Mike Fuller Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Hawking believes that we are such insignificant complex molecular structures, on a minor planet, orbiting a very asverage star, in the outer subhurbs of one of a hundred, thousand, million galaxies, that it is difficult to believe in a God that would notice us, let alone care about us!. Singer and Intellectual Art Garfunkel said "It seems to me that God is something man-made for the purpose of maintaining a connection to the concept of a power which transcends the likes of man. A measure if you will. Yet when I think back to when I was 8 years old and what I thought was up above me I weep long hard tears of rememberance. I am measuring!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrushka.googol Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I believe in the adage "God helps those who help themselves". Belief in G_d is a matter of personal choice, some religions are not monotheistic like Christianity, but belief in oneself is a sure shot way to succeed and I guess Hawking simply can't refute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Whether a person believes in God or gods is their own business. There may be around 4200 different religions practiced on the Earth, and many more dead religions. In a universe with more than a 100 Billion galaxies in which the average galaxy contains more than 100 Billion stars (more than 10,000 Billion Billion stars) there may be a Billion Billion alien civilizations, each one with 4200 religions. It makes no sense to me that a God would select one religion of 4200 Billion Billion to favor, and forsake everyone else. When a religions person tries to force their beliefs on others, including me, it becomes my business and I fervently object. Science is not atheistic, it is mute about God and gods. However, science does sometimes refute religious beliefs, for example Earth being the center of the Universe. Galileo looked through a telescope into the sky and confirmed that the Sun did not orbit the Earth, and the Catholic church arrested him for it and kept him under house arrest for many years. If he had not revoked his claim of heliocentrism, he would have been excommunicated and executed. Today, churches accept heliocentrism. The current fight by churches against scientific discoveries such as evolution and the age of the universe will eventually become silent, because scientists observe and report as accurately as possible, instead of accepting dogma. It will be a glorious day when 4200 religions accept each other and seek to find the things they have in common, instead of fighting over differences. It will be another good day when religious people understand that scientists are, in their own way, trying to understand the Universe and our origins, just as religions try to explain it. We all need to treat each other with kindness instead of contempt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 "Science is not atheistic" Yes it is. Science has no God. It is "without God" It is "a" theist i.e. "without" theist or "not" theist. It is atheist. Science does not believe in God. It doesn't actually rule God out, but it doesn't believe in Him, so science is unequivocally atheistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Science does not have a brain or mind; thus, it cannot believe. Science is merely a library that contains descriptions of observations, experiments, and interpretations of observations and experiments. Saying science is atheistic is like saying a pizza is atheistic; it is nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Would you agree that christian science is theistic... rooted in theistic belief? If so, then perhaps it's not so nonsensical for one to suggest that science is itself atheistic. Likewise, if suggesting it's atheistic causes too much discomfort, then at the very least we might agree that science is, as a method, ignostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Francis Sellers Collins, an Evangelist Christian, is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Scientists may be theistic, atheistic or ignostic. One might say that science is ignostic, since it does not claim either that there is or is not a god. However, it would be personifying science, since science cannot believe anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Francis Sellers Collins, an Evangelist Christian, Scientists may be theistic, atheistic or ignostic. One might say that science is ignostic, since it does not claim either that there is or is not a god. However, it would be personifying science, since science cannot believe anything. Science is a method, a way of thinking but that does not preclude it from being characterised - even if it should not be personified. Occam's razor is an oft-used rule of thumb which whilst it has no evidential or predictive power is none-the-less very helpful; in a field of competing ideas, the simplest idea with the fewest assumptions should be accepted until and unless a further idea with greater explanatory and predictive power is postulated. The postulation, without any observational evidence requiring it, of a super-natural being can never be said to be simpler than the absence of that postulation - thus until this postulation of a super-natural being fits more perfectly with nature and provides greater explanatory / predictive power science will continue to use the simpler hypothesis with no supernatural beings. The methodology of thinking and acting that we call science calls for parsimony - and working without god is the most economical and succinct route till evidence says otherwise. Most of the time this is a moot point - frankly who cares - but the fact that no modern science has successfully incorporated a supernatural being into a hypothesis means that science can properly be described as atheist (in the sense that it is without god(s) per the ancient classical root). The post-classical re-invention/re-use of the word atheist has (arguable) connotations of a positive belief in the absence of God; science as a method of thinking would again utilise Occam's razor. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fuller Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 The Hawking qoute was just to inspire thought!!! Kant ( 1724 - 1804 ) said "I argue there is a God, precisely because nature can proceed through chaos in no other way than regularly and orderly." Goethe ( 1749 - 1832 ) said "Genuine conviction springs from the heart. As a true seat of conscience, the heart is a far more reliable judge of what is permissable than the understanding. The latter for all its decisiveness and all decernment tends to miss the real point." I think your qoutes you've written are brilliant by the way!!! Paticularly EdEarl and Imfantaal!!! Happy New Year!!! Cheers - Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 What exactly do you mean by a god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now