toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[Silent Hunter]

How can you even bother to hate something that does not exist?

. . . or long for "eternal bliss" in a place that doesn't exist?

Heaven is a construct of wishful thinking . . . nothing more.

 

[rexlunae]

That is false.

Is it now?

For some reason people tend to think they are experts on all humanistic disciplines and make bold statements about those topics all the time. Probably because it easier to get away with since you cannot show error as easily as you can in questions pertaining to the natural sciences.

For starters, I'd say that calling something a discipline where it's difficult to be shown wrong is a bit questionable. But I draw a distinction between two things which are often blended together: philosophical theology, which is based upon science and reason, and dogmatic theology, which is based upon authority and revelation.

If it truly were simple we would not see people make such gross misrepresentations of what theology is and what it states and make such glaring philosophical errors which would be embarrassing to first year theology students.

Glaring errors are common, even from very smart, well-educated people, and even in topics that are fairly simple. You don't have to dig very deep into most sciences to find amazing oceans of data that only a few people can properly interpret. The same isn't really true of theology.

He is highly educated (an understatement) in physics. That does not mean he is very competent at questions of philosophy or theology.

But it doesn't mean he's incompetent either.

What bothers me is not his atheism, it is the crude argumentation for his position and that he gets attention for those clumsy arguments just because he is Stephen Hawking.

Well, he studies topics which intrude upon a part of human knowledge that not long ago only religion could address, and then only poorly. You might be able to suppose that we have souls even if we explain every aspect of human cognition in entirely material terms, but it was not long ago that people seriously considered it impossible to do so, and inferred a supernatural element for that reason alone. I think Hawking would probably admit that science can't disprove a soul, but we should be ready to accept that we don't need that explanation anymore, and people who continue to insist upon it should be ready to explain why we need an explanation that exceeds the question. And as with every surplus explanation that religion has given us so far, that matters in determining the truth of religion.

 

[rexlunae]

How much theology have you studied that you can make this assertion with anything other than blind faith?

As far as formal education goes, one upper level undergraduate course.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:bang:

. . . actually . . . oranges and grapes. I made assumptions about you based on your religious affiliation . . .

. . . yours ("confidence that is way beyond your actual abilities and insight") on nothing at all.

:rotfl: . . . don't let the "ignore" button hit you in the . . . butt on the way out . . . :sigh: . . . :wave:

Well it does cut both ways SH. You rather make a habit of insisting that those who believe do so due to a fear of death etc which is an erroneous assumption on your part.

 

[Cracked]

Well it does cut both ways SH. You rather make a habit of insisting that those who believe do so due to a fear of death etc which is an erroneous assumption on your part.

True - according to him (and Hawking) when you die you die, and that is the end of consciousness. Thus, in his belief system, there is no reason to fear death. So, from his view point, it is much more fearful understanding to believe that he will fall into the hands of an angry God, denying him his eternal rest.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well it does cut both ways SH. You rather make a habit of insisting that those who believe do so due to a fear of death etc which is an erroneous assumption on your part.

. . . you mean . . . the fear of eternal punishment isn't a motivative factor used at the end of each and every sermon I've ever heard and that unless one is "saved" and lives a (mostly) good life after that time is doomed? There are only two choices available to the Christian (except Catholics maybe with Purgatory) . . . Heaven . . . or . . . Hell. Death leads to one or the other and "all have sinned" and don't deserve Heaven . . . "Just a little while longer Lord . . . I will do better . . . please don't send me to Hell."

The Five Stages Of Grief

1. Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me." Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death.

2. Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?" Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy.

3. Bargaining — "Just let me live to see my children graduate."; "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..." The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time..."

4. Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die... What's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?" During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.

5. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it." In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with her/his mortality or that of a loved one.​

It is my experience (limited though it is) that Christians spend a great deal of their life in stages 1-4 (most of that in stage 3) and relatively none in stage 5.

. . . why do/should ANY Christains fear death?

. . . and if death gets them into Heaven why are there so many Christians still alive? :think:

 

[Silent Hunter]

True - according to him (and Hawking) when you die you die, and that is the end of consciousness.

. . . prove it isn't.

Thus, in his belief system, there is no reason to fear death.

. . . nope. The trillions of years before I existed will be identical (from my standpoint) to the trillions of years after I die . . . no big deal.

So, from his view point, it is much more fearful understanding to believe that he will fall into the hands of an angry God, denying him his eternal rest.

:liberals:

:kookoo:

:yawn:

 

[Selaphiel]

For starters, I'd say that calling something a discipline where it's difficult to be shown wrong is a bit questionable. But I draw a distinction between two things which are often blended together: philosophical theology, which is based upon science and reason, and dogmatic theology, which is based upon authority and revelation.

Dogmatic theology in the sense of preserving dogmatism (as opposed to studying the statements of dogmatic theology critically) is a failure to meet the standard of modern theology. You cannot assume the truth of the dogmas uncritically in modern theology. Philosophical theology is an essential part of any systematic theology (My master thesis is on systematic theology) done in university theology today. I must underline that when I refer to theology as a discipline, I mean modern academic theology which does not assume anything. It is normative, its formulations are tentative and its methods are critical according to the academic standard.

You don't have to dig very deep into most sciences to find amazing oceans of data that only a few people can properly interpret. The same isn't really true of theology.

It may be true to a certain extent. Depends on your definition of properly interpret, to properly interpret a work like Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology (3 volume work) you do need to have a good understanding of what Tillich means by certain terms which means you need to have a good understanding of the theology of German idealism which means you have to have a good understanding of theology and philosophy leading up to that. Sure, you can read Tillich superficially and get a superficial understanding. Then again, I could read popular science and get a superficial understanding of what really are complex scientific ideas as well.

But it doesn't mean he's incompetent either.

Not by default, that is true. The verdict of him being seemingly incompetent lies within the statements he makes. I was not impressed by them, such fundamental mistakes reveals that little effort has been made to understand what he criticizes.

Well, he studies topics which intrude upon a part of human knowledge that not long ago only religion could address, and then only poorly. You might be able to suppose that we have souls even if we explain every aspect of human cognition in entirely material terms, but it was not long ago that people seriously considered it impossible to do so, and inferred a supernatural element for that reason alone. I think Hawking would probably admit that science can't disprove a soul, but we should be ready to accept that we don't need that explanation anymore, and people who continue to insist upon it should be ready to explain why we need an explanation that exceeds the question. And as with every surplus explanation that religion has given us so far, that matters in determining the truth of religion.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm all for theology being influenced by the natural sciences, it must take the worldview presented by the sciences seriously and take that into consideration when doing theological thinking, this is especially true in systematic theology that deals with some areas where what you say in theology must consider what the sciences say (The idea of divine agency is an example of this).
But it is also a bit too much folk theology in what you say. The idea in systematic theology is much deeper than God being a cause among causes, which essentially is a God of the gaps (an idea I suspect I despise just as much as you). Even in principle, science cannot falsify the understanding of God as creator, because what is meant that God is the uncaused cause and the ground of all being. It all lies beyond the sciences which must only concern itself with the empirical. If the universe can create itself with gravity and quantum fluctuations, great, that is a fantastic discovery. However, it does not do much to the theological idea of God as creator.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

. . . you mean . . . the fear of eternal punishment isn't a motivative factor used at the end of each and every sermon I've ever heard and that unless one is "saved" and lives a (mostly) good life after that time is doomed? There are only two choices available to the Christian (except Catholics maybe with Purgatory) . . . Heaven . . . or . . . Hell. Death leads to one or the other and "all have sinned" and don't deserve Heaven . . . "Just a little while longer Lord . . . I will do better . . . please don't send me to Hell."

Oh I'm sure plenty have been 'motivated' by such but it doesn't apply to all or even the majority of those who believe. You should also realize that not all Christians believe in eternal torment anyway. That's a more modern mainstream dogma than what the majority of the early church actually taught so it's not an 'either or'.

. . . why do/should ANY Christains fear death?

Well I doubt many do but it seemed more to me that your arguments often run with a fear of mortality rather than any 'hell'.

. . . and if death gets them into Heaven why are there so many Christians still alive? :think:

Because life itself has purpose on this plane? That's a rather strange argument you're using...

 

[Silent Hunter]

Oh I'm sure plenty have been 'motivated' by such but it doesn't apply to all or even the majority of those who believe.

. . . I suppose our experiences differ . . . my father was a minister (which I think you already know).

You should also realize that not all Christians believe in eternal torment anyway.

. . . again . . . my experience is that the grand majority do.

That's a more modern mainstream dogma than what the majority of the early church actually taught so it's not an 'either or'.

. . . at least until "The Revelation of John" was widely circulated . . . no doubt . . . (among other apocalypses) . . . the Jews had no such belief . . . that I'm aware . . . the concept of Hell is uniquely (mostly) Christian.

Well I doubt many do but it seemed more to me that your arguments often run with a fear of mortality rather than any 'hell'.

. . . which are intertwined to such an extent that I discern little separation.

Because life itself has purpose on this plane?

. . . come on . . . it's HEAVEN man.

That's a rather strange argument you're using...

:noid: . . . not really . . . if Heaven is the goal.

 

[Arthur Brain]

. . . I suppose our experiences differ . . . my father was a minister (which I think you already know).

Aye, I do recall you mentioning that come to think on it. I've also attended churches that preach the very same.

. . . again . . . my experience is that the grand majority do.

Same here but the majority isn't always correct and there's a significant percentage that doesn't.

. . . at least until "The Revelation of John" was widely circulated . . . no doubt . . . (among other apocalypses) . . . the Jews had no such belief . . . that I'm aware . . . the concept of Hell is uniquely (mostly) Christian.

Hell as a place of eternal torment garnered more mainstream impetus with the early RCC. It's not uniquely Christian however. I've even found some sects of buddhism that believe in such.

. . . which are intertwined to such an extent that I discern little separation.

Well there's a difference between fear of torment and fear of non existence. Neither are necessary in order to believe.

. . . come on . . . it's HEAVEN man.

Which will still be there after 70 odd years of life here. Selfishness isn't part of the goal and believers tend to think this life itself has purpose.

:noid: . . . not really . . . if Heaven is the goal.

As above.

:e4e:

 

[Nick M]

Silent Hunter. How you live life is irrelevant as to eternal life. You should live good, because it is the right thing to do.

Jesus went to the cross to bear the sin of the world. Just so you know.

 

[nicholsmom]

As far as formal education goes, one upper level undergraduate course.

Tell me about it. Were you as certain in your atheism at that time? What branch of theology was it? What areas of theology did that one course cover? Did you take it for a grade? Do you feel like that one course covered the whole of theology or at least gave you a decent idea of it's length and breadth?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Aye, I do recall you mentioning that come to think on it. I've also attended churches that preach the very same.

Same here but the majority isn't always correct and there's a significant percentage that doesn't.

. . . so which minority has it right?

Hell as a place of eternal torment garnered more mainstream impetus with the early RCC. It's not uniquely Christian however. I've even found some sects of buddhism that believe in such.

. . . how "early" . . . and . . . since Christianity is the main distributor of this doctrine let's limit ourselves to that theology.

Well there's a difference between fear of torment and fear of non existence. Neither are necessary in order to believe.

. . . not to the Christian imo. I don't think Christians fear non-existence in the same way they fear the end of their human existence. Which would you rather . . . non-existence? . . . or . . . eternal torture?

Which will still be there after 70 odd years of life here. Selfishness isn't part of the goal and believers tend to think this life itself has purpose.

. . . but . . . it's HEAVEN man . . . just "70 odd years" sooner . . . and did I mention it will be in the lap of your favorite deity?

As above.

. . . ditto.

:e4e:

. . . ditto.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Silent Hunter. How you live life is irrelevant as to eternal life. You should live good, because it is the right thing to do.

. . . I do . . . so should I go to "Hell" simply because your chosen deity is unconvincing of his/her/its existence?

Jesus went to the cross to bear the sin of the world. Just so you know.

. . . yeah . . . I've heard of that myth . . .



Edit:

. . . wait . . . what? . . . no neg rep? You're slacking Nick . . . :chuckle: :e4e:

 

[Sherman]

. . . why do/should ANY Christains fear death?

. . . and if death gets them into Heaven why are there so many Christians still alive? :think:

That is a pretty ridiculous question. Christians are not cowardly enough or selfish enough to off themselves. We let God decide when our stay on Earth is over.

 

[rexlunae]

Tell me about it.

It was an overview class called Atheism, Theism, and Secularism. As I said, it was an undergraduate course, though it was also 400 level, which means that it counts for graduate credit. It was lead by a Presbyterian minister and philosophy professor, although his background didn't factor heavily into the class. It was largely a discussion class with assigned reading. As an overview class, we went through much of the philosophical history of theism, and atheism, and secularism, and the arguments between them, but didn't dig too deeply into any one category. We had a number of essays that we wrote for grades.

It was perhaps the most interesting and most fun class I took in college.

Were you as certain in your atheism at that time?

I'm honestly not sure. In some ways, probably more certain. In other ways less. I certainly had less developed thinking about the subject at the time.

What branch of theology was it?

Well, as I said, the professor was a Presbyterian minister, but then the class itself was perhaps more accurately described as secular.

What areas of theology did that one course cover?

Answered supra.

Did you take it for a grade?

Yes. I got an A.

Do you feel like that one course covered the whole of theology or at least gave you a decent idea of it's length and breadth?

It certainly didn't cover all of theology. No one class ever could. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that no one person could. But it gave a decent starting point for further study, and it targeted some of the most fundamental questions that theology asks. And it provided the opportunity to discuss the questions with other people with contrary ideas.

I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of a master of theology. But then, I don't think it would make much sense to pursue such a thing as an atheist.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That is a pretty ridiculous question. Christians are not cowardly enough or selfish enough to off themselves. We let God decide when our stay on Earth is over.

. . . no free will either? . . .

 

[Arthur Brain]

. . . so which minority has it right?

Well in the most basic sense, if there's a God that creates everything then He can keep everything. So I think the prevailing opinion of the early church regarding the reconciliation and restoration of all is correct. Every other doctrine by necessity dictates that God loses at least part of creation and by association limits God. Thats my take anyway.

. . . how "early" . . . and . . . since Christianity is the main distributor of this doctrine let's limit ourselves to that theology.

Well technically the doctrine was around at the outset. It simply wasn't the predominant overall and became more established through Augustine and Constantine among others.

. . . not to the Christian imo. I don't think Christians fear non-existence in the same way they fear the end of their human existence. Which would you rather . . . non-existence? . . . or . . . eternal torture?

Why would you think Christians would fear the end of their human existence exactly? Can you expand on that? As to the latter then non existence. Bit of a no brainer that one....

. . . but . . . it's HEAVEN man . . . just "70 odd years" sooner . . . and did I mention it will be with your favorite deity?

In which case you're still missing my point. Those "70" years are there for a reason. If love is of any value then those years could be spent loving your neighbour, helping those in need, raising a family etc. It's not about some selfish desire to 'speed up the process' as if belief is all about yearning for bliss.

. . . ditto.

Er....ditto

. . . ditto.

Cornflakes....

:liberals:

 

[Sceptic Force]

. . . I do . . . so should I go to "Hell" simply because your chosen deity is unconvincing of his/her/its existence?

. . . yeah . . . I've heard of that myth . . .



Edit:

. . . wait . . . what? . . . no neg rep? You're slacking Nick . . . :chuckle: :e4e:

SIlent Hunter, God is unconvincing to you?