Feed on Posts or Comments 02 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Science Thomas on 10 Jun 2010 12:37 am

According to Stephen Hawking, “Religion will be defeated by science”

Let us hope Stephen Hawking is right:

Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science

Hawking, who has already recommended that we should steer clear of aliens, suggested to Sawyer that this was somewhat less likely than North Korea winning the World Cup: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”

36 Responses to “According to Stephen Hawking, “Religion will be defeated by science””

  1. on 10 Jun 2010 at 8:21 pm 1.Marcus said …

    The man has more intelligence in the end of the nail of his little finger than the likes of Corey and Xenon have in their entire beings combined.

  2. on 11 Jun 2010 at 4:36 am 2.GODS HELPER48561 said …

    he could be smart but god is smart and might that happen god will strike back hard and turn religion back on in seconds without making a breath for science and this so called website from hell are the creaters of this site that blind open your eyes I say ur blind and god wants you to see!

  3. on 11 Jun 2010 at 11:07 am 3.Lou said …

    I didn’t realize there was even a war. I hope religion is refuted so the we can get back to knowing Jesus and not the religious laws of men.

    I do so hope we can stay clear of the aliens Hawking fears.

  4. on 11 Jun 2010 at 11:53 am 4.A real-ist said …

    “I hope religion is refuted so the we can get back to knowing Jesus and not the religious laws of men.”

    Isn’t Jesus part of a religion?

    “I do so hope we can stay clear of the aliens Hawking fears.”

    Actually aliens are more of a probablilty than God. Other planets full of life exist out there. We are just too far away for aliens to reach us unless they find a wormhole of some sort. And who knows what stage in life other planets are at.

  5. on 11 Jun 2010 at 6:53 pm 5.Severin said …

    Thank you S.H.!
    Thank you WWGHA to show me this!

  6. on 11 Jun 2010 at 11:48 pm 6.Curmudgeon said …

    “Actually aliens are more of a probablilty than God. Other planets full of life exist out there.”

    Remarkable, can you provide the proof? Observations, testing, retesting and data we can review? So you believe in the little green men, huh?

  7. on 12 Jun 2010 at 7:27 pm 7.Anonymous said …

    @Curmudgeon
    When you consider the universe the probability of aliens existing is more likely than the existence of a god.

  8. on 12 Jun 2010 at 10:51 pm 8.Rostam said …

    “aliens existing is more likely than the existence of a god.”

    Never seen one so why is the probability higher? Can you provide evidence or is this just opinion?

    Considering the obvious design of the cell and the universe the probability of God is much higher.

    I don’t need a source since we are just throwing out opinion.

  9. on 13 Jun 2010 at 12:49 am 9.state of ..? said …

    “Other planets full of life exist out there.”

    Please do explain and name any if you may.. not those who had, but those who still have.

    “Actually aliens are more of a probablilty than God. Other planets full of life exist out there. We are just too far away for aliens to reach us unless they find a wormhole of some sort. And who knows what stage in life other planets are at.”

    Wormholes and Space time travel is a little bit beyond reality, far beyond our minds.. don’t you think,
    Real-ist?

  10. on 13 Jun 2010 at 12:51 am 10.state of ..? said …

    What I mean by Space time travel is galatical traveling.

  11. on 13 Jun 2010 at 3:25 am 11.Gary Sellars said …

    What a joke.

    Everything in science proves the truth of God’s Word.

    There are no exceptions.

    If you fools would do your homework (that’s a joke), you would learn that in *every* past instance where it “appeared” that science and the Bible were at odds, it was found that the “science” wasn’t science at all, but either an opinion of man wrongly assumed to be science, even worse, a deliberate lie pretending to be science or a stupid philosophy deceitfully labeled “science.”

    Such is evolution… or should we more accurately call evolution a religion? Probably.

  12. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:05 am 12.Severin said …

    6 Curmudgeon
    Why do yo think you are not obligate to give us some proofs about existing of god?

    When talking aliens, we are talking PROBABILITY. When talking good, you CLAIM it exists (or, do you?).
    Just WHY do you think you and other believers are free of obligation to expose evidences for your clims?

  13. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:23 am 13.Severin said …

    Rostam, Curmudgeon, Gary Sellars,

    I would not care much about aliens.’I personally think they exist at many places in this huge universe, but they (if exists) are so far from us that any communication except to discover their signals by chance would be impossible. Little chance that they exist in a sphere 1000 light years around us.
    If they did, our communication would be like this: “Good morning, aliens here” then we would send our answer, and wait 2000 years for their answer.

    Moral and scientific implications of discovery of alien signals would be tremendous, of course. Practical consequences: zero, except if someone really finds “worm holes”.

  14. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:42 am 14.Severin said …

    Rostam, Curmudgeon, Gary Sellars,

    Probability is mathematical discipline, not something occuring “by chance”, and as all math disciplines, it is ACCURATE.
    It does not say WHETHER something will occure or not! Other laws of physics, math, chemistry tell us whether something is possible to occure or not.
    For example, lowas of chemistry say: you can NOT produce water from hydrogen and oxygen unless you inniciate reaction by some fire. Probability CAN NOT change that law, but by probability we can calculate WHAT ARE THE CHANCES to get some fire to burn O + H.

    In fact, probability says: if something is possible, IT WILL HAPPEN, if enough trials (enough time) is available. By probability math, if you know conditions under which something is possible to happen, you just calculate WHEN will it happen, not WHETHER will it hapen!

    WE ALREADY HAVE a planet with intlleigent species, WE are here, and it is the OBVIOUS proof intelligent life is possible to develop on a planet.

    There are TRILLIONS of planets in universe! Just WHY some og them would not be similar to earth? It is more likely that millions of them are, then that they are not in position and with conditions similar to earth.

    WHY is it SO strange for you guys?

    You are afraid to share your god with aliens?
    Do not be afraid of it!

    If intelligent, aliens forgot their gods milleniums ago!

  15. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:59 am 15.Severin said …

    11 Gary Sellers
    “…it was found that the “science” wasn’t science at all, but either an opinion of man wrongly assumed to be science, even worse, a deliberate lie pretending to be science or a stupid philosophy deceitfully labeled “science.”

    WOW!
    WHO found science wasn’t science?
    A deliberate lie?!

    So you are just PRETENDING to use your mobile phone? You, in fact, do not have one. Nobody does!
    You are just PRETENDING to seek medical help when sick? In fact, you never go to hospitals.
    In fact, hospitals DO NOT EXIST. They are all deliberate lies! They only PRETEND to exist!
    They are only LYING you when you use elevators, plains, GPS, cars, TV…nothing of that exist in reality.

    And, of course, when you calculate something, you just PRETEND 2×2=4. It is deliberate lie!

    In reality, you are lost!
    As I can see, you are just PRETENDING to use computer to write your messages. Your messages, in fact, do not exist!

  16. on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:34 pm 16.Ted Tyro said …

    Hello. I found your video on ‘why god won’t heal amputees quite compelling, but” found that the arguments got weaker as the video went on. I’m not sure if you were working within time limits, but the apparently self-explanatory elements towards the end were inadequate and, on occasion, fairly easily refutable.

    My other concern is the use of subjective language throughout the site.I’ve noticed it throughout, but I will refer to the page on crucifixion as an example. You use terminology that makes the entire concept of the crucifixion seem utterly ridiculous. However, you establish this conclusion through the persistent use of language, rather than through compelling argument or evidence. This will allow an ardent Christian to quickly dismiss your position as biased.

    By way of example, consider American democracy – it is a magnificent idea from most peoples’ perspectives, at least compared to the alternatives. Yet an unflattering description can make it seem nothing more than the opinion of an articulate op-ed writer: ‘A system where even the most ignorant and uneducated person is counted equal alongside the most informed and educated members of the public. Where a person’s political connections and access to resources will allow them to trump even the most competent and ethical opponent. Where the ability to passionately apply rhetoric outweighs the best thought-out policy. Where a contrived blemish in one’s long-distance past can be an irretrievable condemnation, yet the appearance of spiritual purity can disguise the most apparent personal failings.’

    Your site is clearly aimed at those who will take the time to think through your arguments and genuinely consider alternative viewpoints. Yet it descends into largely unsupported opinion (at least as far as this site reveals) on a number of occasions, and, as a result, will lose many of those whom it intends to convince. Consider the page on crucifixion as a prime example – it is true that this argument raises many valid points, but because it speaks with a voice that assumes its own rationality, it make no attempts to justify its conclusions.

    I believe in democracy, and I believe in the revealing the truth – no matter how uncomfortable it may be for many people. Please modify your site to reflect more supportable arguments in favour of an imaginary God. The rest is a waste of time.

  17. on 15 Jun 2010 at 5:26 am 17.A real-ist said …

    “Everything in science proves the truth of God’s Word.”

    Here is a quick thought for you. At the beginning of the bible it states God created light on one day, and then the sun the next day after that. Science proves that you need the sun in order to have natural light. So how could God create light before the sun? But God is all knowing and knew what was being put in the bible, right?

  18. on 15 Jun 2010 at 1:23 pm 18.state of ..? said …

    “At the beginning of the bible it states God created light on one day, and then the sun the next day after that.”

    In the beginning, God created heavens and the Earth. The bible never saids that He created the Sun and the Moon on that “fourth day”. In fact, it saids that He just seperates the light on the “first day” and on the “fourth day” He made one to govern day and the other for the night or seperate day from night. In Scientific terms, the Earth was not rotating on the “first day”.

    “Science proves that you need the sun in order to have natural light.”

    Science does prove that. Science also proves that there was a Universal explosion in the beginning(Big Bang Theory), which had no Sun and was a natural light. Most likely, you would just need intense radiation to provide light.

  19. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:43 pm 19.Martin said …

    “Remarkable, can you provide the proof? Observations, testing, retesting and data we can review? So you believe in the little green men, huh?”

    Can you apply this samely to God?

  20. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:52 pm 20.Martin said …

    “Science does prove that. Science also proves that there was a Universal explosion in the beginning(Big Bang Theory), which had no Sun and was a natural light. Most likely, you would just need intense radiation to provide light.”

    The sun, as all stars, are just big, very big, nuclear reactors, which to my limited understanding is just intense radiation, yeah?

    I am amazed that these debates, or are they just blogs as one person argued with me earlier, continue to happen. Using the argument that the bible explains science is difficult for most of us in the academic realm to swallow. When the bible was written, it was written by men who probably had never traveled more than a hundred miles from their birthplace. Men who thought the stars were pretty points of light in the night sky, that the sun “rose in the East, and set in the West”, that if they traveled too far they would fall off the flat earth. Come on, how do we apply something written so long ago to today’s rational world? More has been disproved by science than religion has been able to prove.

  21. on 19 Jun 2010 at 8:51 pm 21.stae of ..? said …

    “Men who thought the stars were pretty points of light in the night sky, that the sun “rose in the East, and set in the West”, that if they traveled too far they would fall off the flat earth.”

    All men believed the Earth was flat and the sun was rotating around the Earth. This statement is invalid because all societies believed that the Earth was flat. Until, the conflict arose in about 450 BC.

  22. on 19 Jun 2010 at 10:15 pm 22.Martin said …

    Oh, but wasn’t it the church that put those who wanted to challenge these beliefs to death? Either put to death or arrested and forced to recant their knowledge.

    In the dark ages, the church pretty much controlled all education, all thought, all science, and all government.

  23. on 19 Jun 2010 at 10:18 pm 23.Martin said …

    “All men believed the Earth was flat and the sun was rotating around the Earth. This statement is invalid because all societies believed that the Earth was flat. Until, the conflict arose in about 450 BC.”

    But, those of us who have outgrown the bible’s teachings, KNOW that the book was written by men who believed as you say. We do NOT use manuscripts from 2,000 years ago to support our “belief systems” in science. We have grown beyond the need to apply ancient understanding to a modern world. It’s as simple as that for most of us.

  24. on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:41 pm 24.state of ..? said …

    “Oh, but wasn’t it the church that put those who wanted to challenge these beliefs to death? Either put to death or arrested and forced to recant their knowledge.”

    Yes, Catholics did propose the challenge and managed to prevail. Unfortunately, this also happened to Christians, so Christians suffered along with the non-beleivers.

    “We do NOT use manuscripts from 2,000 years ago to support our “belief systems” in science.”

    I believe the teachings of Aristotle, Socrates, Xenophanes, Plato(and many more) were written down and scientist/philosophers do refer to it. These works were made over 2000 years ago. Also, their observations do support “belief systems” of both Science and Atheism.

  25. on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:41 am 25.Martin said …

    You do realize that Catholics are Christians, right? I’ve seen you seem to separate them on a couple of occasions.

    You are right, we do appreciate the writings of Socrates, Aristotle, and many others, but mainly as men who were known as great thinkers. They did not write down a history that we now adhere to as a theological construct of the reality of the world or its creation. Most of the writers from that period who wrote plays and works of fiction, we see them as such, either valuable as early constructs for reason, or as beneficial to us as entertainment.

    MOST of the scientific knowledge from 2000 years ago we now know was either flawed or simply incomplete and we accept that as we move forward with today’s scientific studies. It would be like taking Newton’s laws and never expanding them, if science were to take the same stance as Christianity does toward the bible.

  26. on 20 Jun 2010 at 7:23 am 26.Severin said …

    24 Stet of…
    “I believe the teachings of Aristotle, Socrates, Xenophanes, Plato(and many more) were written down and scientist/philosophers do refer to it.”

    The essential difference between techings of the a.m. people and religions:
    They never FORCED anyone to accept their techings! They had no power to force anyone! Their thoughts were put on the „free market“, exposed to critics and questioning.
    They were ingenious free thinkers, curious thinkers, people who tried to rationally explain the world surounding them.
    As rationally as it was possible at the level of knowledge available at that time.
    Some of them were so ingenious that they intuintively understtod things which were forgotten later, then „rediscovered“, much later.
    Some of them were exposed to anger of actual authorities and killed.

    „Official“ religions were protected. In fact, they were all the time closely connected to actual authorities. They were in position to IMPOSE their „teachings“ to the society, most frequently by brutal force and threats.

    So:
    a) Teachings and thoughts of „free thinkers“ surived thanks to their ingeniosity
    b) Religions survived thanks to brutal force

    Societies were FORCED to accept stupid „explanations“ imposed by religions. Most frequently, people which oposed religions, were punished/killed/burnt, no matter how ingenious his achievments were.

    All religions of all the times were „brakes“ for scinece.

    Just WHEN did ANY religion allow its “teachings” to be questioned?

  27. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:18 am 27.Severin said …

    24 State of…
    “Yes, Catholics did propose the challenge and managed to prevail. Unfortunately, this also happened to Christians, so Christians suffered along with the non-beleivers.”
    Catholics WERE christians! They were christians BEFORE all other christian churches separated!
    Catholics FOUNDED christianity.

    Now kindly explain WHAT are the “big differences” among many christian churches!
    They ALL have the Bible as their ONLY tool!
    They ALL believe god made man from mud (dust? dirt?).
    They ALL believe there was big flood, and Noah picked kangaroos from Australia to save them, as god ordered.
    They ALL glorify god’s decision to sacrifice his own son to satisfy his sick need for blood, which he showed so many times in the OT.

    Catholic church, at least, DID some progress, when John Paul II proclaimed evolution “acceptable” for catholics.
    Most of other christian churches accept creationism (6000 years old earth, dinos lived togther with humans…)

    WHAT are the differences?

    Enlighten us, please!

  28. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:20 am 28.Severin said …

    “They ALL beieve…” please read: They ALL PROCLAIM, and expect us to trust the BS!
    So, WHAT are the big differences among all of them?

  29. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:09 pm 29.Anonymous said …

    “You do realize that Catholics are Christians, right? I’ve seen you seem to separate them on a couple of occasions.”

    Catholics are part of Christianity, yes. Christians and Catholics are not the same, as you know. In general, they belong to a religion that has the same God, but practice differently.

    “MOST of the scientific knowledge from 2000 years ago we now know was either flawed or simply incomplete and we accept that as we move forward with today’s scientific studies. It would be like taking Newton’s laws and never expanding them, if science were to take the same stance as Christianity does toward the bible.”

    We do not know that for sure. Thanks to the Roman Empire and their actions. The library of Alexandria was destroyed and we will never know how complete it was.
    Can we agree on that, sir?

    “Catholics WERE christians! They were christians BEFORE all other christian churches separated!
    Catholics FOUNDED christianity.”

    Catholics are not the same as Christians, they practice differently, you can look it up if you like.

    “They ALL have the Bible as their ONLY tool!
    They ALL believe god made man from mud (dust? dirt?).
    They ALL believe there was big flood, and Noah picked kangaroos from Australia to save them, as god ordered.
    They ALL glorify god’s decision to sacrifice his own son to satisfy his sick need for blood, which he showed so many times in the OT.

    These foolish “attributes” trying to explain the similarities of both religions are incorrect. Please educate yourself before you fail again. Bible is not the only “tool” in Christianity. God made us from dust? the same way that abiogenesis occured but just with a deity involved. and Noah did not picked kangaroos from Australia to save them, this statement is unknown, because it does not explain which were “brought” to Noah. So on and so forth. Please take some time and find out the differences between both religions. Before making foolish comments.

    “„Official“ religions were protected. In fact, they were all the time closely connected to actual authorities. They were in position to IMPOSE their „teachings“ to the society, most frequently by brutal force and threats.”

    Quick resource:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_invictus
    Please read: Sol Invictus and Christianity, If needed continue to research.

  30. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:13 pm 30.State of ..? said …

    Anonymous was me who posted last..

    To end your “foolishness”..
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Christianity_and_Catholicism

    One of many, please allow yourself to do the research, if willing.

  31. on 20 Jun 2010 at 9:56 pm 31.Severin said …

    29 Anonimous
    “Christians and Catholics are not the same, as you know.”

    I do not know that, because it is not right!

    All catholics are christians. All other christians are NOT catholics.

    In math, you would say:

    Set of „catholics“ is subset of „christians“.
    Like: all birds are animals, all animals are NOT birds, or
    Set of „birds“ is subset of „animals“.

  32. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:00 pm 32.Severin said …

    30 State of…

    Please see the information from the suggested web address more carefully, and you will see there confirmation of what I said:

    “This should read “what are the differences between Catholicism and OTHER Christians?”
    Bold is mine!

    So, as you SHOULD know, catholics ARE christians!

  33. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:25 pm 33.state of ..? said …

    Severin, my dear brother, I was not talking to you for the statement following:“Christians and Catholics are not the same, as you know.”

    Catholics are part of Christianity, which labels them as Christians in a general sense. You have proven my point exactly, you fail in reaching your point just to prove mines. You also forgot to read once again my comment:”One of many, please allow yourself to do the research, if willing.” This means not a complete source there are more differences, or maybe you “DIDN’T KNOW”, thank you for comment.. Allow me to to prove my point in a way for your understandings: Catholics are part of Christianity. Christians and Catholics differ due to their practices, and to gets more specific into different demominations within CHRISTIANITY…

  34. on 20 Jun 2010 at 11:44 pm 34.Martin said …

    “Catholics are part of Christianity, yes. Christians and Catholics are not the same, as you know. In general, they belong to a religion that has the same God, but practice differently.”

    I’m sorry but this makes NO sense at all. I’m not trying to split hairs, but the RELIGION is Christianity, period…. there was a split between Catholics and Protestants, but that was more political than anything else. The differences are in the Denominations of Christianity.

    Catholics are Christians.
    Baptist are Christians.
    Methodists are Christians.
    Lutherans are Christians.
    Episcopals (sp?) are Christians.
    Mormons are Christians (with a weird twist.)
    Muslims are NOT Christians.

    Your argument can not separate Catholics from Christians, by definition a Christian is a follower of Christ.

  35. on 20 Jun 2010 at 11:49 pm 35.Martin said …

    And State of? Your Wikki Answers was a very well written citation on the differences between the two branches of Christianity, Catholics and Protestants. Thank you, I enjoyed reading it.

  36. on 22 Jun 2010 at 7:53 pm 36.Mac said …

    “science will win because it works”
    How many lives have been saved from science? I have saved peoples lives through Jesus Christ and him alone using me as his tool… and that’s fine with me!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply