Stephen Hawking gives his take on the afterlife

[turbo]

Let's give Hawking his due. He has an amazing intellect AND he has a lot of time to sit and think.

I decided when I was a kid that I would not longer attend mass. It took a while to make it stick, but it did stick. I'd attend Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, just to enjoy the special efforts of the choir, the pageantry, and to meet up with people I hadn't seen for a while, but that was it. Religion is not for everybody, and the afterlife is the biggest motivator that some religions have with which to control the flock. "Be a good sheep and do what I tell you, and you'll go to a lush pasture in the sky instead of being slaughtered for mutton."

 

[DanP]

Religion is not for everybody, and the afterlife is the biggest motivator that some religions have with which to control the flock. "Be a good sheep and do what I tell you, and you'll go to a lush pasture in the sky instead of being slaughtered for mutton."

Politics, religion, war , peace, just about everything is about control of humans over other humans. Leadership (irrespective its civil, military, religious or whatever else) is ultimately an art of changing the behavior of others through various means to serve the goals of a group. Religion is one of the most efficient way to control humans.

Disrespect for authority. More humans should have a healthy disrespect for certain authorities (note to the amateurs seeing the doomsday in this: this doesn't mean chaos and disrupting social order )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UVjFPGIrbGw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&start=118"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UVjFPGIrbGw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Darken-Sol]

What energy in your body? Surely not kinetic energy. The chemical energy in your body will be mostly released in the months and years after you die. You'll be at or below ground level, so there's no gravitational potential energy.

I guess the rest mass energy will persist, as long as protons don't decay.

I guess I have no idea what you mean by this statement? Are you saying the obviously true statement that energy is conserved? Or are you trying to make some kind of point?

its not like i leave the universe when i die. this body will decay and the energy that runs it will go feul something else. is consciousness conserved? is it something more than energy and matter? if it is something else altogether, fill me in. i'd like to know

 

[M Grandin]

I think simple likelihood reasoning indicates we will experience consciousness attached to living beings repeatedly in the future as also in the past. I.e having a "self" comparable to
as we feel now - but attached to other lifes or lifeforms. Why should it be a unique
state having a conscious and subjective "self" only this time? That must be expected
happen again after death and repeatedly after succeeding deaths. If human logics is
applicable regarding such things.

 

[Evo]

I think simple likelihood reasoning indicates we will experience consciousness attached to living beings repeatedly in the future as also in the past. I.e having a "self" comparable to
as we feel now - but attached to other lifes or lifeforms. Why should it be a unique
state having a conscious and subjective "self" only this time? That must be expected
happen again after death and repeatedly after succeeding deaths. If human logics is
applicable regarding such things.

Simple reasoning would say that our consciousness, *us* is a function of our physical body. When the body dies, it can no longer function, and that includes our consciousness. That is what Hawking is saying, if you read the article.

 

[Jack21222]

its not like i leave the universe when i die.

It's not like when you take apart a lego house, it ceases to exist, right?

this body will decay and the energy that runs it will go feul something else. is consciousness conserved? is it something more than energy and matter? if it is something else altogether, fill me in. i'd like to know

The energy that runs your body is chemical energy. When you die, it will go to increase the temperature of your surroundings and provide energy to whatever creatures eats you.

 

[DanP]

... and provide energy to whatever creatures eats you.

Unless you eat them first, aint it ? Braaaaains !

 

[Topher925]

So, let me get this right. **You** opened a thread which outlines a highly contentious position on *religion* (let's remember that an enormous percentage of the world's population is involved in some religious ritual of some sort), and now you complain that talking about religion is against forum rules and "you can't believe the thread is open" ? It's like entering a cathouse and then complain you wasn't offered a sermon on the virtues of abstinence.

Why did you opened it in the first place ?

You are mistaken. I'm not complaining about anything, quite the opposite. I think its great discussing such topics with the people on PF.

I started the thread because I found peoples reaction to SH's opinion on death rather interesting. I would have thought that people would assume that SH is an atheist being a creature of science and all. Apparently, I thought wrong.

 

[DanP]

I started the thread because I found peoples reaction to SH's opinion on death rather interesting. I would have thought that people would assume that SH is an atheist being a creature of science and all. Apparently, I thought wrong.

You weren't necessarily wrong. It's one thing to know that X is an atheist, and another thing to hear X saying "Yo, apes, there is no afterlife and y'all going to rot". Many humans would simply dismiss an atheist, but silent, acquittance as "well, his problem he will go to hell", or try to convert him, but such a statement as above, (regardless the fact is made in a very polite words) would be considered an attack to morals by some, an attack to the flawed idea that humans are special and we occupy a special place in creation, and not least, an attack to the foundation of Christianity rituals. Not to mention that the social impact of one man says is greatly amplified when the statement is made public through media.

 

[Frankly]

Atheists spend more time talking about god than people who believe.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I don't put much stock in the utterances of popes, religious or scientific.

Oh well, moving onward...

The comment that I earlier presented from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1) is related to the following:

From Understanding Science and How it Really Works
Science around the world

Early science was dominated by men, whether in China, Greece, India, or the Middle East. From the 16th to 20th centuries it developed largely in Western nations, and continued to be dominated by men — but all that is changing. Science is a worldwide endeavor and ought to be open to anyone — regardless of ethnicity, gender, religious commitment, or any other personal characteristic. Increasingly, all sorts of people from almost every part of the world participate in science, and scientific institutions are working hard to expand the diversity of their community. This diversity is one of the keys to science's rapid rate of progress. A diverse scientific community embraces a variety of viewpoints and problem-solving approaches that help to balance out biases and lead to more complete understandings of the natural world.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_worldwide

[My suggestion is to explore the website and learn more about science.]

1. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the "hijacking" of science for arguments about religion: for or against. "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/can-science-and-religion-get-along.html?ref=hp

Thanks. I'm signing out of this thread.

 

[Schrodinator]

Stephen Hawking recently gave his view on death and apparently people are shocked by the answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

Since so many people believe that SH is one of the smartest people currently living, do think any evangelicals out there will convert to atheism?

He is right though, religion is a fairy tale to chase away the bogey man. We should really outgrow it just like we outgrow believing in myths like Santa.

Camus put it best:

"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life."

Likewise his book The Myth of Sysiphus makes a compelling case for existentialist optimism. And Sysiphus scorned by the gods remains unbroken and unbowed.

Religion is just supersitious nonsense and bs for the gullible masses, I quite agree SH. I also agree with the sentiment that we are spectacularly insignificant to the Universe as a whole, and would add that we therefore should stop anthropomorphising ridiculous concepts that are impossible to prove like invisible pink unicorns, just because we can't face the reality that everyone dies.

Atheists spend more time talking about god than people who believe.

That's just stupid and completely illogical.

No they just have to talk to cavernous dimwits who believe that Jesus rode around on Dinosaurs a lot.

 

[Schrodinator]

I can't believe this thread is still open. Isn't talking about religion against forums rules?

Great got my 2 cents in before the lock.

I must admit it is a bit ironic your statement though, given you are the OP.

I suspect proselytising and my God is bigger than your god arguments are what are banned, they usually are. Hawking is just stating an opinion, not trying to big up his own religion. And I suppose as long as people don't start preaching their gospel at each other then it's not really doing any harm.

I don't believe in fairy stories either, so sue me for agreeing with SH.

FSM is better than God anyway he done everything in 4 days.

 

[Frankly]

That's just stupid and completely illogical.

It certainly is.

 

[ViewsofMars]

He is right though, religion is a fairy tale to chase away the bogey man.

I think it wise for you to reconsider what I presented in message #46 which was my previous message. Also, Stephen W. Hawking (1) is on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican along with over 40 Nobel Prize winners of which many are religious. Obviously, Hawking's doesn't mind reporting to the Pope and neither does Francis Collins (2).

Also, it's important to review what The Pew Forum has presented:

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National Institutes of Health, a number of scientists and pundits publicly questioned whether the nominee's devout religious faith should disqualify him from the position. In particular, some worried that an outspoken evangelical Christian who believes in miracles might not be the right person to fill what many consider to be the nation's most visible job in science. Collins was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Aug. 7, 2009, but the controversy over his nomination reflects a broader debate within the scientific community between those who believe religion and science each examine legitimate but different realms of knowledge and those who see science as the only true way of understanding the universe.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Please read on . . .
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/hawking.html
2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/collinsnew.html

 

[Schrodinator]

I think it wise for you to reconsider what I presented in message #46 which was my previous message. Also, Stephen W. Hawking (1) is on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican along with over 40 Nobel Prize winners of which many are religious. Obviously, Hawking's doesn't mind reporting to the Pope.

Also, it's important to review what The Pew Forum has presented:1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/hawking.html

He's on a scientific advisory panel and he's an atheist. So what?

He says that he does not believe in an afterlife or God. That's the story I read. What agenda you have is anyone's guess. But I still don't think you are going to convince anyone SH is not an atheist because he acts in an advisory role to Papal Scientists. He doesn't report to the pope, the Vatican has a whole body of its own scientists amongst the clergy which he has an advisor role to. The Catholic Church do their own research on evolution too, I'm almost certain Dawkins acts or has acted as an advisor to them. Would you claim Dawkins was therefore not an atheist? The primary reason the church has changed its view on evolution and the age of the Universe is because of input from science and its own scientists.

"Evolution is more than a mere hypothesis."

Pope John Paul II.

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Hawking's latest book, "The Grand Design," challenged Isaac Newton's theory that the solar system could not have been created without God. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going," he writes.

From that interview.

 

[ViewsofMars]

He's on a scientific advisory panel and he's an atheist. So what?

He says that he does not believe in an afterlife or God. That's the story I read. What agenda you have is anyone's guess. But I still don't think you are going to convince anyone SH is not an atheist because he acts in an advisory role to Papal Scientists. He doesn't report to the pope, the Vatican has a whole body of its own scientists amongst the clergy which he has an advisor role to. The Catholic Church do their own research on evolution too, I'm almost certain Dawkins acts or has acted as an advisor to them. Would you claim Dawkins was therefore not an atheist? The primary reason the church has changed its view on evolution and the age of the Universe is because of input from science and its own scientists.

"Evolution is more than a mere hypothesis."

Pope John Paul II.

I don't have an agenda. All the Vatican's Scientific Advisory Scientists directly report to the POPE! lol! The Vatican's Scientific Advisory Committee reports on every scientific thing imaginable. Richard Dawkins is not on the Vatican's Scientific Advisory Committee. My point was you are making a controversy where there is none! The only sick thing I see is that some people on this topic (thread) are making mean and cruel remarks about religion which implies relgious scientists. The topic has become a place for people to take a swing at religious scientists. I don't like people poking fun at reputable religious or non-religious scientists. That is why I earlier presented in my message #46 this part to ensure future scientists an opportunity whether he/she is religous or not:

From Understanding Science and How it Really Works
Science around the world

Early science was dominated by men, whether in China, Greece, India, or the Middle East. From the 16th to 20th centuries it developed largely in Western nations, and continued to be dominated by men — but all that is changing. Science is a worldwide endeavor and ought to be open to anyone — regardless of ethnicity, gender, religious commitment, or any other personal characteristic. Increasingly, all sorts of people from almost every part of the world participate in science, and scientific institutions are working hard to expand the diversity of their community. This diversity is one of the keys to science's rapid rate of progress. A diverse scientific community embraces a variety of viewpoints and problem-solving approaches that help to balance out biases and lead to more complete understandings of the natural world.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_worldwide

[My suggestion is to explore the website and learn more about science. ]


1. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the "hijacking" of science for arguments about religion: for or against. "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/can-science-and-religion-get-along.html?ref=hp

This is the controversy and insulting piece to those who might be religious scientists:

He is right though, religion is a fairy tale to chase away the bogey man. We should really outgrow it just like we outgrow believing in myths like Santa.

Camus put it best:

"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life."

[snip]
Religion is just supersitious nonsense and bs for the gullible masses, I quite agree SH.

I've had it and am done with this topic for good.

Your thinking here is quite nonlinear to me

You are misinterpreting people and putting words in their mouths ...

BS

 

[Schrodinator]

I don't have an agenda. My point was you are making a controversy where there is none! The only sick thing I see is that people like you are making rude comments toward those scientists that are religious! That is why I earlier presented in my message #46 this part:

Now I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about?

wtf, when did I attack any scientists?

I said I agree with SH that religion is a fairy tale. So that means I am saying all religious scientists are idiots I guess. Sure in crazy world. Please.

Why is saying I agree with SH that God doesn't exist sick to you? What is your problem?

 

[rootX]

I don't have an agenda. My point was you are making a controversy where there is none! The only sick thing I see is that people like you are making rude comments toward those scientists that are religious! That is why I earlier presented in my message #46 this part:

Your thinking here is quite nonlinear to me

You are misinterpreting people and putting words in their mouths ...

 

[Math Is Hard]

This thread is a good example of why we avoid religious discussions here.