0799: "Stephen Hawking"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Aster Selene
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:36 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Aster Selene » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:26 am UTC

Isn't it? -frown-

User avatar
Werewolf
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:35 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Werewolf » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:29 am UTC

I feel sorry for Stephen Hawking. D:

And STFU with the petty arguments about religion and science.

User avatar
Richard.
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:29 am UTC
Location: On the internets
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Richard. » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
we live in a beautiful world.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Snowdream
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:36 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Snowdream » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:33 am UTC

Guys.
Seriously.

This is getting ridiculous.

I personally think both sides are being stupid, even the side I would normally take the side of (oh god tautology).

In my opinion, the people here arguing that science and religion are mutually exclusive are bugging me the most.


Yea... the conversation got a little too far away from the comic. I understand that it's a discussion about the comic, but it got so far away regardless, that it kinda turned me off to the whole thread. I don't doubt that I'm not alone. :|
Image

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:03 am UTC

dirtydanwojo wrote:Hey, guys?


Why do we care how the universe was formed? What practical use would we have for that information?

Cause and effect. Knowing more about the past and the present (the cause) would help us to predict the future (effect).
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

scotty2haughty
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:53 am UTC
Location: 3 feet from gold

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby scotty2haughty » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am UTC

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't believe in you.
God exists, unless you can prove to me otherwise.
/s/

Aster Selene
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:36 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Aster Selene » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:19 am UTC

STOP IT.
STOP IT NOW.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE ON THIS TOPIC.
OKAY?

Now can we talk about the comic?

User avatar
Stanistani
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:13 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Stanistani » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:47 am UTC

Aster Selene wrote:STOP IT.
STOP IT NOW.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE ON THIS TOPIC.
OKAY?

Now can we talk about the comic?

Gotcha.

Cool wheelchair in the comic.

darthdavid
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:33 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby darthdavid » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:03 am UTC

scotty2haughty wrote:Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't believe in you.
God exists, unless you can prove to me otherwise.

I'M GOD AND I DON'T EXIST.
Now, you prove me wrong. Extra points for doing it without becoming a blasphemer by going against the word of God (ie me). :P

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:20 am UTC

darthdavid wrote:
scotty2haughty wrote:Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't believe in you.
God exists, unless you can prove to me otherwise.

I'M GOD AND I DON'T EXIST.
Now, you prove me wrong. Extra points for doing it without becoming a blasphemer by going against the word of God (ie me). :P

Just going to prove the 2nd part wrong. Non-existent entities cannot cause effects. Your very message proves that you exist. Whether you are God or not, is a separate point.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

NotAllThere
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:54 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby NotAllThere » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:38 am UTC

I am the walrus.
yangosplat wrote:So many amazing quotes, so little room in 300 characters!

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4891
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:38 am UTC

Aster Selene wrote:STOP IT.
STOP IT NOW.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE ON THIS TOPIC.
OKAY?

Now can we talk about the comic?


Who are you, the discussion topic police?

People will talk about what they want to talk about and so long as it traces back to the comic it's on-topic here. It's not like one person said "I like Steven Hawking" and then someone chimed in "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" - the discussion segued there by natural means. (Namely: people taking Stephen Hawking's words to be of more import than they are -> an example of him saying God is an unnecessary hypothesis and public reaction to that statement -> discussion on the subject of that statement i.e. whether or not God is an unnecessary hypothesis -> discussion about the epistemic warrant of belief in God in general).

If you want to talk about the comic specifically, not something tangentially related to it, then say something about the comic specifically. If people find your comment interesting, they'll reply. Voila! Discussion about the comic. Meanwhile, other people will discuss things related to people discussing things related to people discussing things about the comic. Discussions drift like that, deal with it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby markfiend » Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:47 am UTC

scotty2haughty wrote:Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't believe in you.
God exists, unless you can prove to me otherwise.

Just because you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean He doesn't believe in you.
FSM exists, unless you can prove to me otherwise.

Ramen.

(Sorry, I just can't help myself.)
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

User avatar
Chiffre
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Mars

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Chiffre » Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:51 am UTC

I hope scientists aren't soooooo alone. :( At least I'm here with them. :wink:

To the providing of morality and being logical: Petri Abaelardi Sic et Non (http://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/resources/abelard/Sic_et_non.txt). If you are trained enough in theology, you will easily solve these questions (and of course know enough latin up to medieval fineries).
Spoiler:
Q. 157: QUOD LICEAT HOMINEM OCCIDERE ET NON.
HIERONYMUS SUPER ISAIAM, LIB. V: Non crudelis est qui crudelem iugulat.
IDEM IN EPISTOLA AD GALATAS: Qui malos percutit in eo quod mali sunt, et habet causam interfectionis ut occidat pessimos, minister est domini.
IDEM SUPER IEREMIAM: Homicidas enim et sacrilegos et uenenarios punire non est effusio sanguinis sed legum ministerium.
CYPRIANUS IN NONO GENERE ABUSIONIS: Rex debet furta cohibere, adulteria punire, impios de terra perdere, parricidas et periurantes non sinere uiuere.
AUGUSTINUS DE LIBERO ARBITRIO: Si homicidium est hominem occidere, potest occidere aliquando sine peccato. Nam et miles hostem et iudex uel minister eius nocentem, et cui forte inuito atque imprudenti telum manu fugit, non mihi uidentur peccare cum hominem occidunt.
ITEM: Militi iubetur lege ut hostem necet, a qua caede si temperauerit, ab imperatore poenas luit. Nonne istas leges iniustas
uel potius nullas dicere audebimus? Nam mihi lex esse non uidetur quae iusta non fuerit.
IDEM IN EXODO, CAP. XXVII: Israelitae furtum non fecerunt spoliando Aegyptios sed Deo iubenti ministerium praebuerunt, quemadmodum cum minister indicis occidit eum quem lex iussit occidi, profecto, si id sponte faciat, homicida est etiamsi eum quem occidit scit occidi a iudice debuisse.
IDEM IN LEVITICO, CAP LXXV: Cum homo iuste occiditur, lex eum occidit, non tu. /525/
IDEM LIB. I DE CIVITATE DEI: Non occides, his exceptis quos Deus occidi iubet, siue data lege pro tempore ad personam expressa iussione. Non autem ipse occidit qui ministerium debet iubenti, sicut adminiculum gladius utenti.
ITEM: Miles cum obediens potestati, sub qua legitime constitutus est, hominem occiderit, nulla ciuitatis suae lege reus est homicidii; immo nisi fecerit, reus imperii deserti atque contempti est. Quod si sua sponte atque auctoritate fecisset, crimen effusi sanguinis humani incidisset. Itaque unde punitur si fecit iniussus, inde punietur nisi fecerit iussus.
IDEM AD PUBLICOLAM: De occidendis hominibus ne ab eis quisque occidatur, non mihi placet consilium, nisi forte sit miles aut publica functione, ut non pro se hoc faciat sed pro aliis et pro ciuitate, accepta legitima potestate si eius congruit personae.
ITEM: Dictum est, ne resistamus malo, ne nos uindicta delectet, quae alieno malo animum pascit, non ut correctionem hominum negligamus.
IDEM AD MARCELLAM: Si terrena ista respublica praecepta christiana custodiat, et ipsa bella sine beneuolentia non gerentur.
Misericorditer enim, si fieri potest, etiam bella gerentur a bonis, ut licentiosis cupiditatibus domitis haec uitia perderentur quae iusto imperio uel extirpari uel puniri debuerunt. Nam si disciplina christiana omnia bella culparet, hoc potius militibus consilium salutis petentibus in euangelio daretur, ut abicerent arma seque militiae omnino subtraherent. Dictum est autem eis, neminem concusseritis, nulli calumniam feceritis, sufficiat uobis stipendium uestrum. Quibus proprium stipendium sufficere debere praecepit, militare /527/ utique non prohibuit.
IDEM AD BONEFATIUM COMITEM: Utile tibi tuisque dabo consilium: arripe manibus arma; oratio aures pulset auctoris, quia, quando pugnatur, Deus apertis caelis spectat, et partem quam inspicit iustam, ibi dat palmam.
IDEM CONTRA FAUSTUM: Siue Deo siue aliquo legitimo imperio inbente gerenda bella suscipiuntur a bonis. Alioquin Iohannes, cum ad eum baptizandi milites uenirent dicentes, et nos quid faciemus? responderet eis, arma abicite, militiam istam deserite; neminem percutite; prosternite neminem. Sed quia sciebat eos haec militando facere, non esse homicidas sed ministros legis, et non ultores iniuriarum suarum sed salutis publicae defensores, respondit eis, Neminem concusseritis, nulli calumniam feceritis, sufficiat uobis stipendium uestrum.
ISIDORUS ETYMOLOGIARUM LIB. XVIII, CAP. III: Iustum bellum est quod ex dicto geritur de rebus repetendis aut propulsandorum hostium causa.
NICOLAUS PAPA AD CONSULTA BULGARORUM: Si nulla urget necessitas, non solum quadragesimali sed omni tempore est a proeliis abstinendum. Si autem ineuitabilis urget opportunitas, nec quadragesimali est tempore pro defensione tam sua quam patriae seu legum paternarum, bellorum procul dubio praeparationi parcendum, ne uidelicet Deum uideatur homo
temptare si habet quod faciat et suae ac aliorum saluti consulere non procurat et sanctae religionis detrimenta non praecauet. /527/

"I say this because you HAVE TO BELIEVE what I say, because I'm in the keeping of all wise things and you aren't. And I don't need to have a proof."

+1 for Athene. Anyway, she is the god of wisdom and science. We'd better trust her and read the proofs of Archimedes. Just to name a real god. :lol: :mrgreen:

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:00 am UTC

Also thought experiment: People have asked whether God can make God both exist and not exist, being omnipotent. Because of quantum mumbo-jumbo, the only way both can be true at the same time, is by not being observed. That is why we've no tangible proof that God exists. 8)

(as for wither the above can be true yet still be observable, the trick is that we do not know whether we have observed God or not. God may be omnipotent, but we aren't. 8) )
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

tesseraktik
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby tesseraktik » Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Kyrn wrote:
darthdavid wrote:I'M GOD AND I DON'T EXIST.
Now, you prove me wrong. Extra points for doing it without becoming a blasphemer by going against the word of God (ie me).  :P

Just going to prove the 2nd part wrong. Non-existent entities cannot cause effects. Your very message proves that you exist. Whether you are God or not, is a separate point.
That may be true according to your limited understanding of existence, but LORD DAVID may have his own, better definition of existence; one with which none of us would agree, but which is notwithstanding correct (just LORD DAVID can unilaterally decide what is and what is not morally good).
Also, you are assuming that LORD DAVID need abide by the laws of logic, but if he is truly omnipotent, then surely he would not be required to do so.  Heck, can you prove that the axioms of whatever logical system you're working in hold true even for us non-omnipotents, or even the truly impotent?

Kyrn wrote:quantum
Nope, LORD DAVID's existence is a hidden variable, hidden by Fegelein the Prankster, HIS most loyal servant, for HIS lulz.
ni'o mi nelci le zirpu sovmabrnornitorinku
Spoiler:
++$_ wrote:What's a "degree"?

EDIT: I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it's some ancient Babylonian unit for angles :/

edbdqt
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:46 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby edbdqt » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

Kyrn wrote:
dirtydanwojo wrote:Hey, guys?


Why do we care how the universe was formed? What practical use would we have for that information?

Cause and effect. Knowing more about the past and the present (the cause) would help us to predict the future (effect).


I don't know, sometimes the universe is fucking stochastic as shit. Even if we did know, so what? Baby boomers could give a crap less about how they're depleting social security and we think people will care more about an potential future million, if not billions, of years off?

User avatar
TheSoberPirate
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:48 am UTC
Location: 13 T 492960 4492224

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby TheSoberPirate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:38 pm UTC

Kyrn wrote:Also thought experiment: People have asked whether God can make God both exist and not exist, being omnipotent. Because of quantum mumbo-jumbo, the only way both can be true at the same time, is by not being observed. That is why we've no tangible proof that God exists. 8)

(as for wither the above can be true yet still be observable, the trick is that we do not know whether we have observed God or not. God may be omnipotent, but we aren't. 8) )

Eh, I would leave quantum mechanics out of discussions of god unless you really know what you're talking about. And to quote Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." From what I've been taught, all that quantum stuff only happens on the scale of individual particles; the macro-scale world that we live in is (mostly) described by old-fashioned Newtonian physics just fine. So unless god were an electron, all that quantum stuff wouldn't really apply. Besides, the whole bit about having to be "observed" is really misleading, it's really just about interacting with something. It doesn't matter if that interaction occurs between some instrument that we use to observe the particle or just some random matter or energy, the probability wave still collapses and you get one state or the other.
Last edited by TheSoberPirate on Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby uncivlengr » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:52 pm UTC

TheSoberPirate wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Also thought experiment: People have asked whether God can make God both exist and not exist, being omnipotent. Because of quantum mumbo-jumbo, the only way both can be true at the same time, is by not being observed. That is why we've no tangible proof that God exists. 8)

(as for wither the above can be true yet still be observable, the trick is that we do not know whether we have observed God or not. God may be omnipotent, but we aren't. 8) )

Eh, I would leave quantum mechanics out of discussions of god unless you really know what you're talking about. And to quote Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." From what I've been taught, all that quantum stuff only happens on the scale of individual particles; the macro-scale world that we live in is (mostly) described by old-fashioned Newtonian physics just fine. So unless god were an electron, all that quantum stuff wouldn't really apply. Besides, the whole bit about having to be "observed" is really misleading, it's really just about interacting with something. It doesn't matter if that interaction occurs between some instrument that we use to observe the particle or just some random matter or energy, the waveform still collapses and you get one or the other.
People love to misapply microscopic properties to macroscopic systems - like thinking that an unmade bed necessarily has higher entropy than a made one.
I don't know what to do for you

Aster Selene
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:36 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Aster Selene » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:45 am UTC

It's not like I'm forcing you to stop or anything.
I'm just really, really being insistent.

Because I'm begging you.

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby philip1201 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:32 am UTC

edbdqt wrote:
Kyrn wrote:
dirtydanwojo wrote:Hey, guys?


Why do we care how the universe was formed? What practical use would we have for that information?

Cause and effect. Knowing more about the past and the present (the cause) would help us to predict the future (effect).


I don't know, sometimes the universe is fucking stochastic as shit. Even if we did know, so what? Baby boomers could give a crap less about how they're depleting social security and we think people will care more about an potential future million, if not billions, of years off?


Just because something has causes and effects which lie millions of years apart in nature, doesn't mean we can't force it to do all sorts of insane stuff on the small scale. In nature, general relativity is something which only causes very small effect on entire planetary orbits, but we need it to make accurate GPS equipment - which baby boomers use in their satnavs. Who knows what kind of technological applications will flow forth from scientific investigations? All we know is that that's how we've got all the technology we have now.
So what if we know how the planets move, we're on Earth anyway, what do Persian War veterans in their retirement villas care about movements of points on the edge of the universe?


On the matter of science and religion - since atheists consider science to be the only system of making an accurate approximation of truth, they will naturally consider anything from a scientific perspective. Any debate about reality with an atheist is going to have to come down to science. For religious people, science is the subject which brought religion down from it's pedestal of incontrovertible fact, which makes the God of the Gaps - which is the only god which can not be disproved - a pretty flimsy god. Science vs. religion is the debate whether or not bronze age texts carry factual significance in modern reality. Theism vs. atheism is often confused and combined with this. Religious people fall back to the theism vs. atheism argument - since there no logical argument has/can disproved the Idea of god. Atheists fall back to the science vs. religion argument - since there the human-made gods can be shown to be irrelevant.

Theism and science can coexist in the same logical system ("if not science, god" is an example). Religion and science can't (since any existing religion makes statements which can be shown to be wrong scientifically - at least not without redefining it so thoroughly that it might as well be bland theism). I suggest to all who still want to debate this issue, to define what they are defending and what they are claiming to attack, before engaging in circular debates.

User avatar
thedavidshot
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:43 am UTC
Location: O'fallon, IL
Contact:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby thedavidshot » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:51 am UTC

I think this is the first time that I've ever wanted to hug Stephen Hawking, and to be frank, I didn't expect this feeling to occur tonight

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby uncivlengr » Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

philip1201 wrote:Theism and science can coexist in the same logical system ("if not science, god" is an example). Religion and science can't (since any existing religion makes statements which can be shown to be wrong scientifically - at least not without redefining it so thoroughly that it might as well be bland theism). I suggest to all who still want to debate this issue, to define what they are defending and what they are claiming to attack, before engaging in circular debates.
You might want to be careful about which terms you're using as well. I think you mean to talk about deism and theism, not theism and religion.

Theism is the belief that there's a personal God or Gods, and it has an active role in the functioning of the universe, which certainly makes statements about the universe that can certainly be tested by science. Deism, on the other hand, is the belief that a God/s created the world, but don't interfere in things with miracles and saviours, etc.

Secondly, religion is a human behaviour that exists, whether or not the tenets for any particular belief system espoused by a religion are scientifically valid. Saying science can disprove religion is like saying religion can disprove robberies.
I don't know what to do for you

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Kyrn » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:01 am UTC

TheSoberPirate wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Also thought experiment: People have asked whether God can make God both exist and not exist, being omnipotent. Because of quantum mumbo-jumbo, the only way both can be true at the same time, is by not being observed. That is why we've no tangible proof that God exists. 8)

(as for wither the above can be true yet still be observable, the trick is that we do not know whether we have observed God or not. God may be omnipotent, but we aren't. 8) )

Eh, I would leave quantum mechanics out of discussions of god unless you really know what you're talking about. And to quote Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." From what I've been taught, all that quantum stuff only happens on the scale of individual particles; the macro-scale world that we live in is (mostly) described by old-fashioned Newtonian physics just fine. So unless god were an electron, all that quantum stuff wouldn't really apply. Besides, the whole bit about having to be "observed" is really misleading, it's really just about interacting with something. It doesn't matter if that interaction occurs between some instrument that we use to observe the particle or just some random matter or energy, the probability wave still collapses and you get one state or the other.

pst, it's meant half-jokingly, but the point is still relevant. My point is that we simply cannot observe God because we would have no way of determining whether we did so. :P

Also, if you think you understand God, you don't understand God. 8)
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

a_passing_lunatic
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:40 am UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby a_passing_lunatic » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:19 pm UTC

Kyrn wrote:
dirtydanwojo wrote:Hey, guys?


Why do we care how the universe was formed? What practical use would we have for that information?

Cause and effect. Knowing more about the past and the present (the cause) would help us to predict the future (effect).


Another point of view:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious." (Einstein)

---

Religion and Science:

I have met a few religious people that seem to be a bit threatened by "science", but I don't think trying to explain your faith in the present language of science really helps - at least, it doesn't really help to communicate your faith. There are certain "scientific" modes of thinking, however ill-defined and difficult to generalise, to which the practice of trying to explain the world through an already existing text simply doesn't make sense. This is obvious, I suppose, but I think for some people there's a misunderstanding about how this worldview simply doesn't care if you can quasi-consistently cast genesis into a modern cosmological framework. Perhaps that says something interesting about language, but it doesn't have anything to do with cosmology.

I can't and won't attempt to explain what a "scientific worldview" is, because I know too little of science and its history, and I am too caught up in my own view of science to do a good job of it. However, I think that there's a lot more to it than dogmas of "experiment, theory, falsification, occam's razor" etc. These are important principles, but the power of the scientific interpretation does not rely simply on the application of these strong principles - these are complemented by sets of weaker principles in any given field that are essential to defining what the field is, and methods of "doing the science" which may be somewhat peculiar to that field, etc, etc.

In the end one is brought to any significant point of view, not by argument or persuasion or demonstration of its power (though these can help), but simply by learning it; your understanding of the world arises from relationships between what's in your head and what's outside, and so to see the world in a scientific way, you have to have a lot pf scientific ideas already in your head. There is no such thing as a person who judges everything based on EVIDENCE! So what am I trying to say in this rambling and undirected monologue? Maybe that I don't see it as a great mystery why such a misunderstanding between people exists.

But the misunderstanding goes both ways; people know that comparing god to the flying spaghetti monster is quite banal to many people, but many other people go on doing is and conclude with a "ha, got you there!". If you can't see the difference, I think the fault is with your lack of understanding. But what IS the difference? Well, I am an atheist, so I'd say for me that the idea of god makes no sense, while the idea of the flying spaghetti monster is just a silly one. But if you want a better answer, you can start with the empirical result that the sort of faith people have in a god is very different from the sort of faith people have in the flying spaghetti monster, and pursue that if you really want to. There may actually be productive dialogue to be had, and there are plenty of people willing to invest time and energy into said dialogue, productive or otherwise, but I don't think "No, I understand, and you're just giving me the emperor's new clothes" is an approach that is going to move in that direction.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby Waylah » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:45 pm UTC

I'm going to wave down a moderator and see if we can't get this here thread split into 'about the comic' and 'about the authority and/or validity of religious/PhD'd people and/or texts in determining 'truth'' (with a healthy post at the top getting people up to speed as to the definitions of theology, religion, deism, and such)

I'm going to recommend this on the grounds that as the comic makes no reference to anything about god or religion, it really has veered off-topic, albeit via a 'natural' progression. I think it is time this thread went the way of the yeast and budded off.



I've never done this before, but I've read the rules, and apparently I need to PM hammer. brb.
Actually, hitting the Report Post button would be better. I'll do that for you now. - Hammer

Wow, I never noticed that button before! Cheers; next time (if there is a next time) I will use that.

mric
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Postby mric » Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:07 pm UTC

Waylah wrote:I'm going to recommend this on the grounds that as the comic makes no reference to anything about god or religion, it really has veered off-topic, albeit via a 'natural' progression. I think it is time this thread went the way of the yeast and budded off.

Odd. I understood the comic to be exactly about the nature of arguments from authority, with reference to Hawking's recent statements about religion. The fact that the comic doesn't use the words 'god' or 'religion' doesn't mean it isn't referring to god or religion. The comic assumes a passing acquaintance with news headlines such as the New York Times' "Many Kinds of Universes - and None Require God" as the title for a review of Hawking's book.

I would therefore expect directly connected topics to be about arguments from authority, the conflict of scientific and religious cosmologies, the potential requirement for theological understanding to make comments about gods, first cause arguments etc.

User avatar
Richard.
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:29 am UTC
Location: On the internets
Contact:

Re: 0799: "Stephen Hawking"

Postby Richard. » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:08 am UTC

In summary,

I have found that members of both parties - those who argue against religion and those who argue with it - tend to be disfavored through natural selection because these types of people spend their time (that could otherwise be used to acquire a girlfriend/boyfriend, contributing to society, or helping themselves or others in a meaningful way) arguing about an unprovable, endless, and and ultimately insignificant topic.

However, it is quite fun to watch, because the arrogant and "I-am-correct-because-of-these-hopeless-reasons" tones expressed in such blind "arguments" (based on a false sense of superiority) often make the frequent internet user frantically e-rage to a point of hilariousness.

I did not have to type this out, and on most occasions I would simply observe and shake my head, but I felt particularly full of energy today.

So, you're welcome.
we live in a beautiful world.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: 0799: "Stephen Hawking"

Postby uncivlengr » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:35 am UTC

Richard. wrote:arrogant
Yeah, nothing worse than arrogance, right?
I don't know what to do for you



Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KittenKaboodle and 30 guests