The "Afterlife is a Fairy Story"

[SEC=UGA]

Physicist Stephen Hawking believes there is no afterlife, and that the concept of heaven is a "fairy story" for people who fear death.

 

 

In an interview published in the Guardian, Hawking - author of the bestselling "A Brief History of Time" - said that when the brain ceases to function, that's it.

 

 

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

 

 

Hawking, 69, who has survived for nearly five decades with a motor neurone disease that doctors believed would kill him while he was still in his early 20s, said he does not fear death. He also said that having lived with the prospect of death from his incurable illness has ultimately led him to enjoy life more.

 

 

"I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.

 

 

Hawking was the target of criticism from religious circles when his most recent book, "The Grand Design," argued that there was no need for a creator to explain the universe's existence.

 

 

In the Guardian interview - conducted in advance of his lecture at this week's Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, where he will address the question: "Why are we here?" - Hawking rejects an afterlife and emphasizes the need for people to realize their full potential on Earth.

 

 

When asked what is the value of knowing why are we here, Hawking replied, "The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value."

 

 

When asked what he found most beautiful in science, Hawking said, "Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics."

 

 

Hawking said that our existence is down to pure chance, and that one's goal should be to "seek the greatest value of our action."

[Savage Beatings]

Boy is he in for a surprise!

[SEC=UGA]

Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations.

 

Here's a pretty simple answer to his position with regard to the afterlife (and to the qnswers he can't find through science), God created us all and there is an afterlife. He can't completely prove to the contrary with science so there is some plausibility to the argument, no?

[matt770]

I find it ludicrous that those on both sides of this issue have such a burning desire to be "right", when no one can really know conclusively. Call it a matter of faith and leave it at that. You can't argue someone out of their spiritual beliefs, whether those beliefs are grounded in religion or science.

 

I agree with Hawking in that people have an innate fear of the unknown, and thus they scramble to find a comforting explanation to fill the void. This explains why people cling so vehemently to their beliefs and feel threatened when someone tries to dispute them.

[detlef]

It's funny. More and more I am torn about, not so much my beliefs, but how big a deal to make of them.

 

I am less against the notion of god than I am actually against religion itself. And, because of that, I feel sort of duty-bound to not be vehemently opposed to the notion of gods and such. This is because one of my issues with religion is the arrogant certitude with which they explain the answers to things, and, frankly, saying it's all science and there is no god is precisely the same thing.

 

On the other hand, I recognize the importance of people like Hawking making a big deal about this because we should be as used to hearing that version as we are of hearing about the Christian version. But we're not even close. Would anyone bother to even post a story about a high level priest saying that there's an afterlife? Of course not. Well, it's not like anyone is surprised by Hawking's stance, but just saying it is news. Because nobody ever does. That's off limits because it is seen as an attack on the beliefs of others. Despite the fact that it's no different than someone saying that there certainly is an afterlife and a god (let alone one of very specific definition).

Edited May 16, 2011 by detlef

[Savage Beatings]

On the other hand, I recognize the importance of people like Hawking making a big deal about this because we should be as used to hearing that version as we are of hearing about the Christian version. But we're not even close. Would anyone bother to even post a story about a high level priest saying that there's an afterlife? Of course not. Well, it's not like anyone is surprised by Hawking's stance, but just saying it is news. Because nobody ever does. That's off limits because it is seen as an attack on the beliefs of others. Despite the fact that it's no different than someone saying that there certainly is an afterlife and a god (let alone one of very specific definition).

 

That's totally true. You're absoltuely right that it is really only a story because it defies the Judeo-Christian norm in Western society.

 

What I find interesting particularly with someone like Hawking, being a scientist, it seems to blind him to certain ways of thinking. There is data to be gathered and used in building an argument for the existance of God and an afterlife. But his lifetime of dismissing the kind of data that falls outside of the objective scientific method that he employs for everything, means that he could be missing the bigger picture.

[detlef]

That's totally true. You're absoltuely right that it is really only a story because it defies the Judeo-Christian norm in Western society.

 

What I find interesting particularly with someone like Hawking, being a scientist, it seems to blind him to certain ways of thinking. There is data to be gathered and used in building an argument for the existance of God and an afterlife. But his lifetime of dismissing the kind of data that falls outside of the objective scientific method that he employs for everything, means that he could be missing the bigger picture.

Is he blind to it or has he seen the data and decided that it is not sound? I mean, one has to think that, when you're at level that he has, all the easy studies where the data just lines up perfectly for one side or another is well behind you. But that doesn't mean there aren't absolute answers with less than absolute data. That, one could go through an exhaustive study in which there are no shortage of dead-ends, where the data initially seems to support an answer but is ultimately discovered to simply be coincidence.

 

In geometry, for instance, it's a pretty popular tactic to assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and work under that assumption until you find the contradiction that shows that assumption can't be true. And as you get into the more complex proofs, it takes longer and longer to get to the contradiction. Which means there's more and more data that lines up in favor of an assumption that may ultimately be proven false.

 

Perhaps he has done this with this and has now come to the very thoughtful and thorough conclusion that there is no god? Mind you, he'd do well to show his work if that was the case. Of course, maybe he has and everyone just fixates on the boldness of the conclusion and stops there.

Edited May 16, 2011 by detlef

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

There's something to be said for Hawking's argument that people need to sort of act like "this is it" and try to realize their full potential here and now on Earth, regardless if their is a heaven or not.

[WaterMan]

Maybe if God just simply healed Hawking before he died. Fat chance though.

[The Next Generation]

Perhaps he has done this with this and has now come to the very thoughtful and thorough conclusion that there is no god? Mind you, he'd do well to show his work if that was the case. Of course, maybe he has and everyone just fixates on the boldness of the conclusion and stops there.

 

I, too, have come to the very thoughtful and thorough conclusion that there is no god. Hawking stole my notes, so don't even ask!

[SEC=UGA]

There's a god, I don't think he's the one of any of the organized religions, though.

[Savage Beatings]

Is he blind to it or has he seen the data and decided that it is not sound? I mean, one has to think that, when you're at level that he has, all the easy studies where the data just lines up perfectly for one side or another is well behind you. But that doesn't mean there aren't absolute answers with less than absolute data. That, one could go through an exhaustive study in which there are no shortage of dead-ends, where the data initially seems to support an answer but is ultimately discovered to simply be coincidence.

 

In geometry, for instance, it's a pretty popular tactic to assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and work under that assumption until you find the contradiction that shows that assumption can't be true. And as you get into the more complex proofs, it takes longer and longer to get to the contradiction. Which means there's more and more data that lines up in favor of an assumption that may ultimately be proven false.

 

Perhaps he has done this with this and has now come to the very thoughtful and thorough conclusion that there is no god? Mind you, he'd do well to show his work if that was the case. Of course, maybe he has and everyone just fixates on the boldness of the conclusion and stops there.

 

Yeah, I suppose that could be, but being a Physics enthusiast I've read a lot of Hawking's stuff (of course I'm nowhere near being an expert on the stuff he's written, and most of it goes over my head) but I've never seen him articulate what you are saying his position might be. Maybe it's out there though. But you seem to be going a long way to defend a possible position of Hakwing when he hasn't even really made that case himself. It's not as if he is saying that he's examined all of the data, and there's not enough to draw a conclusion on the existance of God. He is saying that his conclusion is that there is no God. But then he doesn't ever really lay out the argument for that conclusion. I think that he has faith that there is no God, just as much as a Christian has faith that there is a God.

[WaterMan]

Home / Business / Smart Takes Follow this blog: RSS..Stephen Hawking: God did not create universe

By Andrew Nusca | September 2, 2010, 12:13 PM PDT

 

God did not create the universe, and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

 

In a book entitled The Grand Design, Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow suggest that new theories make the concept of a creator redundant, according to an article last week in the Times (UK).

 

An excerpt:

 

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

 

In other words: the Big Bang was hardly serendipitous, or one-in-a-million. It was simply inevitable.

 

Sixty-eight-year-old Hawking, of course, is famous for his 1988 book A Brief History of Time that helped a wide audience understand — you guessed it — the origin of the universe.

 

In that book, Hawking wrote:

 

If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.

 

In this book, however, he argues that the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun demonstrates that the universe may have indeed risen from chaos, rather than God’s hand.

 

Hawking, again:

 

That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.

 

Hardly definitive, but I imagine the supporting points to that statement are within the book’s pages. It goes on sale next week.

[detlef]

Yeah, I suppose that could be, but being a Physics enthusiast I've read a lot of Hawking's stuff (of course I'm nowhere near being an expert on the stuff he's written, and most of it goes over my head) but I've never seen him articulate what you are saying his position might be. Maybe it's out there though. But you seem to be going a long way to defend a possible position of Hakwing when he hasn't even really made that case himself. It's not as if he is saying that he's examined all of the data, and there's not enough to draw a conclusion on the existance of God. He is saying that his conclusion is that there is no God. But then he doesn't ever really lay out the argument for that conclusion. I think that he has faith that there is no God, just as much as a Christian has faith that there is a God.

Again, I'm merely stating that one can come to a definite conclusion despite data that seems to support both sides of an argument. I haven't ready nearly enough of Hawking's work to make any claims on whether on the degree to which he has done that.

 

Mind you, there are scientists on both sides of the argument and both seem more than happy to disregard or explain away evidence that does not support their version of how it all went down. So, just like I think both sides need to take a step back in terms of absolute language, neither side should be playing the, "you're a bad scientist because you ignore these facts" card.

 

As for the part in bold, I understand he's not saying that. What you need to realize is that it is technically possible to do better than simply say there's not enough data to prove there is god. That is not the best an atheist could hope to show, theoretically. I don't know how one would do it and I don't intend to even try, because it is not important to me to find out for sure, one way or another. And it's true the other way as well. At some point, someone could feasibly prove, without doubt, that god either does or does not exist.

[bushwacked]

The Afterlife

[detlef]

I should add that, while I don't know one way or another whether not there is a god, I am not particularly impressed with the logic that surrounds the Christian after life and think it is rather bold and human-centric. At least as it has been explained to me.

 

It is one thing to say that there is a force above us all that has had or has a hand in why things are, and yet another to go so far as to say that we have enduring souls that will exist beyond our bodies. Further still that a place like heaven is for people and not other animals. Something that gets even more confusing and lacking credibility when I know of plenty of very devout Christians on both sides of the "do dogs go to heaven" debate. You'd think in the 1000s of years that people have been talking to god, details like that would have been worked out by now. I mean, do they or do they not?

 

And this doesn't even begin to discuss the notion of hopeless sinners or even those who devoutly follow a religion other than Christianity. What is to happen to them? Or what is to happen to all the Christians if it turns out it's really all about Buddha?

[Deathpig]

I'd seriously suggest reading some Joseph Campbell. Not so much Hero of a Thousand Faces, but Masks of God (if you have a lot of time) or The Power of Myth and/or The Inner Reaches of Outer Space (if you don't have a lot of time). He spent his life studying the origins of myths/religions and trying to understand humanity's psychological need for such things-- and hence how the nature of myth/religion has changed over the course of human history. VERY interesting reads, especially if you're already curious down that line anyway.

[Ursa Majoris]

Three observations

 

Here's a pretty simple answer to his position with regard to the afterlife (and to the qnswers he can't find through science), God created us all and there is an afterlife. He can't completely prove to the contrary with science so there is some plausibility to the argument, no?

1. How could Hawking prove a negative?

 

There's something to be said for Hawking's argument that people need to sort of act like "this is it" and try to realize their full potential here and now on Earth, regardless if their is a heaven or not.

2. This

 

3. And if Thews sees this, he'll have a cow.

[Azazello1313]

there are horizons beyond which scientific observation cannot see. beyond those horizons is the great unknown. by projecting this kind of certitude beyond those horizons, I would say hawking is engaging in some very UNscientific thinking here. but hey, it grabs headlines and grabbing headlines sells books.

[Azazello1313]

and, is it just me, or is his answer to the "why are we here?" question particularly shabby? "we can't solve the question 'directly, in the abstract', so we look to social darwinism."

[Ursa Majoris]

and, is it just me, or is his answer to the "why are we here?" question particularly shabby? "we can't solve the question 'directly, in the abstract', so we look to social darwinism."

He is answering the question but it's a different question to the usual "why are we here?", which is typically a spiritual question and seeks a higher calling or raison d'etre. The way Hawking has interpreted it is much more practical - we are here simply because we survived the Darwinian gantlet........so far.

 

I do agree it's fairly offputting to answer the question this way, at least how it appears on paper.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Ursa Majoris

[MrTed46]

I agree

[skylive5]

Three observations

 

 

1. How could Hawking prove a negative?

 

 

He can because he is Hawking. Regular rules do not apply.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I agree

i agree with the agree

[SEC=UGA]

Three observations

 

 

1. How could Hawking prove a negative?

 

It isn't a negative, he just hasn't fully figured out the equation, yet.

 

Or in other words, he's Steven Fu(king Hawking, it's his job to prove negatives.