Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Pretty tough to do after I shoot smack into my eyeballs.

I dont laugh at much on here but this one was good!!

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Invented by humanity. It's pretty clear that romance encapsulates a need to bash groins but it definitely doesn't stop there.

We can objectify people through sex and we do that all the time, but there are human universals which are worthy of our contemplation and action. Love is one of them. I personally think God is another, even if I don't necessarily believe he exists.

Do you believe love is only possible in humans, or do you think the behavior seen in primates is love as well?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

This implied progress of knowledge is something that comes up repeatedly in your posts and you get away with it because it's a shared postulate with most of the board.

I was careful in this post to avoid suggesting any sort of "progress". Progress presumes direction and a goal, and I am firmly non-commital about such things. I suspect one of the reasons you are such a critic of the notion of progress is because it conflicts with your own sense of purpose. I could be wrong, but that is the sense that I get. In my opinion, if one we are unable to define or determine "purpose", then we really have no grounds for gauging progress or regress, and I don't believe that acknowledging the expanding compendium of knowledge points one way or the other: it just is.

Originally Posted by peter12

If you are suggesting that we have accelerated and increased the amount of technical knowledge than I would agree. In other fields, such as the humanities, we're still at square one.

That's debatable. What is "square one"?

Originally Posted by peter12

The amount of people here who believe that their opinions and beliefs are ex nihilio is totally startling to me. All of this has context and if one doesn't know the literature or philosophy that supports/opposes a particularly humanist outlook, one isn't a real freethinker.

Here we go again. It is not incumbent on one to understand nor acknowledge the forces that have contributed to his worldview for one to participate meaningfully in both celebrating and developing that worldview.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Do you believe love is only possible in humans, or do you think the behavior seen in primates is love as well?

We see some very convincing human-like behaviour in primates. One is certainly the deep emotional attachment seen in human beings. I'm not so sure if it's love, as mainly primate courtship is either very violent or very promiscuous. I have read about close bonds being formed between friends, mothers, and children, and brothers. I think that this can be explained by a combination of primate politics and kinship. Although I have seen some very touching videos of chimpanzees mourning their dead relatives etc... I wouldn't say that this in any way approaches the capacity that humans show for love.

In the sense of romance, there are two forms of love, eros and agape. Eros is the desire or longing for something other than your self. It's a desire for youth, perfection, beauty and we see it expressed in the vast library of human poetry and literature. This is only a product of humanity and indeed, sees it's highest form in civilized humanity.

The second and higher form, agape, is unconditional love. It is first discussed in Plato, even though he doesn't endorse it entirely, but essentially eros has an element of degradation. That is, between two people, unequal through nature, there will be utilitarian interests involved. What can happen is a degradation of the other through the romantic attachment. Agape is the elevation of one's longing for the satisfaction of oneself to longing for the satisfaction of the other.

[peter12]

I was careful in this post to avoid suggesting any sort of "progress". Progress presumes direction and a goal, and I am firmly non-commital about such things. I suspect one of the reasons you are such a critic of the notion of progress is because it conflicts with your own sense of purpose. I could be wrong, but that is the sense that I get. In my opinion, if one we are unable to define or determine "purpose", then we really have no grounds for gauging progress or regress, and I don't believe that acknowledging the expanding compendium of knowledge points one way or the other: it just is.

Careful, maybe. But I would guess given your field of the academy that it's implicit in your work and indeed, your interests as an academic. Your rhetorical use of relativism is interesting but cheap. My own sense of purpose is not necessarily subject to my own private thoughts and thus, losing itself to a sort of esoteric subjectivism. A classical view of purpose is far more complicated than what progress can give us. It's about moving through higher spaces while recognizing that one isn't constrained by one's own time.

That's debatable. What is "square one"?

The state of humanity, perhaps? This is an axiom, sure, but I fail to see how it's not primary.

Here we go again. It is not incumbent on one to understand nor acknowledge the forces that have contributed to his worldview for one to participate meaningfully in both celebrating and developing that worldview.

Yes, it is or one doesn't live a life worth living.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think this question becomes a bit of a shield issue for humanists as they are not necessarily sure what their own humanism means so they depend upon opponents to define it for them so they can critique it.

You brought it up. If you are unwilling to define and to clarify what you mean, then how are we to ever understand what you are talking about. The claim that one is "undeserving" of the moniker humanist is a pretty strong one; I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that you contextualize and justify such an opinion.

Originally Posted by peter12

The point is, real humanism doesn't exist anymore because it has separated itself from the historical reality of atheism and proper humanism. Two things, actual atheists like Nietzsche and Marx aren't properly read or understood anymore and the Enlightenment ethic that opposed Aristotelian science has been completely subsumed by the worship of technological innovation.

That is like saying that "real Darwinism" or "real physics" or "real Christianity" no longer exist because of the changes they have necessarily incurred over hundreds and thousands of years of necessary interpretation. I don't disagree at all that "humanism" has changed, but that is in tune with the very nature of humanity, language and is part of hermeneutics. Your brief description of types of "love" points to this phenomenon, as "agape" came to develop ranges of meaning beyond what Plato intended. So much so that its use became interchangeable with other Greek words such as "philos" and "xaris". Does this mean that people were "wrong" in their use? Not at all, given that their own context had an undeniable effect on what the word came to mean.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, it is or one doesn't live a life worth living.

That is for God to judge.

[peter12]

You brought it up. If you are unwilling to define and to clarify what you mean, then how are we to ever understand what you are talking about. The claim that one is "undeserving" of the moniker humanist is a pretty strong one; I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that you contextualize and justify such an opinion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that real humanists are a bit more esoteric about their humanism and not blunt tools of ridiculousness like these modern guys. I'd direct you to John Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures for a much better examination of humanism than myself could give.

The New Atheists cheapen and degrade science to a popularity contest tailored to the consumers in a secular age. Complicated questions are no longer given their due examination but are tossed aside for the latest scientific theory in vogue.

That is like saying that "real Darwinism" or "real physics" or "real Christianity" no longer exist because of the changes they have necessarily incurred over hundreds and thousands of years of necessary interpretation. I don't disagree at all that "humanism" has changed, but that is in tune with the very nature of humanity, language and is part of hermeneutics.

Would it be fair to say that humanism needs to be saved from the humanists? I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with your, once again, progressive view of how philosophical positions evolve. What makes positions of interpretation necessary? Why does the act of interpretation shift meaning? I know that it can, I'm not denying that it doesn't nor that it shouldn't but I fail to see how humanism's degradation into a cheap secular religion is anything but a bad thing.

EDIT: In regards to Plato: I just mentioned that the discussion started, philosophically, with him, I don't doubt the need for interpretation meaningfully because that's what philosophy is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

That is for God to judge.

Well, my optimism is such that I think humans can do a pretty good job on their own. In regards to my previous statement, I also have a rosy enough view of humanity that I think we can solve our problems politically to the extent that we don't need pseudo-religious visions of leaving this planet to redeem ourselves.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...A classical view of purpose is far more complicated than what progress can give us. It's about moving through higher spaces while recognizing that one isn't constrained by one's own time.

I think it is fair to doubt whether such a thing is even attainable.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think it is fair to doubt whether such a thing is even attainable.

Isn't doubt part of the transcendent process? Even a materialist would have to admit that there are genuine states of universal truth.

[algernon]

Pendejo12 is training to be a politician.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullspittle.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by algernon

Pendejo12 is training to be a politician.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullspittle.

If you have problems with what I write, why don't you respond accordingly instead of attacking me?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, my optimism is such that I think humans can do a pretty good job on their own. In regards to my previous statement, I also have a rosy enough view of humanity that I think we can solve our problems politically to the extent that we don't need pseudo-religious visions of leaving this planet to redeem ourselves.

Sailing across the cosmic ocean will not be a voyage of redemption. If humanity survives long enough, the cold, hard fact is that the Sun will burn out. Also, humanity will not want to have all its eggs in one basket. A catastrophe could lead to a mass extinction on any planet without much notice.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that real humanists are a bit more esoteric about their humanism and not blunt tools of ridiculousness like these modern guys. I'd direct you to John Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures for a much better examination of humanism than myself could give.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by peter12

The New Atheists cheapen and degrade science to a popularity contest tailored to the consumers in a secular age. Complicated questions are no longer given their due examination but are tossed aside for the latest scientific theory in vogue.

Any specific examples of this?

Originally Posted by peter12

Would it be fair to say that humanism needs to be saved from the humanists? I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with your, once again, progressive view of how philosophical positions evolve.

I'm confused. Is it "progressive" to acknowledge change? In my estimation, progress presumes some sort of evaluative criteria by which one appraises the intrinsic benefit of change. I don't believe that I have done that: merely acknowledging that changes occur to effect meaning is not the same as arguing that the change is for better or worse.

Originally Posted by peter12

What makes positions of interpretation necessary? Why does the act of interpretation shift meaning? I know that it can, I'm not denying that it doesn't nor that it shouldn't but I fail to see how humanism's degradation into a cheap secular religion is anything but a bad thing.

In the first place, I think that you need to provide ample demonstration for how the new atheists have degraded humanism, and I do not believe that you have done that. In the second place, I am troubled by your classification of secular humanism as "religion", especially given the complexity of what religion is. You do no favours for theists in your attempts to re-define religion in such terms that accommodate secularism; rather to the contrary, this devalues "religion" for its failure to consider the various elements that are intrinsic to religion.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by peter12

If you have problems with what I write, why don't you respond accordingly instead of attacking me?

Because arguments with people who are full of sh1t are never satisfying for most as it simply involves the poopbag spewing blather in vain attempts to be right. Even if you are right the poopbag will never admit it and you end up being subjected to more of their bufoonery.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sailing across the cosmic ocean will not be a voyage of redemption. If humanity survives long enough, the cold, hard fact is that the Sun will burn out. Also, humanity will not want to have all its eggs in one basket. A catastrophe could lead to a mass extinction on any planet without much notice.

Always the optimist! Not that I have any numbers to back this up, but I would wager that, statistically speaking, there is no chance in Hell (heh) that humanity will still be around on Earth long enough to see the Sun burn out.

[peter12]

Any specific examples of this?

Would it be fair to point to the spate of self-help atheist books written to sell millions of copies to the masses?

I'm confused. Is it "progressive" to acknowledge change? In my estimation, progress presumes some sort of evaluative criteria by which one appraises the intrinsic benefit of change. I don't believe that I have done that: merely acknowledging that changes occur to effect meaning is not the same as arguing that the change is for better or worse.

It's progressive to acknowledge that any sort of change almost inevitably happens for the better. I'd point to Dawkins and his self-created faith in the moral Zeitgeist. I'm not saying that you consciously do that, but pointing to years of "necessary interpretation" begs the question as to whether that interpretation has been the inevitability of good examination of the questions at hand or merely driven forward on a certain political agenda.

In the first place, I think that you need to provide ample demonstration for how the new atheists have degraded humanism, and I do not believe that you have done that. In the second place, I am troubled by your classification of secular humanism as "religion", especially given the complexity of what religion is. You do no favours for theists in your attempts to re-define religion in such terms that accommodate secularism; rather to the contrary, this devalues "religion" for its failure to consider the various elements that are intrinsic to religion.

Human is about reasserting humanity's preeminence as the arbiters of the good life. Historically, it did this with a keen eye and respect for the opponents of humanism, namely theological perspectives. Heck, the whole thing is complicated I will admit, but humanism started with a common belief in man's ability to be united by reason. I don't see that much anymore, more of a belief that the great prophets of secularism will continue to develop revelation to the masses in the form of scientific knowledge and that will be good for most of us.

In regards to the last part, I'm not a theist. I'm just defending it very obliquely.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sailing across the cosmic ocean will not be a voyage of redemption. If humanity survives long enough, the cold, hard fact is that the Sun will burn out. Also, humanity will not want to have all its eggs in one basket. A catastrophe could lead to a mass extinction on any planet without much notice.

Possible, certainly possible, but not a determined necessity.

[alltherage]

Jeeze this thread took a turn for the nasty... who would have thought?