BTW, you don't need God to create a Universe - Stephen Hawking

[scottredleter]

Humanity has wittled down the number of Gods from thousands to 1 (more or less). Maybe we've just finally gotten tot eh point where we can dump all these fairy tales into the can.

 

[helgaleena]

So the word "his" in Boobala's rhetorical question "would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?" referred to Stephen Hawking? I thought that it referred to God, which made the joke rather obscure to me.

How do we know if SHE even has feet????

 

[Drifterwood]

So the word "his" in Boobala's rhetorical question "would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?" referred to Stephen Hawking? I thought that it referred to God, which made the joke rather obscure to me.

I wouldn't fuck me either. :tongue:

 

[Drifterwood]

How do we know if SHE even has feet????

If I were God, I'd make damn sure I had more than two feet.

 

[Calboner]

Can we start to scrub out the bits of the Bible then that are clearly wrong and put them in a separate allegorical section?

I'm not trying to be funny, the Bible has been edited many many times, would it not be wise to update it for our own times?

Apart from the obvious practical problems, I see two theoretical problems with that proposal. One is that, as scientific and historical knowledge advances, more and more of the Bible is shown to be historically false, so more and more would have to be shunted into the "Allegory" section: not only the narrative of the creation and the Garden of Eden, but also the narrative of the exodus of Israel from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan.

Second, the more of the Bible that is evaluated as historically false, the more improbable it is to attribute allegorical intent to its writers. It is much more plausible to suppose that the writers simply believed a lot of things that were not true. The writers of the documents that made up the Pentateuch probably had no distinction between history and myth, and the writers of the later books of the Bible seem to have had at best a rather shaky grasp of the distinction.

 

[helgaleena]

He also states that philosophy is history and incapable of adding to human understanding. Science is the new Rock and Roll. I think that he has a point.

IMO rock'n'roll is more likely to be the new science... where did he say that, Drifter? I read the article you linked to and did not find that particular bit, just some stuff about blue flash paper not being needed.

Physicists always get philosophical like that. It was Einstein and some others who were getting all iffy on linear time too.

 

[Calboner]

How do we know if SHE even has feet????

Al Bundy saw God and reported that he (sic) had great shoes.

 

[helgaleena]

Al Bundy saw God and reported that he (sic) had great shoes.

Al Bundy the shoe salesman? :wink:

 

[Calboner]

Let me also add that the alarming amout of science denial in the USA us largely a cultural/political phenomenon, but one that is wrapped up in a kind of Christanity that is also inseparable from that cultural/political force.

I think this famous Venn diagram sums things up very neatly.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Until they hold the balance of power.

Can we start to scrub out the bits of the Bible then that are clearly wrong and put them in a separate allegorical section?

I'm not trying to be funny, the Bible has been edited many many times, would it not be wise to update it for our own times?

Thomas Jefferson thought the same thing, and he actually rewrote a new bible, taking out all the mystical magical stuff. One of these days, I'll have to find it and read it and see what was left.

 

[JustAsking]

I think this famous Venn diagram sums things up very neatly.

Scheisse! I could have just posted that diagram and saved myself a lot of typing.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

One thing I want to point out in this discussion is that the scientist (in this case, Hawking) has made his claim in a book within his field. Basically, he's saying that within his discipline, there is no longer a need to insert a god into the equations. He has not entered houses of worship to plaster his thoughts on the stained glass windows. However, it seems religious people are often trying to insert their beliefs into science classrooms. Can you imagine the public outcry if it went the other way around?

 

[Drifterwood]

IMO rock'n'roll is more likely to be the new science... where did he say that, Drifter? I read the article you linked to and did not find that particular bit, just some stuff about blue flash paper not being needed.

Physicists always get philosophical like that. It was Einstein and some others who were getting all iffy on linear time too.

Yes, apologies. Here in the UK, the Times ran a special supplement and has been discussing the book at length in the paper. Unfortunately, you now have to subscribe to be able to read the times online. I'll see if I can find wider coverage than the BBC headlined coverage.

Re the philosophy, it is quite a challenging question, is there truth outside science?