Let's raise a glass to Stephen Hawking, everyone!

[SolidGoldBrass]

I have admired him for ages anyway but he's just gone even further up in my estimation for not being afraid to point out once and for all the absurdity of belief in gods.

And may it settle all the silly imaginary-friend followers whose last ditch argument is 'Clever people than you rotten rationalists believe in my imaginary friend, so ner!'. Oh go on, just try to argue that you're smarter then Stephen Hawking...

agree with you BeenBeta

they always give a response from religious leaders, because they have trained people to laugh at them and their imaginary friends. They don't give a response from the thousands of scientists who disagree with Hawkings, such as Professor Penrose. It's a slam dunk for them, set up the scientists (but only the doom sayer variety, the humanity is doomed variety) against the religious people in their funny hats and their imaginary friends.

Completely agree with BadgerPaws. SGB you've misinterpreted what Hawkings said.

lol at 'unravelling the complexity of DNA' - I think a few people got there first!

Basically the universe is fucking amazing. We don't really need much more than that statement imo.

That's a rather patronising attitude claig, do you really believe that anyone who rejects the religious argument does so because they have been 'trained to laugh...at the religious people in their funny hats'?

Do you really think that religious leaders are incapable of a coherent response?

Anyway, several scientists have spoken up in favour of religion in the Times today so you are quite demonstrably wrong in your assertion that 'they don't give a response from the thousands of scientists who disagree with Hawkings'.

UnePrune - thats the thing. No one has got anywhere near unravelling the complexity of DNA.

The genome of even the simplest animal is a hugely complex thing. We may have understood the DNA structure, even sequenced it, but we still dont understand what more than 90% of it actually does.

Hawking also said, on R4 yesterday that when we have the master theory we will be 'in the position of God' or words to that effect which elegantly states a conception of divinity: the human mind succeeding in a struggle to attain to a perspective which fully apprehends the universe and resolves the gulf between limited consciousness and the absolute. God only needs to be a shorthand for something like that.

It is impossible to imagine that a final account of creation, whatever its nature, would ever eliminate or entail the divine, so I'm not sure why Hawking's suggestion of a non-supernatural account of the Big Bang is given any theological significance one way or the other.

I haven't read the Times today and I suspect that millions of others haven't either. But the story has been disseminated all over the news media that the millions have been listening to, and on that media there has been no rebuttal from the scientists.

I don't believe that everyone who rehects the religious argument does so because they have been trained to, but I do believe that many people are influenced in that way by what the media tells them. The MPs supposedly believed Blair's 45 minute dossier, so they tell us. Many of us ordinary people never believed it. People are influenced by what they are taught, and if our "leading" scientist, Hawkings, tells people that God is redundant, then many will believe him. I believe that there has been a systematic undermining of all religions over the past 100 years, which is why we have had such a turn around from the majority believeing in God, to where we are now.

I think the religious leaders are very capable of a coherent response, but I believe that this response is downplayed in comparison with the views of our "leading" scientists, even if they believe that we are all doomed and will be invaded by little green men in spaceships.

With Claig on this.

There was a quote from John Lennox, scientist and religious writer from Oxf Uni, on the radio this morning, disagreeing with Hawking, but it's rare that you get this publicised so people never get beyond the "scientist says God not needed....ie there is no God" headline.

I once met a man who told me he 'used to be a Professor in nuclear physics'.

Naturally, I asked why he 'used to be a Professor in nuclear physics'. He said he had given up because he had realised too late in his life that there was no way he would ever successful in being able to replicate nuclear fushion as it occurs at the heart of the sun.

He also happended to be quite a religious Jewish man. He told me he had learned humility to his God the hard way and had put the remainder of his life to doing Gods work in another field. He said he had never been happier in his life - and I thought that was pretty cool.

Yes I know BeenBeta - DH works on it [keeping it vague]
It's fascinating stuff

Anyway - I really hate when scientists get involved in religious stuff. It's such a non-debate, science vs religion.

UnePrune - out of interest does your DH believe in 'God'?

Some scientists dont have a problem with the idea and some are agnostic and some reject it as preposterous. I suppose its a theory there but yet to be tested.

He doesn't, BeenBeta. He would give Dawkins a run for his money. Has never been religious.

"Naturally, I asked why he 'used to be a Professor in nuclear physics'. He said he had given up because he had realised too late in his life that there was no way he would ever successful in being able to replicate nuclear fushion as it occurs at the heart of the sun."

We've been doing Nuclear Fusion for quite a while now, for example the JET Reactor which was the most successful reactor to date and the ITER project which is under way.

H-Bombs have also been happily doing nuclear fusion since the 1950s.

So he must have quit Physics some time ago to be of the opinion that we could never replicate nuclear fusion, and that's a long time to be kicking yourself.

I thought he had died with a thread title like that.

"It's such a non-debate, science vs religion."

That's my feelings and I don't like it when either side tries to intrude on the other.

Science basically says that there are explanations that don't need there to have been a God.

And there has to be that scientific non-religious explanation for things, if there wasn't then faith wouldn't be a choice but a logical conclusion based upon facts.

Religion meanwhile happily accepts that faith is a choice and looks beyond the scientific world.

Nice and neat with no overlaps.

"He is the poster boy, which is why he is always given the limelight. Take what he says with a large pinch of salt. He used to believe in God

"Prof Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe, writing in A Brief History Of Time in 1988: 'If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God.'""

Be aware that how many physicists use the word "God" is in the metaphorical/poetical sense and doesn't necessarily indicate that they believe in a God. If I recall correctly, Einstein uses the word in a similar context.

"yup and science can neither prove nor disprove god."

Yes and because of that God cannot be a part of any scientific theory.

'get people to believe the wrong thing on purpose'.

What you are saying is that RH wants me to belive that there isn't (we put in an object) a stool where there is not a stool and he is doing this on purpose and you want me to believe that there is a stool where there is not a stool, but you want me to beleive in that stool.

Sorry but to me there isn't a belief as you want me to believe

but I don't know what it is anyway, its not something I do or don't do

I'm not sure I'm quite saying that, as that is a bit above my head

He's preaching to the choir Claig, you don't have anything to worry about.

I agree with your comment about religion being underminded though, and it's been a long time coming.