Stephen Hawking's latest remarks

[panflutejedi]

Hello Everyone,

I have been following the comments on Facebook's Science Magazine page, concerning Stephen Hawking's remarks on his forthcoming book. It was tiresome to deal with the religionist trolls there (including the one hiding behind Bohm's postulations), but I did my part for the causes of reason and rationalty. Take a look: http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=1 ... 5128500259

[Sophus]

The remarks are an excerpt from his new book. I was about to buy it and then I read this bad review by the NY Times:

The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in “A Brief History of Time” has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

 Now I'm conflicted.

[Draconicstarz88]

The remarks are an excerpt from his new book. I was about to buy it and then I read this bad review by the NY Times:

The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in “A Brief History of Time” has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

 Now I'm conflicted.

its total christian bs

[notself]

The remarks are an excerpt from his new book. I was about to buy it and then I read this bad review by the NY Times:

The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in “A Brief History of Time” has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

 Now I'm conflicted.

"A Brief History of Time" was the most unread best seller of its time.  The most non-science readers bought the book hoping to understand something about the universe but most couldn't get past page 33.    Perhaps Mr. Hawking wanted this new book to be read and understood by people with only average science backgrounds.  

I just finished reading the review and I thought it was not up to the standard of most New York Times book reviews.  This is what the Los Angeles Times had to say.

If nature is governed by laws, argue the authors, then three questions arise: 1) What is the nature of those laws? 2) Are there exceptions to the laws (for example, miracles)? 3) Is there only one set of possible laws?

"The Grand Design" sets out to answer these questions, demonstrating how we are dependent on models of reality that, with investigation, can sometimes change. And their arguments do indeed bring us closer to seeing our world, universe and multiverse in terms that a previous generation might easily have dismissed as supernatural. This succinct, easily digested book could perhaps do with fewer dry, academic groaners, but Hawking and Mlodinow pack in a wealth of ideas and leave us with a clearer understanding of modern physics in all its invigorating complexity.

[Sophus]

I suppose you're right. I'll go ahead and order it; can't hurt.

The co-author (whose name you can hardly see on the cover ) appeared on Countdown today, apparently clarifying that they were not "giving atheism a pep talk" or disproving God but proving the universe didn't need God to get going.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

[hackenslash]

Mlodinow is a hoot. For anybody who hasn't come across him before, there is a great clip on Youtube of him sticking it to Deepity Chopra.

[youtube:2b3tolat]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5D7q1O1Uk[/youtube:2b3tolat]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have mixed feelings about Hawking's comments about religion.  It's much like a footballer talking about algebra. It can be a good thing, but rarely is.

[hackenslash]

I'll reserve judgement until I actually read the book. From my understanding, he hasn't said anything at all about religion, or the existence of a deity, only that none is necessary to explain the universe. I've heard a lot of people talking about what he's said, but I haven't actually encountered his own words as yet.

[PoopShoot]

I find the topic actually rather mundane.  Mostly because I know that any time science suggest something that makes a lack of a god plausible the theists start ranting about atheist bias in science and all that shit.  Seriously, do they not understand that science CAN'T address gods?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll reserve judgement until I actually read the book. From my understanding, he hasn't said anything at all about religion, or the existence of a deity, only that none is necessary to explain the universe. I've heard a lot of people talking about what he's said, but I haven't actually encountered his own words as yet.

"the mind of god" comment springs to mind immediately.  Also, NPR had an lengthy interview with his coauthor this morning which featured various clips of Hawking commenting on God.  Anyone who thinks he hasn't commented on God need only look here.

[Sophus]

Seriously, do they not understand that science CAN'T address gods?

I think science and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Science can address gods.

[PoopShoot]

I think science and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Science can address gods.

Science relies on observation, Gods cannot be observed.  How do you suppose that we scientifically observe the unobservable and empirically test the untestable?

[epepke]

I think science and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Science can address gods.

Science relies on observation, Gods cannot be observed.  How do you suppose that we scientifically observe the unobservable and empirically test the untestable?

Gods like most of the ones described in holy books can be observed.  In fact, a substantial portion of those holy books is about how they are observed.

[PoopShoot]

Gods like most of the ones described in holy books can be observed.  In fact, a substantial portion of those holy books is about how they are observed.

The bible and the Qur'an both are filled with the idea that god can't be seen, but rather can only reveal himself to you.  Last I checked, science relied on that which can be observed without the need for it to decide it wanted to be.

[epepke]

Gods like most of the ones described in holy books can be observed.  In fact, a substantial portion of those holy books is about how they are observed.

The bible and the Qur'an both are filled with the idea that god can't be seen, but rather can only reveal himself to you.  Last I checked, science relied on that which can be observed without the need for it to decide it wanted to be.

The Old Testament/Torah is filled with stuff like God walking around in the garden, mooning Moses, turning rods into snakes to convince the faithless, turning people into pillars of salt, and kicking people in the nuts so that they stop wrestling angels.  The New Testament, at least in the view of Christians, based on the idea of God incarnate walking around, talking to people and doing things, asking people to put their fingers in his wound, etc. and so on and so forth.  Modern Christianity revolves mostly revolves around the idea that God will make state changes in the world if you ask nicely.  All of these things can, at least in principle, be tested.

The idea that God cannot be detected only appeals to people who seek a bullshit explanation for the fact that these tests fail.  Curiously, it always turns out that this supposedly unseeable, unknowable god knows exactly what I should do with my penis, and his representatives on Earth are rather clear about what it is.