SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/stephen-hawking-on-religi_n_607753.html

Stephen Hawking, known for his groundbreaking work in physics, told Diane Sawyer that when it comes to reconciling science and religion, there is only one outcome: "science will win because it works." He also elaborated on his views about God.

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

Hawking's metaphorical usage of the term, "God," has been repeatedly mis-used and represented as proof of his belief in God, which is utter nonsense. It seems that some theists believe lying for God is some sort of virtuous act, since they've lied about Darwin, Einstein, and now him.

So is religion really in some kind of race with science? What are they competing for? And if they were, why would science win? or wouldn't it? Maybe the competing is a good thing? After all doesn't free market philosophy say that competition is the way to progress?


It could be plausibly argued that what Professor Hawking meant was science and religion competing to gain an understanding of reality. It clear to me that science would win and is winning to such an extent that some believers actually don't view their religion as having any explanatory power at all.


Perhaps he meant that religion and science are in a race for the human mind, that they behave like competing ideologies in the free market of ideas? Will people prefer to go for authority, comfort and superstition or will they choose rationality, scepticism and the values of the enlightenment? Here the situation is not nearly as clear cut.

It seems to be human nature that simple-minded folk are more likely to agree with a loud-mouthed charismatic minister then a studious and modest nerd. And our civilisation historically has taken steps back, its not impossible that religion would win on this front.

"the embodiment of the laws of nature." best definition. I said something similar in much more words to someone that I was discussing this with (sadly they are one of those in the former part of hawking's statement, so they disagreed.). Steven Hawking is thus the man.

In modern times, afaik, religion doesn't try to explain things that science does/should (except for the origin of everything maybe, but I doubt that will be solved any time soon), and because of this, I don't see religion battling against science in any way you described.

However I think this makes sense

"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

but like I asked you once in IRC, aren't there religions that believe God doesn't have a personal relationship with people, and hasn't intervened with human life at all (prophets, floods, etc)

I don't know Ogre. Catholics claim that a wafer and a cup of wine literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. This isn't a metaphore for them the things actually become Jesus.
For me that is unacceptable trespassing on science's turf.

In the Muslim world, its generally accepted that Allah made man from dust. In many parts of America they believe in creationism and intelligent design.
If you feel your religion doesn't conflict with science then you're actually in the minority of worldwide religions.


There are 'religions' as you say that don't have a personal relationship with God, but that's called deism. It is generally lumped together with atheism and agnosticism, you wouldn't recognise it as a proper religion.

You always have to add the "In America" to beliefs in creationism and intelligent design. :p I'm sure it's just as popular in other places.

Also, maybe someone should ask strong believers about those things where religion trespasses on science's turf

Suggesting that "science works" is the big difference between science and religion is a bit simplistic.

Apparently, "faith works" for a huge percentage of the globe, since so many adhere to it. If it never "worked" for people, they would have abandoned it long ago.

I don't know anyone that goes searching religious texts for the answer to a mathematical or physics question. But they certainly do search them for other questions. Often "bigger" questions.

I really think that the vast majority of the world experiences the "works" of faith much more than the "works" of science. How many people know how to conduct a scientific experiment and see for themselves that the outcome matches the prediction? Not many. How many know how to test a religious belief to see if it improves their life? Most everyone.

Most people learn from experience, and gain a strong belief in things through their own experiences. So, they have a much greater opportunity to gain belief in religion than in science. And what is this nonsense about religion being based on authority? Science is based on authority, just as much. Most people trust scientists based on Authority, not because they were able to observe experiments themselves, or reproduce them for themselves. They take it on authority, along with their own meager understanding of science. The same is true for religion in that many trust the words of people with a much greater understanding or experience, which jibes with their own meager understanding.

For the vast majority of the population, there is not such a stark contrast at all.

how does one test a religious belief to see if it improves their life? I see most people go to church and that's their religion for the week. I'm not sure what experiences one gains from that, but I would say that I personally get more out of a scientific experience than an hour at church.

Brah, go ahead.

YOU can believe that your ancestors were Monkeys, and Fishys.

But im going to believe and know that my ancestors are Adam and Eve.

And in the end we will see who will Win.

lol.

From: Yakman
After all doesn't free market philosophy say that competition is the way to progress?

…

Perhaps he meant that religion and science are in a race for the human mind, And our civilisation historically has taken steps back, its not impossible that religion would win on this front.

Progress is sometimes only attainable after you take steps back though. If we're going with free market philosophy here, the recent stock market crash was a "necessary" step for progress forward in the future.

Perhaps if a religious fervor sweeps the globe, terrible things will happen and people will realize that religion isn't the greatest.

Not saying this is what I believe, just offering another perspective.

@yakman, i am catholic. the "body and blood" are just bread and wine that have been blessed by the minister. yes, it is still a metaphor.

@tara, scientists check and recheck each other's work. if one scientist makes a breakthrough you can be positive that he is not the only person that has or will come to the same conclusion; if his conclusion is valid. if i were a scientist, i would be encouraging others to test my hypotheses so that my work may be validated.

I attend a christian church, and even if i were an atheist, I would still appreciate the morals that the christian church brings to my community.

@dan, when i attend church, i try not to focus so much on the creationist side of things, but I try to reflect the church spiritually (in spirit). To be the best person that i can be.

lordsaturn, you might not appreciate the morals if you were atheist, as you might not agree with them…

Also, yakman, I was having second thoughts about that quote.
Assuming there is a God, first of all, human life wasn't accidental.
Secondly, who says God didn't create other species around the universe?

I'm not bashing science, but I think Hawking's statement is simplistic.

Will science "win" over religion? If you're an atheist scientist, it already has. But it seems to me that Hawking is not talking about individuals or scientists specifically. He's talking about society. And although scientists may share their findings and occasionally (not nearly as often as you might think) have someone else validate them, most of society is not privy to that process. They aren't involved. They aren't consulted. They don't have the education or experience necessary to understand what's going on for themselves, so to them "science" is a big black box of Authority that is handed down from on high.

But I would guess that a large portion of society has been involved in the sharing of religious experiences themselves. Many have shared their own experiences with others, or heard others share with them. They have "validated" some of these experiences by having a similar experience, or feeling a surge of emotion or peace or empathy or love or other "religious" feelings in response.

Will science be able to "defeat" this sort of religious behavior that goes on in society? I don't think so.

In fact, I don't think most scientists themselves see it as some sort of battle between science and faith that must be won. So, I don't think the mechanism to have scientific experience challenge most of society's religious beliefs exists now, or will in the future. Nor do I think that scientists are going to wage war on religion to try to forcibly change their minds. I just don't see how such a major shift in society would come about.

From: tarajunky

In fact, I don't think most scientists themselves see it as some sort of battle between science and faith that must be won. So, I don't think the mechanism to have scientific experience challenge most of society's religious beliefs exists now, or will in the future.

Richard Dawkins disagrees.

The way i see it:
Just because you think your opinion is right, doesnt necessarily mean the other persons opinion is wrong. :)
Use tolerance of othe beliefs. Im christian, but i mainly claim it as my religion because of the good moral standards in the bible. Haha

From: Yakman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/stephen-hawking-on-religi_n_607753.html
Hawking's metaphorical usage of the term, "God," has been repeatedly mis-used and represented as proof of his belief in God, which is utter nonsense. It seems that some theists believe lying for God is some sort of virtuous act, since they've lied about Darwin, Einstein, and now him.

I have never heard any christian say that those three were christians. Its bluntly obvious that Hawking and Darwin are not christians, and also einstein to a degree.

why do i sorta exclude einstein from the group? http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

read up on what einstein wrote - you might find the "atheism" section interesting.

overall, einstein himself is not a christian though. so i dont know where the hell you got this opinion of yours.

Einstein definitely wasn't an atheist.

Not to be a buzzkill here, but religion discussions needs to be banned from SRL.
All it does is to cause anger and tension, and split the community up.

Or have we forgot the outcome of most previous religion threads?

The discussions are the result of the tension, not the cause of it. Banning them would do no good, if you dont like the vibe then don't click on the forum

I do believe in god, but not in a christian way. I base my religious beliefs on science.
When you think of how vast the universe is, and how much there is that we do not know, doesn't it seem unlikely that there wasn't something that's beyond our understanding and effects our world? I don't mean that that "god" would speak to us or show visions, but somehow effect this whole universe. After all, this universe is probably just a part of something even bigger, too.

I believe that there are many phenomena beyond our reality, outside our 4-dimensional world (x,y,z,time) that cannot be seen by any ways. We can't possibly think that life as we know it is the only way of "conciousness", we're just molecules too.

@lordsaturn well I've talked to many catholics and they told me differently. I found some websites on the 'official' position of the church.

From: http://www.allsands.com/religious/newage/whatistransubs_wuz_gn.htm
What Is Transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation is what separates the Catholics from everyone else. The word means that bread and wine "become" the Body and Blood of Jesus. This is not symbolism, it's a supernatural happening.
This is a Roman Catholic term used to describe what happens to the bread and wine during the celebration of Holy Communion. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. They look and taste like bread and wine but have been supernaturally changed into the physical and spiritual essence of Jesus. This is more than just the body and blood, it is the soul and divinity of Christ present in the "host" (the wafer).

my bold


@Ogre it is true that creationism is largely an american phenomenon. I suppose its popular as well in Africa and the Middle-East but those regions hardly count as they are third-world.
God could have created other species on other planets, but according to Christianity they aren't going to heaven. They will never be with God. Jesus came to humans only. (John 3:16)
You can follow a similar argument for almost all other religion, they all put humans on a pedestal above other animals and other life.

@Cheesehunk I really think that kind of comment isn't helpful because you haven't added anything to the debate. Perhaps you could read Richard Dawkins' arguments and post them here in your own words? But you can't just say he disagrees and leave it at that.

From: tarajunky
Suggesting that "science works" is the big difference between science and religion is a bit simplistic.

Apparently, "faith works" for a huge percentage of the globe, since so many adhere to it. If it never "worked" for people, they would have abandoned it long ago.

I don't know anyone that goes searching religious texts for the answer to a mathematical or physics question. But they certainly do search them for other questions. Often "bigger" questions.

I really think that the vast majority of the world experiences the "works" of faith much more than the "works" of science. How many people know how to conduct a scientific experiment and see for themselves that the outcome matches the prediction? Not many. How many know how to test a religious belief to see if it improves their life? Most everyone.

Most people learn from experience, and gain a strong belief in things through their own experiences. So, they have a much greater opportunity to gain belief in religion than in science. And what is this nonsense about religion being based on authority? Science is based on authority, just as much. Most people trust scientists based on Authority, not because they were able to observe experiments themselves, or reproduce them for themselves. They take it on authority, along with their own meager understanding of science. The same is true for religion in that many trust the words of people with a much greater understanding or experience, which jibes with their own meager understanding.

For the vast majority of the population, there is not such a stark contrast at all.

Well there was a time when most people in the world regularly smoked tobacco, you'd think after the dangers were discovered they'd all give up but it didn't happen for a very long time. People don't always knows whats best for them so I'm not completely convince they would give up something if it didn't work.

I feel the authority from science and authority from religion are intrinsically different. The authority from science comes from the fact that we don't have infinite time and resources, but if everyone did they could repeat every single experiment ever done and see for themselves. Most people have to take science on authority only because of a technicality.
With religion, there is no alternative. You can't repeat the revelations of St. John, Joseph Smith or Muhammad but have to take their word for it.

You could also argue that everybody benefits from the fruits of science. Since the scientific institution got going, life expectancy has more then doubled. Televisions, the internet, iphones, video games, IVF treatment, antibiotics, cancer treatment and other medicine that works. All these things testify to the value of humans studying the nature of physical reality.

I kinda agree with EvilChicken

I think Stephen Hawking lost a lot of credibility from announcing the whole "parallel universes stop information paradoxes"… that and his condition is increasingly worse. It's been a long time since many have considered any of his recent theories to have any level of considerable credibility. Even so, he's on the topic of religion obviously trolling again like he has resorted to lately.

Such a shame.

From: IceFire908
I kinda agree with EvilChicken

I think Stephen Hawking lost a lot of credibility from announcing the whole "parallel universes stop information paradoxes"… that and his condition is increasingly worse. It's been a long time since many have considered any of his recent theories to have any level of considerable credibility. Even so, he's on the topic of religion obviously trolling again like he has resorted to lately.

Such a shame.

Do you really think you have the understanding or authority to declare he's lost credibility? Just the title "parallel universes stop information paradoxes" sounds true to me, that's without even reading the article or any of the background information. That's not just me thinking "hey that sounds cool…" its me thinking of how a parralel universe could stop it, and realising that it could if they existed. Just because you don't understand something isn't a reason to dismiss it..

Makes sense that science will win, religion was a best attempt with our knowledge 2000/1500 years ago. They can only play "catch up" with science at this point - until they're merged at least, like marpis is saying

From: The Claw
Do you really think you have the understanding or authority to declare he's lost credibility?

Honestly I'd take a 14 year old with no experience over his opinion at this point in his condition.

From: IceFire908
Honestly I'd take a 14 year old with no experience over his opinion at this point in his condition.

Do you even understand the condition he has? It has no affect on his mental state. It's entirely a disease that affects his /motor/ neurons. Those control movement, not his brain….

From: noidea
Do you even understand the condition he has? It has no affect on his mental state. It's entirely a disease that affects his /motor/ neurons. Those control movement, not his brain….

Obviously.He has come up with amazing theories in the past, it wasn't until recently that people have become skeptical of his mental health. When I say "condition" I'm referring more or less to his overall self, and you can't tell me that there is "no affect on his mental state" just because his condition isn't directly messing with "his brain".

The thing I don't understand is, what the hell makes Stephen Hawking anymore credible than some random troll when it comes to religion? The guys obviously lost his "touch" there's no denying that.

From: IceFire908
Obviously.He has come up with amazing theories in the past, it wasn't until recently that people have become skeptical of his mental health. When I say "condition" I'm referring more or less to his overall self, and you can't tell me that there is "no affect on his mental state" just because his condition isn't directly messing with "his brain".

The thing I don't understand is, what the hell makes Stephen Hawking anymore credible than some random troll when it comes to religion? The guys obviously lost his "touch" there's no denying that.

What makes you, a random troll, more credible than the greatest scientific and medicinal minds of the world when it comes to Stephen Hawking?

Attack the theory, not the guy behind it. Why are you so agaisnt his theory and think he's wrong? inb4 "hes lost it", that's almost a strawman.

The reason people are more likely to listen to Hawking over a random troll is because in general the most intelligent people have the most logical/correct view of the world, if they're not corrupted in some form or another. Therefore Hawking's arguments are worth more consideration than for example some old dude you met at the pub one night. That being said, the old dude at the pub might be the most intelligent guy in the world - which is why you attack the arguments not the guy saying them.

Well, he surely didn't smoke a lot of weed so that can't be the cause of the brain damage.

I doubt his mental health has been affected by his illness.

Being stuck, unable to move and barely communicate would be degrading to most people's mental health I would say.

^ Except for Stephen Hawking isn't most people. He is a genius and he knows it. He doesn't think like you and I.

From: i luffs yeww
^ Except for Stephen Hawking isn't most people. He is a genius and he knows it. He doesn't think like you and I.

+1

if anything, like most people with disabilities (blindness, mute, deaf, paralyzed ect), it might even enhance his mental capacity, since the brain has less things to worry about

Hawking has Motor Neurone Disease, it affects muscles and nerves but his brain is unaffected.

I can't accept Icefire's argument using "common sense" that any 14 year old would have because that's simply not the way the universe works. Our common sense is the result of millions of years of evolution in the African savannah and simply doesn't always work in other situations.

Lets take time, you probably 'feel' that my time is the same as yours and all times flows the same for everyone, like if we agreed to meet at a certain time we'd know what that means.
But that idea completely breaks down if you travel at speed close to the speed of light. It turns out time flows differently for different observers, our common sense 'feeling' is wrong and experiments confirm this so you'll find it difficult to argue against it.
Another common view is that the world is flat (because it looks flat) and its standing still. We even talk about the sun rising and setting as though it's the one doing the moving. But the common sense view is wrong here.
If you cool helium down to ~0.5K it will become a superfluid which has some very interesting affects which go completely against common sense.
Atomic physics tell us that almost all of matter is empty space, when our common sense says that rocks and tables are solid.
Our common sense says that light is weightless, when light hits you it gives no recoil, but that's wrong as science has found it indeed gives a small but measurable recoil. Indeed a spacecraft has been recently launched using this recoil to propel itself

In light (haha) of this, its clear that human intuition is flawed and the scientific process takes account of this when it sets up its experiments in such a way that they are safe from 'common sense' humans cocking it up.

You look like a complete idiot when you say Hawking's has lost credibility due to your subjective common sense judgement on interpretations of quantum physics.
The "Many Worlds Interpretation" was first suggested by Hugh Everett, not Hawking so if anybody should lose credulity it would be him. And the foundations of quantum physics are not very well understood, the rival interpretation is also pretty weird (see Schrödinger's cat)

From: Yakman

@Cheesehunk I really think that kind of comment isn't helpful because you haven't added anything to the debate. Perhaps you could read Richard Dawkins' arguments and post them here in your own words? But you can't just say he disagrees and leave it at that.

I would but I honestly just don't feel like wasting time on what I believe to be a pointless argument.

You read the entire thread (otherwise you wouldn't know that I responded to you) and posted on it twice. Now you're telling me you don't care. I see

From: Yakman
You read the entire thread (otherwise you wouldn't know that I responded to you) and posted on it twice. Now you're telling me you don't care. I see

I just read my name, and quoted it. Not going to lie, I read a lot of the thread. The god argument is very revealing as to how people think. However, I still believe arguing about it is trivial and pointless.

Arguing about the sake of an argument is even more pointless though, so this will probably be my last post in this thread.