Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

its about godamn time we emphasize on steven hawkings narrow dogmatic view & also those in the other scientific community that believe 'if science cant explain it, i cannot be true.' i cant believe it took so long for people to recognize this.

reply to post by lestweforget


He clearly believes in god on some subconscious level or it wouldn't even be an issue on the back of his mind, or we wouldn't have even have contemplated his existence to find out weather or not its true in the first place. I also imagine that he has a lot of animosity towards any sort of godlike figures due to his physical condition. This may in fact be the mantle he carries due to the lack of faith invested within himself to know that he is real and not some biological chemical process governing itself through its environment, and not its own conscious awareness of self.

Originally posted by Nikola014

Hawking: Godless, mindless, soulless and hopeless
In "The God Within," Adams takes aim at famed physicist Stephen Hawking, author of the book "The Grand Design." In that book, Hawking claims that human beings are merely "biological machines" with no consciousness, no souls, no spirit, no mind and nothing but a collection of organized chemicals that run physical brains in a deterministic machine-like way. This belief, says filmmaker Mike Adams, also the editor of NaturalNews.com, is a dangerous pretext for the "scientific" experimentation on human beings because it fails to recognize the value of life, free will or conscious experience.

www.naturalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 12-6-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jun 12 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

Honestly It's a HUGE assumption to think that viewing the body and mind as a machine will lead to such atrocities....Why would such views lead to a devaluing of life, orfree will or conscious experience....that's nothing but a baseless assumption on the authors part. It could perhaps be used as an EXCUSE to justify abusing human rites, but assuming it will be is just fear mongering. One could make a much stronger argument that blind faith has, led to some of the most dehumanizing acts in history (and likely will continue to do so).

Hawkings has a right to believe whatever he wants, just like the rest of us. Science will never explain the soul or free will though some will try. I wish they would spend thier time and energy on getting me my flying car or at least one that gets 100mpg and can do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds flat. Maybe get that fusion thing down , get antigravity purpulsion system, repair spinal and nerve damage or cure cancer. I dont understand why these "Intellectual Giants" are waisting their time and the rest of ours on religious matters. It would be like listening to the Pope talk about the unified string theory. People will believe what they want to believe. I just dont understand why these guys are talking religion, it doesnt make any difference what they think about the subject, its not changing anything, its not improving quality of life and personally I think its asinine.


Bill

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Science could explain what you were going to do if it weren't for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. From our understanding, each electro-chemical reaction in your brain acts predictably according to physical laws that govern reality.

The only room for arguments of free-will is the unpredictable behavior of sub-atomic particles. This is the only place you could consider to be under the influence of a spiritual component of our decision-making. However, we may soon be able to properly model quantum physics, at which point you will have to look deeper.

If free-will doesn't exist, our justice system isn't flawed because individuals who have natural destructive tendencies should be removed from a civilized society, even if deep down it is not the criminal's fault.

There is proof of intelligent design all around you and even in you.Ever look in a microscope and see all those tiny microscopic machines working together to keep the body functioning?

People who say we are alone in the universe are blind or in denial.

Honestly who cares what Steven Hawkings says?His guess is as good as anyone's.And just because you give a scientific explanation for it doesn't mean there isn't some other force at work!

peace

I said it before, and I will say it again....HAARP.

That said, the reason why I think they are trying to shut down S.H. is to prevent him to talk about how are brains can be influenced my electromagnetic signals...ie. read between the lines, HAARP.

It has been said that HAARP may have mind control powers, which if we relate this to Hawking's theory, may have many scientists questioning the weaponry usage by the governments in mind control. Just my two cents, and I'll back it up more when I have the chance to do so.

Best regards.

reply to post by Nikola014


Well he is right in a way that because of his condition he may be inclined to give an opinion too logical to fit in the real world

Everything is not about mathematics or phisics, the real world tell us about it all the time.

With science we forgot the real ourselves, although we are better with science than without it, it deffinitely can`t solve all the problems of mankind because of the free will that`s upon us

Is like trying to pùt the first smile of your kid in words or numbers, a symphony in mere equations qithout contemplating the master creative mind behind it.

Einstein said it all

Creativeness is a lot more important than Intelligence

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


Wow. Didn't see that one coming.

The existence of consciousness does not sit well with modern scientific thinkers, because there is no way to gain empirical evidence of it. There are no contexts that can make room for consciousness in the academia approved physical models, thus Hawking tows the line here. No shock.

What is shocking is the sheer amount of people now asking these types of questions. That is truly a good sign in these dangerous times...

Originally posted by Nikola014

Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

www.naturalnews.com

Behind every madman, there is a distorted philosophy that denies people their humanity, says Mike Adams, creator of the new mini-documentary "The God Within," available now on NaturalNews.TV. This documentary deconstructs the core philosophies underpinning modern scientific thinking, unveiling the frightening fact that most modern scientists do not believe human beings have free will, a soul, or even anything resembling consciousness.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 12-6-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

Naturalnews is a hack site for people too dumb to research any of the nonsense they read there.

If Hawking really believes that, then he is just a tool of dialectical scientific materialism.

the part of the link that suggests "pain" is just a biological response haven't met russian or american special forces that have trained their mind and body to ignore pain.

or the martial art masters in far east asia who test the limits, if there is any of the mind over physical pain to limits that far surpass a merely biological response.

i think hawkins ego and self absorbtion have taken over his rational mind, but, according to him those things don't exist either.

that's typical of science, if they can't prove something, they dismiss it. their egos and pride can't accept things that are far above their intelligence.

that's why for hundreds of years "scientists" thought the earth was flat.

Hawking has a right to say what he likes and I enjoy some of his "Into the Universe" production. Maybe he doesnt believe in God because of the way he is (disabled).

I watch the Creation Vs Evolution theories with some amusement because the evolutionist still cant find that missing link that makes us human, and creationist just refer to the Bible.

Personally i'm on the side of creationism due to one paragraph below:

"For humans to evolve the way we have you would of had a better chance of creating a fully functioning 747 plane by sending as whirlwind through a junk yard !!"

To me the above quote pretty much says it is almost impossible we evolved the way evolutionist say we did. I will be teaching my kids both sides of the coin though so they can make up their own minds.

im going to quote the great dr delbert blair. there are three races on earth. there are human beings, mankind and the sons of man. all three are different things. ill do my best to explain. the sons of man was the original race on earth and have been here for close to 4 billion years. thats what credo mutwa is telling you in his story with david icke. they were non physical 5th dimensional beings. thats why theres no physical record of them. they were negroid in physical form. then you have human beings. they were genetic manipulation of animals in human form. mankind are different beings from different star systems that are here on earth reptilians greys pleiadians etc. we all share the consciousness of the creator and are all parts of the whole.

reply to post by SpaceMonkeys


I find myself in complete agreement with your analysis. A simple thought experiment shows me that there is more going on then biological destiny + environment.

Imagine an apartment building filled with artists. Each from different backgrounds and ethnicities, with various belief systems, philosophies and so forth. Now imagine that each lives alone in an efficiency apartment, and that each apartment has no doors or windows.

Each day, a disembodied voice / animation appears on a screen and speaks a single phrase. From that phrase, each artist will create in the style of their choosing, an original work of art, inspired by the phrase.

Imagine the phrase today is: "Empire Action Desire Growth." From this phrase, a painter might construct an elaborate painting of a natural space, "taking over" a man-made structure. A writer might tell a story about a strange virus that makes a human believe believe they have become a tree. A musician might construct a song using the root notes or chords E, A, D, and G.

The point is that each will construct something entirely different. So far so good right? Now imagine that after several weeks, the daily phrase repeats, and it is again, "Empire Action Desire Growth." Will the individual artists simply recreate their previous work? Will any of the artist create a work which is exactly like one another artist made the time before? Based on what they created before, using the same trigger, can a computer predict the trajectory of their approach at this moment?

I don't have any answers, except to say that I have written dozens of songs using those same chords and they are all very different from one another. If I am merely the sum total of my biology and my environment, how is this "range of novelty" possible?

Originally posted by Nikola014

Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

www.naturalnews.com

Behind every madman, there is a distorted philosophy that denies people their humanity, says Mike Adams, creator of the new mini-documentary "The God Within," available now on NaturalNews.TV. This documentary deconstructs the core philosophies underpinning modern scientific thinking, unveiling the frightening fact that most modern scientists do not believe human beings have free will, a soul, or even anything resembling consciousness.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 12-6-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

You have to understand that a majority of the rank and file scientist's are sociopaths(granted they are much closer to normal than to psychopathy). They don't have a conscience, all they have is a void. So from their perspectives they are just biological machines with no souls.

Also remember that Stephen Hawking is a rank and file scientist that ended up with far to much time on his hands due to his disability and wrote a few pop books. Granted is a very intelligent/smart person, but he is no Newton or Tesla.

reply to post by ShadowZion

religion states that any being who considers himself as divine as god will go to hell

As a Christian that's more or less the opposite to the way I understand Christ's teachings.
He may say that the way to heaven is through him, but he preaches to be like him - the son of God
It's not actually possible to fully understand the concept which is why he says to accept his words and understand them by putting them into practice. Of course this is a matter of blind faith, something which can easily be taken advantage of, but not something we can't learn from.

Hawking strikes me as a brave man with an open mind. I thought he had a place for God in his outlook. I can see how his scientific processes don't need God. I'm not buying the OP's assessments / links as being credible information. One of Hawking's main studies is what life is and he makes assumptions. He mentions God - or a creator quite a bit.

I don't personally believe in a creator in the biblical sense, rather that the bible holds some ancient beliefs and as human beings being a progression of souls constantly adapting to new experiences and evolving into new environments, in a broken way, we are very much entwined with the past events that evoked a God figurehead.

It's not going to be possible to find God. We can only interpret what exists within our life-form and through the random nature of the universe we discover rules.

It's a nice image of Gods work, gained by language of God.

Daniel Tammet is a well known "savant" who has been studied by psychologists. He is famous for remembering the value of pi to over twenty thousand digits, for learning Icelandic in two weeks, and for being able to do very difficult calculations in his head.

When he thinks of pi, he sees an extensive landscape in his mind, with each feature of the landscape representing a digit. When he sees pi written out in numbers he is aware when a wrong digit has been introduced into the number, because the "landscape" in his mind is marred in the numerical representation.

Materialistic science would say that Tammet, and all of us, "store" facts in the brain, as if in a large filing cabinet, or on a magnetic disk.

What makes Tammet interesting as an object of study is that his awareness is acute enough to actually observe this procedure as a physically perceived reality in his brain.

Something is accessing the filing cabinet and checking the files for accuracy. Tammet is both carrying out the process and observing the process.

What is the "something"?

How does this something "know" when the number on the blackboard deviates from the number in his interior landscape? Tammet doesn't talk about "two landscapes", the right landscape and the wrong landscape, being compared. Why not?

Does this unexplained "something" have another, unobserved source of data that it consults in a way that is unobserved by Tammet?

Materialists would say that we are at the edge of a sort of "black box" the workings of which are impossible to observe, except through the study of brain function, using modern scanning instruments and rigorous applications of inductive logic.

When Tammet does extremely difficult calculations in his head, he is aware of the numbers as "blobs" of different shapes. The blobs merge to form a single blob, which is the answer to the calculation.

That's a problem.

Nobody teaches that. That's not in the repertoire of "speed math" tricks, which is another way of saying, that knowledge was not filed in the filing cabinets of his brain, the way the rest of us get our mathematical knowledge.

Scientific materialists would say, well, that is still theoretically explained by the black box analogy. Some physical process is clearly taking place, as Tammet attests, and he is aware of that process and able to interpret it, through material means, which are not as yet understood.

These are two instances of mental phenomena, quite distinct, but with a common element. The common element is the "black box", the unknown factor or process by which these mental operations are carried out, observed and interpreted.

Spiritual people might say that in these two instances, science itself has proven or at least strongly suggested the presence of a transcendant element, within the body which carries out those operations, something that even Tammet himself, cannot observe.

Spiritual people also would say that the failure to accept this as a possibility is proof of the existence of a Church of Science unwilling to admit the possibility of facts which transcend the current materialistic model, despite indications of it from their own observations.

Suppose there is nothing found in the black box? That would be a spiritual person's expectation.

From the materialist's point of view, there is some process consisting of material, within the black box.

This process must be carried out by so called "interneurons" one of the three count'em, three kinds of neurons. There are billions of neurons in the brain, theoretically capable of transmitting immense numbers of electrical signals and of storing, according to Carl Sagan in his book Dragons of Eden more information than there are atoms in the universe.

The sensory neurons handle sense perceptions, the motor neurons handle body movements and the interneurons handle communications and "make consciousness possible."

For all biological references see:

www.eruptingmind.com...

Imagine having to make everything out of three kinds of lego blocks. The people at Lego will likely tell you that it can be done.

Maybe they are right.

They may even believe that you could make a catalogue, out of lego blocks to keep track of it all.

The black box materialists take it as an article of faith that thought that a human being is capable of is not only an arrangement of lego blocks, but the arranging of the blocks is also done by the blocks themselves, who receive directions from other blocks, who conceive of these directions . . . how?

Well, materialists would say that, a more fundamental level black box takes care of this.

Does anyone other than a spiritual person see an "infinite loop" looming in this argument?

This is a logical argument for a transcendant "entity".

The Church of Science is reluctant to accept the logic of this argument, but they should be aware that this is only the tip of the iceberg. People in the religious life have gone much further than this.

At some point in the black box analogy a lego block (neuron) will be expected to do something that even a scientific materialist will acknowledge, might be beyond it's capabilities. The Church of Science does not want to go to that place, just as many other churches will not deviate from their orthodoxies.

There is too much money, too much status, too much ego, too much pride too much shame involved, to change, on such a fundamental point.

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


Me viewing this post. And even bothering to reply to your comment is an example of free will.

Wow, this stuff is getting blown out of proportion.

Like someone mentioned earlier; it's theoretical science. Key word: Theoretical.
The majority of what Hawking has said, in this case and many others, is only meant as an exercise to explore the boundaries of possibility. Doesn't mean it is the end-all of any scientific debate; it's meant to be a starting point or milestone.

As far as "If science can't prove it, it isn't true" being antiquated, outdated, etc...
All I can say to that is, it's simply common sense.

Too many people view this as a "this OR that" situation. You have 3 catagories: Facts and Laws (which are proven, at least temporarily), Theories (which have no evidence one way or the other), and Fallacies and Nontruth (which have evidence that contradicts it).

There is no direct evidence (at this time) of conciousness, the soul, gods, or what have you.
Until there is evidence proving or disproving it, then everything remains a theory. However, at some point, you will have to declare a theory to be unprovable, and thus a Nontruth.

It's like dividing by zero. Some people may have faith that it can be done. It's never been shown as a possibility, but never actually an impossibility. It's simply beyond our realm of understanding and beyond the capabilities of mathematics. So for the time being, until you can divide something by nothing, it must just be accepted to be unprovable. Doesn't mean that mathematicians are trying to destroy faith, destroy zeros, or as the article above mention, promote genocide.

This all boils down to, "Since we can't prove conciousness yet, let's explore the universe in a way that does not require conciousness." Kinda funny that nobody 'denounced' Mr Hawking when he questioned reality itself (such as in his book The Grand Design). Perhaps that was a bit over their heads. Or less insulting to their ego. It seems to me that reality being questioned would have more of a profund impact than conciousness being questioned.

As far as "I am doing such-and-such so it proves free will." It doesn't actually prove anything.
It could just as easily be a predetermined response. You would never actually know. As i see it, it is something that could be known by anyone besides an outside observer. Do you know any observers outside our reality? If so, ask them. But i think you might have a hard time finding one, let alone communicating with them.

I would say that it's a bit silly to question the integrity and motives of THEORETICAL science, and start questioning the integrity and motives of this tabloidesque pseudo-science article written by a man who refers to himself as a source, in the third person.

I'm gonna say the same thing as I do about religion. Don't attack or defend the bible/koran/etc until you read and understand it. Don't attack or defend Hawking and other scientists until you read and understand them.