New Statesman: famous atheists explain why they don't believe in God...what is Hawking saying?

by unshackled 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  unshackled

  http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world

  Found this New Statesman article linked in a Sam Harris tweet. It is a collection of comments on reasons for non-belief from such ones as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and Stephen Hawking…to name a few.

  What caught my eye about the tweet was this comment by Harris, his actual tweet:

  "Great cast of nonbelievers in the New Statesman - but I have no idea what Hawking is talking about…"

  Here is the Stephen Hawking comment, that has Harris seemingly confused:

  "I am not claiming there is no God. The scientific account is complete, but it does not predict human behaviour, because there are too many equations to solve. One therefore uses a different model, which can include free will and God."

  There are plenty of interesting comments in that article and will perhaps post some later...but for starters…anyone want to take a stab at what exactly Hawking was saying there? Not so sure myself....so please, your thoughts?
• 

  unshackled

  Also of interest, New Statesman had earlier in the year posted an article on famous believers and their reasons they believe…here is that link:
  http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/04/god-believe-faith-world-belief
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  I think he's saying that science and faith are two different models - faith being based on human behavior (which somehow he manages to exclude from science), and therefore science does not address the "God" issue.
• 

  unshackled

  faith being based on human behavior (which somehow he manages to exclude from science)

  Which would likely be part of what confused Harris, being his expertise is in neuroscience and wouldn't make the same exclusion. Especially the "free will" reference, which I believe he touches on in his book The Moral Landscape. Regardless, I found the comment from Hawking lacking compared to the other comments, such as this one by Kenan Malik, neurobiologist (italics mine):

  "Invoking God at best highlights what we cannot yet explain about the physical universe, and at worst exploits that ignorance to mystify. Moral values do not come prepackaged from God, but have to be worked out by human beings through a combination of empathy, reasoning and dialogue.
  
  This is true of believers, too: they, after all, have to decide for themselves which values in their holy books they accept and which ones they reject. And it is not God that gives meaning to our lives, but our relationships with fellow human beings and the goals and obligations that derive from them. God is at best redundant, at worst an obstruction. Why do I need him?"
• 

  AGuest

  The comments are interesting, dear Unshackled (peace to you!). Correct me if I'm wrong, but with one or two exceptions, it seemed to ME like the atheists were misunderstanding... and arguing with (indeed, even openly reviling)... the atheists.

  And, yes, that is exactly what Dr. Hawking said. He stated this at the end of the show that some of us were discussing (if you can call it that) on another thread. It was this statement, actually, that prompted me to think (gave me hope, actually) that I could even deign to HAVE questions regarding his theories, little 'ol insignificant "believer" that I am. I got the impression that he might entertain them... and, unfortunately, somehow made the same assumption (hope) as to some who profess atheism here. Found out THAT was NOT the case, BIG time! If I didn't learn anything else, I learned... do not question the [dis]beliefs of an atheist... OR deign to make any comparisons to religion... even if such exist.

  Appears from the comments on your link... that that would be the same among those atheists in general, as well. Either you "get" what they do... or you're so beneath their intellectual level you're not even worth a civil comment. At least, that's how I see it.

  Again, peace to you... and thank you for giving me yet another reason to believe that atheism, while perhaps different in ideology... isn't very much different, in literal PRACTICE... at least, when you get to the layfolk... when it comes down to "discussing" with those who think differently than them... from religion.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  unshackled

  Thanks for your charity, Mr. Sweeney...you're a kind man. But I took this thread to Miracle Max and he said unfortunately it is not mostly dead but all dead. So there's only one thing to do...

  

  Go through its clothes and look for loose change.
• 

  designs

  What a human can see with the naked eye and what reality is are different because we don't see all of the light bands for instance and our depth persception is limited. It is similar with the brain, we draw conclusions based on a limited frame of reference.

  Robert Jastrow commented that the Scientist and the Theologian are climbing the same mountain of knowledge from different sides.
• 

  unshackled

  And just as I started nailing the coffin shut, Shelby resurrects the thread. I guess Miracle Max is having an off day.

  **puts the loose change back**

  Let me give your comment a read and I'll be back.
• 

  AGuest

  Well, then, I'll wait here, dear Unshackled.

  Peace!

  SA, on her own... Oh, who might have to step out for a sec or two, but'll come right back...
• 

  AGuest

  Dear designs... peace to you... and if I could throw my arms around your neck (i.e., "fall on your neck with a kiss"), I would. I don't think Mr. Shelb would like that, though, so... can it be enough to say: "WHOO-HOO! I love what you just posted!"?

  Peace, dear one!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who says that applies to what we HEAR, as well!