Happy Atheist Forum

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 (http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=124863260892887&share_id=115555128500259&comments=1#s115555128500259)

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:

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: "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:

QuoteThe 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

Quote from: "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:

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteIf 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.

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/

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]

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: "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.

"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 (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religion.html).

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

Quote from: "Sophus"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?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"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?

They both offer completely different explanation for the same questions. I think Victor Stenger sums it up nicely here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html) that in cases where we should in fact expect to see evidence for or against a hypothesis, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Quote from: "Stenger"I can think of many cases where absence of evidence provides robust evidence of absence. The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park...
That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, I am not talking about all conceivable gods. Certainly the deist god who does not interfere in the world is difficult to rule out. However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence...

[E]vidence for God should have been found, but was not. This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God -- the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God -- does not exist.

Everything you stated is a matter of god revealing himself to a guy he really really liked or in front of a bunch of strangers in support of a guy he really really liked.

I understand the utility of god being unobservable, indeed, it's one of my major doubting points, but this isn't about utility, it's about claims.  Claims about god are what they are, regardless of what the book says.  You have to address claims as they are, not as you think they should be because the book says X.  Claims about god generally include his unobservability.  Whether that be for dishonest reasons or honest ones, once he's unobservable, he's untouchable by empirical means and must be taken on faith.

Quote from: "Sophus"absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No it's not.  It's good reason to dismiss a claim, but it is not evidence that the claim is false.  Case in point: intelligent extraterrestrial organisms.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No it's not.  It's good reason to dismiss a claim, but it is not evidence that the claim is false.  Case in point: intelligent extraterrestrial organisms.

I don't think read all the article. Stenger is not claiming that is always the case, only when we should expect to see evidence (e.g. elephants in Yellowstone Park).

Should we expect to see evidence of a deity who is claimed to be unobservable?  If so, why?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Everything you stated is a matter of god revealing himself to a guy he really really liked or in front of a bunch of strangers in support of a guy he really really liked.

The efficacy of prayer is not, however.  Nor is the Christian promise that God will reveal himself to anybody who sincerely askes.

QuoteI understand the utility of god being unobservable, indeed, it's one of my major doubting points, but this isn't about utility, it's about claims.  Claims about god are what they are, regardless of what the book says.  You have to address claims as they are, not as you think they should be because the book says X.  Claims about god generally include his unobservability.  Whether that be for dishonest reasons or honest ones, once he's unobservable, he's untouchable by empirical means and must be taken on faith.

I do sympathize with the idea that transcendental claims are designed to be untestable.

I am not convinced that I have to ignore what the book says.  When I'm faced with someone who is waving the book and saying that it's infallible and totally accurate, and then he says something about God that contradicts that claim, I think I get to call him a liar and decide that he's just spouting bullshit.

Quote from: "epepke"The efficacy of prayer is not, however.  

A point I make frequently.  This doesn't mean there is no god, it means that he doesn't answer prayers.

QuoteNor is the Christian promise that God will reveal himself to anybody who sincerely askes.

Too subjective.  You weren't sincere enough.

QuoteI do sympathize with the idea that transcendental claims are designed to be untestable.

A major point of doubt, but inconclusive on its own.

QuoteI am not convinced that I have to ignore what the book says.  When I'm faced with someone who is waving the book and saying that it's infallible and totally accurate, and then he says something about God that contradicts that claim, I think I get to call him a liar and decide that he's just spouting bullshit.

Oh, of course.  I'm not saying accept bullshit because the claims are untestable, I'm just saying that the claims are untouchable by science.  My personal favorite is to point out that their omnipotent god who spoke the universe into existence, ignited stars with a word, raised the dead and commanded the forces of nature it self was defeated by armored horse-drawn vehicles and was afraid of a small army of bronze-wielding herdsmen because they were building an adobe ziggurat in order to attack him.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Should we expect to see evidence of a deity who is claimed to be unobservable?  If so, why?

Very very few theists I have ever met will claim he is unobservable, or rather that His effects are unobservable. "The proof is all around you," that mumbo-jumbo. God has been kicked out of Biology and now out of Physics. Where else has He to go?

QuoteA point I make frequently. This doesn't mean there is no god, it means that he doesn't answer prayers.

Which is why Stenger notes he is not claiming to have refuted all hypothetical gods (especially Deistic ones). But whoever heard of a Yahweh who doesn't answer prayers? That's contradictory to every Abrahamic religion. If they concede he doesn't answer prayers they might as well concede god is an entirely different deity and convert to Deism.

I never said they'd concede.  I've yet to see a theistic god that is internally consistent and not ridiculous.

As for "the evidence is all around you" actually follow that some time.  You'll quickly find that they're not saying god is observable or testable, but that they value the argument from design.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"I never said they'd concede.  I've yet to see a theistic god that is internally consistent and not ridiculous.

As for "the evidence is all around you" actually follow that some time.  You'll quickly find that they're not saying god is observable or testable, but that they value the argument from design.

I don't know about that. Having been raised a Christian they always told me how the "facts" favor God. "Archaeology has proven God time and time again," and how evolution is false because "more and more scientists who are earnest for the truth are coming to God." I've never met a Christian who says the effects of God are not observable. "We know he exists like we know the wind exists. Even though we can't see it we can see his effects." I've seen the darndest things claimed as proof of god.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No it's not.  It's good reason to dismiss a claim, but it is not evidence that the claim is false.  Case in point: intelligent extraterrestrial organisms.

Point of order: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It isn't proof, but it is evidence in support of the hypothesis that something doesn't exist. It is also evidence that the claim is false. This is the best we can hope to acheive, until cast iron, irrefutable evidence is provided one way or the other.

Again, the distinction between evidential support and proof is a very important one.

Quote from: "Sophus"I've seen the darndest things claimed as proof of god.

I've said the darndest things...

Quote from: "hackenslash"Again, the distinction between evidential support and proof is a very important one.

yeah, proof is mathematical.  

Hawking on Larry King. He's very blunt but doesn't go into much detail when answering questions.

[youtube:lyfj0yy4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA[/youtube:lyfj0yy4]

This is interesting. I must get his new book.

As an aside, i can't for the life of me begin to understand the decision to replace Larry King with Peirs Morgan.  

At least replace him with someone who has a shred of intellectual credibility.

They should've asked Bill Maher to host the show. It would be awesome. XD

I can't wait till the new season of realtime begins.

They should've asked Bill Maher to host the show. It would be awesome. XD

I can't wait till the new season of realtime begins.

On the question of the origin of the universe, there were two possible choices: 1) the universe is eternal, and God is not required; 2) the universe was created, leaving the possibility of a God doing the creation. What Hawking is saying is that even in 2), God is not required.

After reading the book, I found the end to be rather a non-event.

The first 3/4 of the book does a good job explaining how science came to be, the scientific method, Newtonian physics, Einstein, Quantum physics and M-Theory.  All good stuff and I really enjoyed it.

However, the final section is kind of a let down.  Instead of giving anything solid, it's more of a shoulder shrug.

I get it.  According to M-Theory and quantum fluctuations, no god is needed.
... as long as you have as a given that M-Theory and Quantum Fluctuations exist.

SO.  Where did the laws that govern the creation of the universe come from?

Still turtles all the way down,
JoeActor

If god created the universe, and we are his special pets...why would he wait 13.7xxxx billion years to bring us kicking and screaming into said universe?
Humanity, this song ain't about you.

Quote from: "DropLogic"If god created the universe, and we are his special pets...why would he wait 13.7xxxx billion years to bring us kicking and screaming into said universe?
Humanity, this song ain't about you.

You assume to know for a fact we are His only "pets".  Special I may agree with considering my belief of the reason we are in this "mess" of "The Problem of Pain".

Quote from: "joeactor"... as long as you have as a given that M-Theory and Quantum Fluctuations exist.

Weeeellll, M-Theory and quantum fluctuations do exist. Sure, M-Theory could be wrong, but it does exist. As for quantum fluctuations, they're a matter of empirically demonstrated fact.

QuoteSO.  Where did the laws that govern the creation of the universe come from?

And this is the problem with the way scientists use the word 'universe' when writing popular science books. Our local cosmic expansion runs on a set of principles. There is no good reason to suppose at this time that they could be, or were ever, any different. In other words, the principles that our cosmic expansion runs on, as far as we can currently tell, are exactly the same principles that are responsible for its instantiation.

Positing cosmic expansions with different operating principles is useful as a thought experiment in science, because it allows yu to pose 'what if' questions. These are very useful in elucidating the principles that govern the cosmos, and are often employed as a first step in formulating hypotheses. When we think, for example, about why water always flows to find a level, we will often phrase the question in terms of 'what would happen if water could be stacked?' and proceed from there, because the questions that arise when thinking about it in that way are entirely different from the questions that arise from studying the mundane fact that water always finds a level. None of that suggests, of course, that water could behave in any other way. It's precisely the same when talking about the physical principles that govern our cosmic expansion. We ask the question, 'what if this parameter were different?' and see what questions it throws up. There is absolutely no good reason even to think that the operating principles had to come from anywhere, and every reason to suppose that they are simply brute facts, and can't be any other way. That will remain the case until such time as different principles or the parameters for given values could be any different.

This also comes back to the usual guff argument about 'fine-tuning', often citing some scientist or other as if the scientist supports the argument being made, completely overlooking the fact that, in the scientists' parlance, what is fine-tuned is not the universe, but the model under scrutiny. In other words, certain parameters that we observe must have initially fallen within a certain range of values if the model is correct. This has absolutely no bearing on the values of the parameters themselves, and doesn't suggest that these parameters have been tweaked to allow 'life' or 'the physics we know'.

What about the fine-tuning that allows carbon to form from helium? That doesn't feel like a model to me, that feels like real stuff flying around inside a star. In fact, if I remember correctly from Marcus Chown's book, Fred Hoyle made a prediction that a certain resonance of carbon had to exist, or else we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. When others went to verify Hoyle's prediction, they found the resonance.

I was interested in Weinberg's analysis of that resonance. I believe he showed that while the resonance exists (as it had to, or else Weinberg wouldn't be around to analyze it), there was still wiggle room within that particular resonance, that things were only just as fine-tuned as they had to be and no more.

Weinberg talks about it here:

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rshoward/weinberg.pdf (http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rshoward/weinberg.pdf)

What I take from this is not that the universe is fine-tuned for us, but rather that we're just damn lucky to be here, in so many different ways. But while we are here, and so the universe has to be one in which we can exist, it's not an unreasonably friendly universe to us. Almost any spot in the universe, picked at random, would be deadly. It didn't have to be that way, but it is. In fact, almost any spot on the surface of the Earth, picked at random, would be deadly without technology like clothing, houses, and predator-control. Far from being fine-tuned, the universe only barely lets us in.

The puddle always marvels at the perfection of his pothole.

Quote from: "ablprop"In fact, if I remember correctly from Marcus Chown's book,

Not to say anything about what he said about Hoyle, but I just read Marcus Chown's We Need To Talk About Kelvin and I think it's mostly atrocius, and some of the conclusions he comes to in it are utterly insupportable.

Just sayin'...