Physicist Stephen Hawking has dismissed religion once again as he deemed heaven a "fairy story" aimed at appeasing those afraid of death.
The author of 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time" said in an interview with The Guardian that his views were partly influenced by his battle with motor neuron disease.
"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Hawking's stance on religion has hardened since the publishing of his seminal work.
Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his 2010 book, "The Grand Design" he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.
IMO, Religion is nothing more than a control system to keep the sheeple on the reservation......Stephen Hawking agrees. Not bad company to have on an idea.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
There is a great variety of illogic and unsupported assertions and assumptions to be found in this statement.
1. It assumes without foundation of proof or logic that sentience is purely a function of biology.
2. From that premise we get again, without benefit of proof or logic, the assumption that sentience and awareness lie within the physical brain.
3. Also implied is that matter organizes itself without benefit of sentience into sentience. In other words the universe created itself and in turn life, awareness, and existence are all functions of the random interaction of chemicals which came from some undesignated source, organized themselves without benefit of awareness or intelligence, and wa-la fucking magic - IT LIVES!
3. Also implied is that matter organizes itself without benefit of sentience into sentience. In other words the universe created itself and in turn life, awareness, and existence are all functions of the random interaction of chemicals which came from some undesignated source, organized themselves without benefit of awareness or intelligence, and wa-la fucking magic - IT LIVES!
Unlike Hawking you fail to grasp the size of the universe.
Infinite galaxies, producing infinite planets will produce infinite Earth type planets where life can evolve.
Note to thumpers: - There is irrefutable proof that extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist that are vastly superior to us. Did your "god" make them too?
article: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Original_Intent: There is a great variety of illogic and unsupported assertions and assumptions to be found in this statement.
OKIE_DOKIE, Obi-Wan Kenobi, I am game. Let's step through your incrementally increasing, three set numerically itemized rebuttals (below) about your own rational, objective and methods of suggesting otherwise.
1. It assumes without foundation of proof or logic that sentience is purely a function of biology.
The poor ol' laid-up Hawkings doesn't have the physical stamina as most people but there is NO ASSUMPTION although, the preface of the same statement by Hawkings is the following assertion: "I regard." The claim in the same article is because of his own physical disabilities which is not a s-t-r-e-t-c-h for otherwise normal people to understand. He was not attempting to prove or create anything other than a his own understanding of the world around us based on his own background.
2. From that premise we get again, without benefit of proof or logic, the assumption that sentience and awareness lie within the physical brain.
What is wrong with that? Millions of people were wishing Christian families around the world bon voyage because of Harold Camping's long claimed "rapture" which ended a few hours ago. Nothing happened other than another day; Camping also claimed all those ol' rotten graves would be rising up to heaven. HELL, we didn't even see Elvis rising up.
Your point of view is ludicrous, at best. What makes you think that "consciousness" does not require a physical support system?
3. Also implied is that matter organizes itself without benefit of sentience into sentience. In other words the universe created itself and in turn life, awareness, and existence are all functions of the random interaction of chemicals which came from some undesignated source, organized themselves without benefit of awareness or intelligence, and wa-la fucking magic - IT LIVES!
Those are YOUR ideas, not Hawking's. Hawking made no such implication.
Here are the serious problems with the article based on Hawking:
article: In his 2010 book, "The Grand Design" he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
That conclusion is nonsense by Hawking.
article: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
The reference is based on religious beliefs which often place mankind as the center of the Universe and therefore "special." It was known for centuries that we are just idiots looking for hope and change not about anything but our individual selves concerning the hard work of mere survival.