Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

@Leadfoot,

I don't think I have ever expressed that... but ok.

I am talking about the cases when what God says contradicts the "underlying principles" of nature as shown by experiment,

In these cases, God is scientifically wrong. When we are talking about science as a process of using tests and experiments to make testable claims God has to make the same case as anyone else. When the data doesn't support the claims God makes, he is scientifically wrong by definition. In several cases he has been shown to be wrong.

But then again, God never sent men to the moon.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I don't think I have ever expressed that... but ok.

I was thinking of what you said about the understanding of QM being necessary for semiconductors.

Quote:

I am talking about the cases when what God says contradicts the "underlying principles" of nature as shown by experiment,

Could you give an example?

Remember that from the theist perspective, God would have the full understanding and the ability to utilize every force of nature we know and probably many we don't.

Quote:

But then again, God never sent men to the moon.

Again, from the theist perspective, that would be child's play. We don't know where 'heaven' is, maybe one of the 11 dimensions string theory postulates, but transporting someone to another dimension would be far more impressive than a trip to the moon.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

From the perspective of theism, there is no difference. Science is merely reverse engineering.

In a way it is reverse engineering (resulting in understanding, which allows us to expand upon functionality). Science is a methodology which involves looking at nature and then coming up with theories (naturalistic ones) to explain the observation and then testing them.

Are you suggesting that those individuals Smiley referenced in his post, and to which I was referring, acquired their knowledge of the water cycle from performing the scientific process? Because if so, then their understanding did not come from religion. Or are you saying that their understanding of the water cycle was revealed knowledge, which is something which would come from religion?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I am not sure what you are arguing. I don't have any disagreement with your claims about what the theist perspective is.

I have four points to make.

1) The scientific perspective is based on testable claims. Science drops any claims that are refuted by experiment and accepts claims as proven when there is no other rational explanation that explains the result of experiment.

2) There are many times when theories considered to be proven by the scientific community are disputed by theists. The Big Bang and Evolution are the two obvious answers. There are many more including the effectiveness of prayer and the objective benefits of certain moral values.

3) I don't make any claim that science is truth in any sense other than that it makes testable claims. This is only "truth" as a circular definition of truth. Then again, theism has no non-circular claim to truth either.

4) I do claim that science is far more useful, in a practical sense, than any form of theism.

Science has doubled the human life expectancy. It has sent men to the moon. It allows us to project our ideas around the world in fractions of a second. It cures diseases and allows us to travel anywhere on the planet in a day.

Theism has not done any of that.

There are things that science can't do. Science doesn't provide us a narrative. It doesn't provide us a way to understand the value of human life or a way to judge right or wrong. Many people want Science to do these things... the idea that science is a basis for human rights is a pervasive myth.

But my point here is that explaining the Universe in a testable way is the thing that Science does really well. Theism has always failed at this.

Theism shouldn't pretend to be science.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I have noticed that when you pull back on the yoke of an airplane, the airplane goes up. Does this make me a pilot?

Just because some holy book gets something correct, doesn't make it science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I have noticed that when you pull back on the yoke of an airplane, the airplane goes up. Does this make me a pilot?

Just because some holy book gets something correct, doesn't make it science.

I agree. That was pretty much my point.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Smiley's post, and the one to which I replied, was a challenge to you to give some ground on the idea of Religion producing "some" value, and he cited those two gentlemen from religious history as examples.

What I was trying to understand in my response was how he thinks those two guys got their information on the water cycle. If it was divinely revealed knowledge, then it could be argued that religion produced the knowledge. But if some people back in those days were pretty smart (and we know that many of them were very smart), then they may have just figured it out by observing nature, which is essentially a scientific process, not a religious process.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There are things that science can't do. Science doesn't provide us a narrative. It doesn't provide us a way to understand the value of human life or a way to judge right or wrong. Many people want Science to do these things... the idea that science is a basis for human rights is a pervasive myth.

Agree with this. I think its common for people to reify science. It is a methodology, not some 'magic' beast which doles out philosophies or valuations. It is not a 'thing'. It is a process. Which unfortunately has been undermined by some of its own practitioners by talking about it as if it were a thing.

And as far as religious writings claiming facts about the physical world, a broken clock is right twice a day. Or if you want to be more sanguine about it, it's entirely possible that those folks who wrote scripture did get the efficient causes of some physical processes correct. But the question remains how they acquired that knowledge. The religious view would more than likely say it was revealed information.

The greater issue here is why would we uncritically accept the testimony of bronze age farmers? Or anyone from that age?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I can tell you confidently (and I am pretty sure that I am correct) that in an airplane if you pull back on the yoke thingy, the plane will go up.

FWIW, you are not correct.

If you start in level flight, pulling back on the yoke will raise the nose. If the nose is raised too far, it will result in the plane stalling, and losing altitude.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I am talking about the cases when what God says contradicts the "underlying principles" of nature as shown by experiment,

Quote:

Could you give an example?

So, there are a few, but one sticks in my craw, which is this idea of demonic possession. It was a common belief that folks that had disease were demon possessed. Why weren't the people of that time disabused of this notion? God, who created all the sometimes nasty bacteria that do crazy things to us apparently could have revealed that it was that that was causing the problem, not demons. Why not? What was the issue? Surely this God would know we would find out soon enough? Why not start out on this foot? Surely this would have saved the lives of many people?

Great lengths were gone to make sure folks ate the right kind of food, presumably to keep from being sick. So, here we have an example of God caring for our physical well being. Yet nothing was revealed as to why? Again, this should have been Life 101 from the get-go. Why keep us in the dark?

And don't we all feel this is better for us? Does anyone today think we should be as ignorant as our ancestors about this stuff? So, I think I'm not going out on a limb to say this knowledge is a good thing?

And being the center of the universe? How about revealing our place in the solar system/universe? Is this not a big deal? Was this not a big deal? People died and were persecuted over these things, it wasn't a 'little' thing. Then the Bible would have been better able to speak truth about the physical things. God stopped the earth from rotating! Yes, persecute me for saying that ye of little faith! From our perspective, God would have been treating these people like children. The mythology of the Garden of Eden comes full circle..

If we didn't have our 'sacred prejudices' over ancient writings we would surely belief that the best explanation is that there wasn't a God directing these writings as infallible.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Geez DrewDad! Do you really think you can ruin my faith in avionics that easily?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Cat there definitely something to what you mention.

If you examine the 600+ rules in the Torah young see that many of these rules fall into exposure to disease. It is clear these ancient Jews were reacting to deaths caused by disease assuming it was the wrath of their God. We know better now yet people still think earth quakes, tornados and hurricanes are acts of their God even though there are clear patterns to when these things happen. They are not random, there are only certain times tornados and hurricanes form, so are they saying God waits for a certain time of the year before he unleashes a tornado? That is silly.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

That isn't how science works Krumple. Science tests it's hypothesis to make sure the results are reproducible. Reacting to random events with random superstitions is not science.

I also disagree with your claim that these religious rules aren't "random". Of course they are related to the fears, superstitions and prejudices of the society they spring from. But they aren't rational in a scientific sense.

In the Torah there are rules about wearing clothes with two types of fiber. There are rules prohibiting the eating of dishes that combine dairy and meat. There are rules about getting a haircut on a Saturday. There are hundreds of rules that have zero rational explanation from a science or health perspective. They are just "random" rules.

Of course the more troubling rules, such as killing girls who don't bleed the correct way on their wedding night, are not only unscientific (bleeding is not a reliable indicator of virginity)... they are quite troubling from a modern Western perspective.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Did I say ALL the rules had explanstions? No. Dud U say ALL of them were health related? No. The reading comprension on this site is subpar at best. U said many had to do with ignorance of disease. Tornados and hurricanes are not random. There are on certain times of the year they form due to temperature changes and shifting weather patterns, they are not random.

The sabbath was originally on saturday, the last day of the week. If you did anything on saturday you were tempting the wrath of god. Getting a hair cut and then having an accident or you came down with an illness was looked at as violating the sabbath. They are not random rules they are built upon presuppositions of misunderstood events causing superstition.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Aye, so the story goes, Jacob had an arrangement with his employer Laban, that from his flock of plain rams and sheep, any that were born with speckles stripes or patches would become his wages. One might assume from the outset that Laban had a sweet deal.
The technique Jacob used with the sticks was common misconception of the day, that it could have a bearing on the offspring and he might have thought it was successful too, because the speckled and patchy offspring came forth. However, although Jacob may have been dense enough to believe this at the time, he was shortly thereafter put right in a dream, that it was not the sticks, but the rams that were causing the genetic variation.
So yes, Jacob was being unscientific, but the bible also points out that he was wrong. The bible record was pretty candid about mistakes and wrong assumptions made by men of faith, which is why I am baffled as to why many religious people today claim infallibility of their most public figures.

Throughout history religious men have made scientific claims. If scientific men make scientific claims, does it matter if they are also religious men? Perhaps Ros had a point. On the flipside, should someone that is not religious make religious claims? both requests have valid points.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Smiley's post, and the one to which I replied, was a challenge to you to give some ground on the idea of Religion producing "some" value, and he cited those two gentlemen from religious history as examples.

What I was trying to understand in my response was how he thinks those two guys got their information on the water cycle. If it was divinely revealed knowledge, then it could be argued that religion produced the knowledge. But if some people back in those days were pretty smart (and we know that many of them were very smart), then they may have just figured it out by observing nature, which is essentially a scientific process, not a religious process.

I think I intended to point out in my previous post, I attribute their scientific nous to their personal qualities, Solomon was recorded as being very interested in Nature and observed its "wisdom", he was the son of a shepherd so it makes sense, also Luke the Gospel writer was a physician so we see more technical terms and observations

I think there is good value in your comment.

0 Replies

Quote:

Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

Is this a singularity? Or an attempt at unification?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

Again, this should have been Life 101 from the get-go. Why keep us in the dark?

Two reasons occur to me:

1. The free will thing which I have belabored many times so won't repeat here.

2. The answer I gave Max a few posts ago: God will not deny man his measure of glory.

We find value in doing it ourselves. You could call it 'The Ikea Effect".

Edit: Thank you for not explaining the scientific method to me . Cripes what an insult..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well, that still doesn't answer why there are some things that are said. Some things are prescribed and told and others not. The bible goes into detail about creation, about keeping healthy.

So, God is picky/choosey about what it chooses to reveal about nature? Some things are saved, while others are left for our measure of glory? Also, the length of time it took to get that measure of glory? What about all the people who died in the interim over these things? I understand that this God does not see death as we do, but again, there are other things that are explicitly stated and it seems to care about. God works in mysterious ways?

The way I see it, as part of a valid argument, you can't have it both ways. You have to explain why some things are made explicit and others left unsaid. God works in mysterious ways may be your ultimate answer but it is unsatisfying as a debate point.

I also get the free will thing, but I don't see how it is relevant here. The issue is simple: to communicate or not and if you do, why and if no, then why not..

Quote:

You could call it 'The Ikea Effect".

1 Reply

@Angelgz2,

Theories are only theories. Everyone's got one. Don't forget to post it when you get that time machine built. I could use a do over. I hope you won't charge to much and price me out! I did not think Mr. Hawking looked well when he went on the Big Bang Theory. It's hard to believe he is still doing shows. I will check out this "Think Like A Genius" Program if possible. Life is full of contradictions. Candlelight8

0 Replies

Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know