Stephen Hawking's latest remarks

[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 that in cases where we should in fact expect to see evidence for or against a hypothesis, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

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.

[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.

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.

[PoopShoot]

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.

[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).

[PoopShoot]

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

[epepke]

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.

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.

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.

[PoopShoot]

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.

Nor is the Christian promise that God will reveal himself to anybody who sincerely askes.

Too subjective.  You weren't sincere enough.

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

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

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.

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.

[Sophus]

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?

A 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.

[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.

[Sophus]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[PoopShoot]

I've seen the darndest things claimed as proof of god.

I've said the darndest things...

[PoopShoot]

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

yeah, proof is mathematical.  

[Sophus]

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]

[karadan]

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.