like better adjusted individuals to me than anyone who does it with the promise of a heavenly reward in mind, or the fear of a hellish punishment if they don't.

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.

It's just nature with all its inherent flaws, isn't it? Who - or what - says that a disease has less right in nature to spread itself, than a human has to avoid or overcome it? You don't need religion, science or even morals to see the natural consequences of certain human behaviour and to make you stop doing it (or stop others doing it) if those consequences are undesirable, unpleasant, unhealthy or not conducive to human survival. You only need half a brain for that.

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.

The only point I'd make here is that nobody - scientist, bricklayer or layabout - need be an expert on fairies at the bottom of my garden, nor the psychology or history of garden fairy belief, to be able to say without fear of contradiction by any expert in any field, and without even examining my garden, that there will never be fairies at the bottom of it.

It can be called a scientific fact that fairies don't exist, because as a theory it won't be tested before a non-existent hell freezes over. Faith alone can't test it. It's like threatening the theory of evolution with your imaginary friend. You can shout and stamp your feet, using your right to free speech, but there are certain theories, nay facts, that won't be changed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

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.

Very interesting Garry-i had no idea they actually tested this! I think your explanation is a very plausible one.

I have also wondered if not these "after death" or out of body experiences were mearly the brain having one last "dream" before the light goes out forever (as in no afterlife, heaven etc).

But what strikes me in the testimonials (including my brothers) is the similiarities (and unique) experiences of all.

Most common experiences:

1. Moment of death-feeling of leaving your body, all stress gone, pain gone,peaceful feeling, Knowing you've died (interesting). some experience initial trepidations of leaving alive loved ones-but this feeling then rabidly ends.

2. First moments after death- Floating away from your body, seeing your body and its environment from above, Wondering what all the fuss is about if people are frantically trying to revive you, not caring about it. Quickly losing all interest in it.

3. "The Journey"- feeling of traveling through:the sky,space, walking up stairs, floating down a corrider, the dark tunnel, No feeling of time-described by some as experiencing the infinite.

4. The white light-seeing a bright light or being that is undescribably beautiful and loving-drawing towards it, feeling of being truly at home again

5. Meeting past loved ones-meeting again "dead" family and friends, lovers. Being emrbaced, welcomed by all. one description was he was hugged by everyone he had ever known who had passed. One described them all applauding as he met them. The descriptions of the past loved ones always described them not as they looked when they were old or died, but when they were in their prime, or looked their best (i found this very interesting and a little odd)

All described the overall surroundings as incredibly beautiful, peaceful and embracing. many said it felt like they were finally, truly home again.

6. The return-being told "its not your time", feeling disapointed, not wanting to return. a feeling of being sucked, many described like a huge vacuum (i found this description rather odd and odd that it was a very common description). returnining into body and feeling of incredible pain.


Most said they no longer fear death, or look forward to it. One guy upon hearing a friend had died, thought "that lucky bastard". he was envious!



Some other testimonies include these experiences (not as common as above)

7. The life review-also described as "My life flashed before my eyes". Experience of seeing past life events or your whole life. One young girl described seeing what her future life would have been

8. The Question- related to above phase, some experienced being asked one question: what have you done for your fellow man. One described that when he had trouble remembering something-it was shown to him.

9. The Big Secret- being revealed that everyone goes to "heaven". everyone.


The major thing that struck me is that no one ever couched these experiences in direct specific religious terms. They say things like:

spiritual beings, something like angels, I guess you could call it heaven, A presence of pure love, like paradise, it was like God etc

None ever said: I was before God, or Jesus met me, or the angels brought me.

I found that this was VERY interesting and lends to beleivability IMHO.
Almost like the experiences are above religion (or specific religious faiths).

[Chris]

9. The Big Secret- being revealed that everyone goes to "heaven". everyone.

Your post reminded of an anecdote about an overheard scrap of conversation between two Cambridge academics. One was saying to the other: "And ninthly ..."

[Fleetwood Mac]

It can be called a scientific fact that fairies don't exist, because as a theory it won't be tested before a non-existent hell freezes over. Faith alone can't test it. It's like threatening the theory of evolution with your imaginary friend. You can shout and stamp your feet, using your right to free speech, but there are certain theories, nay facts, that won't be changed.

Love,

Caz
X

Not the case, Caz.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact.

Science is based on what we know of the world, and it's fair to say knowledge is cumulative; I'd imagine we'd all agree there is much to discover and some of us won't be surprised to find that what we had taken as truths, turned out to be wide of the mark.

Take evolution: this may be proven to be inaccurate tomorrow; take gravity: it may cease to exist tomorrow. It is unlikely, based on what we know of the world, but not impossible.

Descartes showed that you can cast doubt on almost anything, the problem is that once you go down that road it is difficult to view an idea as anything more than an idea, which is uncomfortable for some people as it can erode identity.

But, anyway, there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

And, more importantly, reason is not the be all and end all. Intuition, imagination, emotion, feeling are all important to human beings when making judgements.

[caz]

So there are no scientific facts, but it's a fact that heaven exists so Hawking is wrong and a horrid man to say it doesn't.

I see - I think.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I would say that there are facts. At 17.38 PM May 20th 2011 there either is or isn't gravity. But our theories, or "knowledge," are revisable. So while there may be facts, we can never be 100% certain that we know what they are (barring certain truths of logic and mathematics).

[Sally]

I agree with Fleetwood Mac to an extent. I would say there are no scientific facts that are absolute - because knowledge is in a constant state of evolution.

I'm not sure that anybody can say with certainty that heaven doesn't exist as a fact. I don't see how it can be anything other than an opinion - likewise that it does exist.

[Robert]

Sally, a fact, and knowledge of a fact, are two clean different things.

[Abby Normal]

Its a fact that I am drinking a vodka tonic

[c.d.]

So is it a fact that there are no facts? Also, could God make a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?

c.d.

[Errata]

It really bugs me when it is suggested - or believed - that religious faith comes first, and is what gives people the will to lead a moral life, doing good and helping others. Can't it just be accepted that some people are born with that will, and some will go on to have a religious faith while others won't?
Love,

Caz
X

Of course. And if I sounded like I don't acknowledge the wonderful work of compassionate people of any or no faith at all, I apologize. And I don't think Stephen Hawking is a bad guy for saying what he did. Perhaps a bit of a hypocrite, but I tend to be extra judge-y on such things.

My thing is, science and religion have been having an epic battle for a while now. And given a choice, I'll take a scientific explanation over a scriptural one every time. But religion is backing off, and science is asking new questions, and now they are working together in new and fascinating ways. And I think that's awesome. There are great mysteries and little mysteries that neither has been able to solve independently. Maybe they can solve them together. But I am suspicious of any scientific devotee who announces that there is no god, or no need for god. In a religious sense a god is a being with powers who answers questions and solves problems. So if science is the new religion, then scientists are the new gods, and quite frankly we aren't nearly imaginative enough as humans to fill that role.

Their is no evil in allowing parents to believe that their dead child is in a place of eternal happiness and peace. It harms no one. I don't know if it's true or not, but I think that anyone who is bound and determined to convince that couple that their beautiful little girl is rotting in the earth feeding worms is kind of a monster. It ain't always about truth. Where science is. I say we need both.

[Steven Russell]

Their is no evil in allowing parents to believe that their dead child is in a place of eternal happiness and peace. It harms no one. I don't know if it's true or not, but I think that anyone who is bound and determined to convince that couple that their beautiful little girl is rotting in the earth feeding worms is kind of a monster. It ain't always about truth. Where science is. I say we need both.

Your compassion does you credit, Errata. But surely in the grand scheme of things, it is wrong to encourage people to believe in that which does not exist.

Surely you can see the evil which has been committed over the centuries in the name of God: an entirely imaginary being.

Best wishes,
Steve.

PS Not to mention a complete psycho nutter if the Old Testament is to be believed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So there are no scientific facts, but it's a fact that heaven exists so Hawking is wrong and a horrid man to say it doesn't.

I see - I think.

Love,

Caz
X

Quite clearly you don't see, Caz.

The scientists campaiging for reason while ridiculing people - now there is a contradiction in terms.

And, I would be the first to say there probably is no god, although I wouldn't discount it outright.

As for Hawking, if he's anything like Dawkins then he's extremist in his pursuit, and to him the ends will justify the means, which makes him a tyrant.