Stephen Hawking gives his take on the afterlife

[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.