Heaven Is a Fairy Tale Says Physicist Stephen Hawking

[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 Science is fluid and understands that previous belief systems may be superceded if and when a better idea comes along.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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Robert]

Hi Steven

Prof Hawking may indeed be influential, but he shouldn't always be. By that I mean, his views on astrophysics should be influential - but his opinions on other subjects should receive no more coverage than mine or yours or Joe Bloggs'. I loathe the cult of celebrity where we see journalists pretending to dance and actresses pretending to be explorers. I do not want to see scientists acting as gurus on economics, religion, morality, history, or anything else.

[Sally]

What?

Heaven is a fairy tale? Well, we're all in trouble then, aren't we, considering that the rapture (capital 'R'?) begins on Saturday!

[Sister Hyde]

to quote good old crazy Charlie "Will of God.. whatever you wanna call it.. you call it Jesus, call it Mohammed, call it goobybob, call it nuclear mind, call it blow the world up, call it your heart. Whatever you wanna call it, it's still music to me. It's there. It's the will of life."

[Sister Hyde]

yeah it's a great quote although I don't like the character so much I mean, he sure found out the too much kicks kills the kick. but seriously, there are a lot of things that still go beyond our understanding, like, now we know that it is possible to separate the mind from the body and we also know that "astral travel" is different from "lucid dreaming". so if my "soul" can travel without me leaving the room, damn I'm curious what will come next!

[Abby Normal]

only one way to check.... lemme get my rifle... ahahah well, I don't think anyone can have the pretention to know for sure what will come after, and it is true that the recent discoveries do give more questions than answers. I dunno what's coing after, but it better be fun cause I won't have gone through all this for nothing!!!

HaHa!

or as Jim Morrison used to say: I don't know whats going to happen, but I'm gonna get my kicks before the whole sh*t house goes up in flames.

i love that quote

[Sister Hyde]

only one way to check.... lemme get my rifle... ahahah well, I don't think anyone can have the pretention to know for sure what will come after, and it is true that the recent discoveries do give more questions than answers. I dunno what's coing after, but it better be fun cause I won't have gone through all this for nothing!!!

[Abby Normal]

We die the same as dogs and go nowhere.

I used to be pretty certain of this also, because my dad(who was a scientist) used to say when we talked about it: After you die its probably alot like it was before you were born-you don't exist.

However, after 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.

As no one can claim to know(neither religion nor science nor me) the answer absolutely in questions like this, at this point I lean towards afterlife.

The world is an old place.

[Sister Hyde]

ahah strangely this reminds me of the scandal Michel Houellebecq provoked some years ago when he said in a interwiew that "Islam was a retarded religion". I think it's all about personal belief. now did SH express his view wrongly? maybe, but surely not as rudely as MH. Now I think if mr "average joe" wuld have said that, no one would find it worth making a fuss or even listen to it. and I don't see why this statement can be controversial, I mean, after all it's coming from a "down to earth" person, basically he didn't need to say it for people to guess what he thought about the subject.

[Abby Normal]

Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said in an interview published on Monday.

Hawking, 69, was expected to die within a few years of being diagnosed with degenerative motor neurone disease at the age of 21, but became one of the world's most famous scientists with the publication of his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time."

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the Guardian newspaper.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

When asked how we should live he said: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."

Hawking gave the interview ahead of the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London where he will join speakers including British finance minister George Osborne and Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Addressing the question "Why are we here?" he will argue tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe sowed the seeds of human life.

The former Cambridge University Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a post once also held by Isaac Newton, has a history of drawing criticism for his comments on religion.

His 2010 book "The Grand Design" provoked a backlash among religious leaders, including chief rabbi Lord Sacks, for arguing there was no need for a divine force to explain the creation of the universe.

As a result of his incurable illness Hawking can only speak through a voice synthesizer and is almost completely paralyzed.

He sparked serious concerns in 2009 when he was hospitalized after falling seriously ill following a lecture tour in the United States but has since returned to Cambridge University as a director of research.

c.d.

He is entitled to his opinion and should not be attacked with such vitriol that others have noted.

However he did not need to give his opinion in such a condescending, offensive way.

I am surprised that he is so sure of this opinion, as a scientist he should realize that the answer to such a mystery is not so certain.

With the recent discoveries that our universe may not be the only one and that it is part of a "multiverse" of universes that come in and out of existance perhaps infinitely it seems reality is much older than anyone realized. Plenty of time for a "scientific" reason for an afterlife.