Isn't that called Scientology?
Printable View
I'm with you on that, and I would add that one of the cross-ups is that folks from each "side" use their beliefs as a way of contradicting those of the other "side."
Hawking seems to be doing that, actually.
I'm curious about the book, and I may pick it up when it's published in trade paper size, but I can say that I read an excerpt in the Wall Street Journal, and whatever point was being driven at was largely incomprehensible to me; not because I couldn't follow the thoughts [[although, not being a physicist, I'm not automatically familiar with all of the references) so much as because, while much was written, no clear statement emerged.
Of course, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that being a genius of physics does not automatically bring wisdom or the ability to write effectively.
As for the God: Yes or No? aspect of it, I, as always, don't give a damn what anybody believes.
How so? link?Quote:
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."
http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_SHawking.htm
That doesn't sound like he agrees with the anthropic principle.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/Quote:
RaumVogel: Yes, the whole debate is a bit of a waste if you ask me. The proof of the big bang is so faint that some believe in it only because they have "faith" in the scientific community.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
- First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
- Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble [[1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
- Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin [[-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [[CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
- Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]Quote:
3WC: I didn't realize there was a debate over who created whom. [[I'm aware, of course, of Voltaire's comment that "If there were no God, it would have been necessary for man to invent him.") But, I don't see the analogy to this issue.
Maxx: OK, point taken. But, you state "..it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science." Could it be that you're wrong on that point?
Great scientists have been examining that question for centuries. They have technology available to them in this quest that is incomprehensible to most people. An immense amount of human scientific brainpower has been devoted to the quest. Yet all these truly brilliant scientists with all their technology haven't been able to determine the origin of the universe to the satisfaction of a large percentage of those same scientists. Admittedly, they come up with many "theories" but theories appear to be cheap when it comes to science.
Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination? It's as good a theory as any I've seen.
It's not a theory at all because it is based on nothing but people's desire to believe in a supernatural being. And that's whether you're talking about creationism as the literal interp. of Genesis or just as the idea that everything was started by some supernatural creator.Quote:
3WC: Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination? It's as good a theory as any I've seen.
Show me the evidence that creationism is based on.
No.Quote:
Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination?
Nice fairy tale, nothing more.
[The Archbishop of Canterbury] ... added: "Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."
M: But the point Hawking was making that there is no need for a creator/god. Matter/energy has everything it needs without any "divine" intervention. And there is no ultimate answer to why everything is here. Everyone must answer that question for him/herself. The stars and planets don't care.
Writing in the Times, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."
M: No and a lot of the things the Bible is concerned about like whose god is superior, who are the chosen people, and how to treat those who don't worship the "superior " god have led to a lot of misery.
"The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being." Yeah? Well I am, and "science" sure as hell hasn't been able to tell me.
Maxx, Meddle, maybe you geniuses have the answer. You seem to know without qualification who or what didn't create or cause the universe so you surely must know how it did come into being. Don't you? We won't accept any bullshit "theories."
[[Here's a hint for as good an explanation as any you're likely to come up with. In the '50s Gahan had a cartoon in Playboy that's a classic. A rocket ship was turning to go behind the moon, and lo and behold, the moon turned out to be a hollow stage prop with "Act 2, Scene 5" stenciled on the back. "The world's but a stage.....")
If you really wanted to know the answer to that question, you would read what the cosmologists and astronomers have to say and study the appropriate sciences so you could thoroughly understand what they are saying. But I think that, like a lot of believers, you just want to believe that after you die you will continue to live in some way and a belief in a certain sort of god fulfills that need for you.
Only the moon really wasn't just a cardboard cutout, was it? And who got us there? People who studied math and physics and other sciences, not people reading some bronze age parchment.Quote:
Maxx, Meddle, maybe you geniuses have the answer. You seem to know without qualification who or what didn't create or cause the universe so you surely must know how it did come into being. Don't you? We won't accept any bullshit "theories."
[[Here's a hint for as good an explanation as any you're likely to come up with. In the '50s Gahan had a cartoon in Playboy that's a classic. A rocket ship was turning to go behind the moon, and lo and behold, the moon turned out to be a hollow stage prop with "Act 2, Scene 5" stenciled on the back. "The world's but a stage.....")
maxx, you're a little too arrogant for me and based upon what I've read in your posts you don't have too much to be arrogant about. Nothing personal.
The fact is I read constantly about the earth sciences. I've also subscribed to Scientific American for many years and try to muddle through it every issue; by the way, if you're not familiar with that mag, it's loaded with cosmological and astronomical articles.) Now, what kind of background do you have in cosmology and astronomy and the "appropriate sciences?" Not extensive I'll bet, based on your comments. Also, you have no idea whether I'm a believer merely because I happen to support a role for creationism in the formation of the universe; It makes the most sense to me, since the theories you seem to espouse don't.
You last comment is pretty lame. Come on. Don't waffle and obfuscate. Explain the origin of the universe. [[I won't hold my breath.)
There actually is no rational basis whatsoever for creationism. It's pure fantasy of the Disney variety.
To me, that does sound like he agrees with the anthropic principle. Whatever.
I reread the original article and found it does mention the anthropic principle, just not by name:Quote:
And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.
Hawking is saying that it is not surprising that people view the earth as a place conveniently created for their existence. He could add, given the appalling lack of interest in science among today's students which is only encouraged by a number of religions.
I'm quite familiar with it. My family had a subscription to it for years, and I read some articles from it usually the ones on archaeology while I was in high school. So show me an SA article that speaks positively of creationism. Incidentally, that remark of yours was arrogant .
I was responding to your little anecdote.Quote:
You last comment is pretty lame.
Astronomy and cosmology experts have been explaining what they have found and their conclusions for quite a while. Why use a typical ploy of the religious right by asking me to explain it and do some real research yourself? Religious fundies are always asking people to explain how everything came into being in 500 words or less and don't use words that are too big or sentences that are too long and for Ingersoll's sake, don't be boring. You guys crack me up.Quote:
Come on. Don't waffle and obfuscate. Explain the origin of the universe. [[I won't hold my breath.)
The world is still waiting for an actual coherent theory of creationism, but it isn't going to happen because it is based on magical thinking and fantasies. Just ask Mike Behe about his testimony at the Dover, PA, case.
I sure hope he explains that one in more detail in the book. I'm certainly weak on theological matters, but I don't see how that follows. Why couldn't God just do what it pleases? That would seem to be one of its defining characteristics [[omnipotence).
That said, my knee-jerk reaction to this is that he has an agenda, that he is trying to assert science over lunacy. You know, bold stickers on high school text books, equal time for empirically observable facts and a haphazard assemblage of historical events, moralistic fables and starry-eyed dreamscapes, interpreted and reinterpreted throughout multiple millenia, and so on.
Of course, there could be more to it, I may not be as all-knowing as I pretend.
Why bother? I understand Steven Hawking may be asserting some sort of knowledge about this, but really, what's the point of even trying? To figure out what? The why of it all? Or the real truth? The can we're in is traveling down the road, surely someone kicked it, or maybe it was just a gust of wind, but how are we going to know anything certain about that, ever? I am reminded of Chris Rock saying he could state the name of God, but one's head would explode, in the movie Dogma. And anyway, who cares why the can is traveling down the road, let's up and end some suffering.
We are, ourselves, in the can. The best we can do is to surmise.
It's all irrelevant, unless you can figure it out in the next two years. The world is ending in 2012 anyway.
Of course, if the world doesn't end in 2012, do you really think another five years matters? Ten years? Forty years? One hundred years?
If you figure it out in five, and you end up living for another one hundred, one might think you would run out of things to do. So, carry on, I guess!
I always found it interesting when I was a tot, in school, that the teacher would give us stupid essays that would ask questions like "pretend you had a time machine, wright a five page report on what period of history you would go to and why". I got a "F" [[actually in Metro Detroit you got an "E", not an "F") for going back to the beginning of creation and finding out how it all began... mostly because my answer was more creative, and less based on historic events that I had to research. There is something wrong with the way we educate our kids.
Anyway, while you are thinking about what you should spend your time thinking about, does anyone know what kind of web cam would work best to monitor auto break ins on Bagley Street? Problems have been on the rise across Metro Detroit lately.
Getting back to the topic though, there is no question that a genius would know how to title a book to sell. On the question about whether God created the universe; it isn't a relevant question. All signs point to the fact that she doesn't want us to know or act like she does exist. It's much more about what we do; do we do the right thing because we don't want to go to Hell? Or, do we do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do?
That's just my two cents. More of my thoughts: http://campusmartiuschronicle.blogsp...r-madness.html
Hiccup!
the bajillion dollar question
who/what created that pea sized ball of energy and matter? What caused it to go boom?
with regards to life lessons, etc... i believe Jesus's teachings and other great mytics teachings were how to live in THIS world as peaceful as possible now! That all this stress, anxiety, and fear need not be! You can choose heaven or hell at each moment and THAT is your free will. And I believe that not having attachments to this world is the key to that. Trials are just lessons repeated over until you make a better choice.
one thing we are not taught growing up is the actual POWER of our minds. I don't think folks are properly taught or educated on how to use it. Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter, it is possible to tune into another frequency that will always guide you to your highest good.
"Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter,"
Don't speak for the entire class. The desks are all identical, but every student is unique.
Thank you above for mentioning Thomism which lead me to Jewish philosopher Bahya ibn Paquda. This is in align with my beliefs and the study of A Course In Miracles.
"all that the world offers will disappoint man in the end"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duties_of_the_Heart
"Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter,"
well God Bless you if you don't have monkey mind!!! [[lol)
Miz MoTown:
So what do you mean by monkey chatter?
Let me answer for her.
"Many of the comments on this forum." [[Generally, when they don't agree with me.)
God,[[ the supreme spiritual being) created the universe. THE END! No more dogmas Steven Hawking!
Hi Maxx :)
So what do you mean by monkey chatter?
We've all had moments of monkey mind. Some folks are better controlling them than others. Monkey mind is the wild and crazy and seemingly uncontrollable thoughts. The Buddhists say the mind is like a monkey furiously leaping about. Basically utterly meaningless, senseless thoughts that truly mean nothing and are chaotic and impermanent. We have real and unreal thoughts, the real ones are covered up the unreal ones, or the thoughts of God, which are reality itself.
Most people keep their thoughts to themselves. Mentally ill people sometimes let their thoughts come out of their mouths. Usually you here street folks building a case and defending themselves, practising a speech.
The Buddhist have a word for when become self-absorbed in our thoughts. It is called a "Shempa." It is a place where we are hooked. A little irritant that works it's way into our mind that we can't let go of. We have a hard time letting go of it and if nourished can become strong and powerful. Usually involves a grievance we hold in our minds against someone. We [[our ego's) actually spend time convincing ourselves that we are right, someone else is wrong, and we have been hurt by them. This usually results in loss of peace.
Huh. Well, "Asked & Answered," so to speak. That was an interesting explanation of your comment, which was timely, because I inferred something quite different from what you meant.
Thenk-que, and yeah, if that's what you mean, I do that, too.