Stephen Hawking: ‘Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’
Stephen Hawking: ‘Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’
Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.
As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.
His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.
Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.
The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within a few years. Instead, he said, it ultimately led him to enjoy life more.
The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years.
‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.
‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.
‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’
His remarks are more radical than those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, where he asserts that the universe is governed by the laws of science and did not need a ‘creator’ to bring it into being.
In the interview Professor Hawking – who will today give a lecture entitled ‘Why are we here?’ at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London – was asked: ‘Is our existence all down to luck?’
He replied: ‘Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.’
In answer to another question, he said people should use their time on Earth to fulfil their potential, saying: ‘We should seek the greatest value of our action.’
His lecture today will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework in which 11 dimensions of the universe are identified and which many physicists say is the best hope yet of developing a ‘theory of everything’.
Last night Professor Hawking, whose 1988 science book A Brief History Of Time has sold nine million copies, was criticised by Stephen Green, director of lobby group Christian Voice.
‘The comparisons to a computer switching off shows a man who is only able to think of things in a materialistic way,’ he said.
‘It is a dim viewpoint of a man who is trying to understand something he is spiritually unable to do.
‘People who believe in the afterlife don’t do so because they are afraid of death, that’s a misunderstanding of religious thinking.
‘Belief in God dispels a fear of the dark, of death. I don’t see why Hawking finds it such a struggle to comprehend the spiritual dimension.
‘Hawking is happy to discuss the M-theory, in which the universe is said to have 11 dimensions. Why then could the universe not have a 12th spiritual dimension?’
Earlier this month Professor Hawking explained how motor neurone disease had ultimately allowed him to be much happier.
He said: ‘I don’t have much positive to say about motor neurone disease.
‘But it taught me not to pity myself because others were worse off, and to get on with what I could still do.
‘I’m happier now than before I developed the condition.’
The man speaks the truth. While it seems harsh the way he puts it (that is, there almost certainly not being an afterlife of paradise or torture for humans), he is correct in a sense. The way I see it, many people who believe in an afterlife are rather afraid of death itself, but we can’t prevent it. Why continue wasting your time worrying about death and what happens once you die (not literally as in our bodies decomposing but the pondering if our conscience survives our physical death and we are suddenly taken to a “spiritual world”).
All I can say is that you can’t make reality be the way that you want it to be. No one can. There are so many things I WISH would happen but I don’t have the power or authority for that.
Just enjoy your life. As long as you stay off of risky lifestyles then you should be able to live a long and healthy life. I don’t do drugs, smoke, or drink NOT because of “sin” but because I want to take care of my health. I stay away from sex outside of marriages and people I don’t trust. I love my life and I give myself a purpose here. I will one day have kids and I will see them grow up to become intelligent, successful people. This is the beauty of life.
Religion, to me, is not a necessity… perhaps not even a want either. But if a story gives you comfort then who am I to judge?
well said, i couldn’t agree more. life is not forever, but that’s what makes it beautiful.
I wouldn’t bet on that…
He just might want to take a look at our history.
There are facts and there are truths…he’s ignoring the truths.
There is a God somewhere and when one dies, you will know it, if you do not already.
Just ask those who have had genuine NDEs.
What “truths” is he ignoring? Please provide all your evidence for this God you speak of. NDEs don’t equal an afterlife. There are far more rational explinations, you’re simply ignoring them in favour of a spiritual explination.
people can believe in whatever they jolly well please, but until they start offering real evidence for those beliefs they can’t get all bent out of shape when people reject them. Simple.
Ben;
Could you please distinguish the difference between “facts” and “truths” for us ?
I find myself a little confused.
If something is not a “fact”, does that make this non-fact a “truth” ?
Help us out here…
No response yet? Where is your god anyway? Oh that’s right: in your mind.
“His remarks are more radical than those laid out in his 2010 book…”
“Radical”? Oh, it’s from the Daily Moron. Righto.
ISIAIh 41 BRING forth your IDOLS did they PREACH to you see they can’t speak they can’t DO ANYTHING all they do is cause confusion. spalms 115 and spalms 135 thier IDOLS are FALSE cant speak can’t hear cant smell and those that make them shall become like them. Jeremiah 10 they nail their IDOL down like a scarecrow it can’t move can’…t speak can’t move must be carried these are nothing but the WORK of CON men.john 10 jesus christ sais his sheep hear his voice and another voice thy will not follow and if another person tries to preach to them they WILL FLEE from him. jeremiah 5 the priests bear rule on their own authority what will you do when your judged my word is not inside them. Now here is the kicker john 5 son of man voice goes back in time mathew 16 jesus christ claims to be the son of man.1 cor2 mind of CHRIST preached internally and john 16 sais the spirit of truth comes in the future. Ezekiel 13 lying prophets of ISRAEL my word is not inside them saying god sais god sais god sais wrote hoping mankind would CONFIRM their WORDS. all of this is EASILY verifiable.
That’s great.
Now please show me proof that God exists.
someone always brings that silly sadistic bible cult book that came from somewhere from the middle east by a person or persons claiming to be an authority on god! All that book does is contaminate the debates with delusions of sadistic selfishness! Who wants or needs some other people’s direction or description of god cult or no cult when we can think for ourselves! It’s almost as if these are rules to follow and these rules can only be of propaganda rules of selfishness! A true god presents no books to understand god and understanding can only be met by ones own self reasoning and not by some other person or person’s cookbook!Sadistic? It’s certainly is! look how they worship the nailing of a being to a cross! Every Easter when that crucifixion movie comes around Christians gather in movie houses with their bags of popcorn and watch it! Some people paint pictures of it on canvases! Don’t tell me that’s not sadistic! It’s an infection in society!I was born a catholic and now I have no religion threw that junk away and now I’m an agnostic. I may believe in a god but it’s the same kind of god others see as!
You are, at the very least, practically illiterate, and by the looks of things also insane. You say “all of this is EASILY verifiable” – but what “this” is in this case is almost impossible to tell, you’ve written in such an incoherent babble. A babble that resembles that of a schizophrenic. See a decent doctor.
But… before you see the doctor, kindly try again and give us some conclusive, verifiable, substantiated evidence of God’s/Heaven’s/Hell’s/Satan’s/Any character from a Brothers Grimm story’s existence. It’ll be amusing, and then it’ll hopefully be added to your case notes.
Although exsistance , being infinitely vast, also is infinitely small Hawkings fails to remember. SO this “Other” God that people don’t except (very blind statement) of vast infinite HAwkings states that we are minute, insignifigant…. thats where his logic fails.
In what comparison? what comparison is there to infinite. SO some have emtpy religions or lack of , while others find the infinite in everything, and thats that. You can only accept exsistance for what it is. IT IS , I AM so is God. Mater is vibrations of energy, do u eminate love or or disregard, self-serving, ego building?
“Belief in God dispels a fear of the dark, of death. I don’t see why Hawking finds it such a struggle to comprehend the spiritual dimension.”
Um, I’d say he’s hit the nail right on the head.
Learn to spell. Your comment looks very unprofessional and it is embarrassing your own god (if he even exists).
If there was a almighty thinking comunicative god it would not hide itself and play games like hide and seek because that would be ignorant!The old saying “Just look at the evidence around” is not aa good excuse any true almighty god would be to powerful to hide and plainly seen by everything! From this the only kind of god I can see is another George Burns movie!
It doesn’t matter to the faithful anyway; they’ll just say that we were given “free will” to believe or not believe in their god. Oh, and that he’s “testing” us.
isn’t hes constantly making pope and Galileo jokes in his speeches?
still holding onto my seat for a comment about sore children’s bottoms
Oh my… poor freaking robot-semi-dead hawking…
Hehe just saying :)
OH MY GOD!when will you leave the god.
Stephen quoted:
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.
Stephen compares computers as to human beings and derives his conclusion that there is no afterlife. However, he fails to identify the discrepancies between human beings and computers that would come to the conclusion that we could not use non-living objects, such as, computers, to challenge the thought of human beings:
a) Computers do not have soul and emotion and yet computers do not have;
b) Computers could not be movable and human beings could travel on foot;
c) Human beings could recuperate themselves from some illnesses and could even fight with diseases if their bodies are strong. Yet computers could not recover or even counter-attack viruses unless antivirus software is installed;
As there are a great difference between computers and human beings, it is erroneous to use computer system to describe or even to predict the lives of human beings. Or in other words, as computers would stop working when its components fail, it is erroneous to use it to explain the same to human beings to be without afterlife since both of them are of different nature. One is a living thing and another is not.
Stephen Hawking supported that this universe was created spontaneously. Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes. However, science could not explain why human beings could speak various types of languages. Not only that, you could never find apes speak in human languages. As apes could never speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes? Even if Stephen Hawking supported spontaneous creation, how could it by luck that all human beings were created to speak in various languages? This can never be by chance or by luck. Even if Stephen Hawking would use quantum theory or gravity to support the creation of the universe, there could not be such a co-incidence that human beings were created with diversified languages, such as, Germany and Arab languages are entirely different.
The Bible has the explanation on how the languages to be diversified. The following is the extract:
Genesis 11:9, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Without the Bible and without God, there is no way for human beings to speak various kind of languages.
You have GOT to be joking. Seriously, you’re just trolling me, right?
Lol.
I can’t even think of something sarcastic to say to this.
AND GO SAID UNTO THEM, SPEAK ENGLISH! SPEAK ENGLISH IN AUSTRALIA, INDIAN, AMERICAN, BRITISH AND CANADIAN ACCENTS AND/OR DIALECTS!
Go said this? When did he say that?
Of course. The Bible is the Word of God.
The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution pertaining to the introduction of evolution.
The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. The process of natural selection is based on three conditions. First, all individuals are supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents, then passed on to their offspring. Second, organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. Third, there are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.[1][2][3]
From the above extracts, it is clear that biodiversity occurs as a result of the interaction of all the elements, such as, mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. In order for the process of natural selection to occur so as to achieve diversification through evolution, three conditions have to be fulfilled and these include inheriting genes from one generation to another; the multiplication of offspring; and the introduction of new genes via random changes or reshuffling of existing genes.
There are a number of queries have to be raised below pertaining to the phrase, all individuals… hereditary material in the form of genes that are…from their parents then passed on to their offspring, that is extracted above, plays a part for the contribution to the ultimate evolution:
a) If all individual hereditary materials in the form of genes from their parents have to be passed on to their offspring, all their offspring should have some hereditary material in the form of genes that are identical to their common ancestor. Let’s assume that banana and bird have the same ancestor. As hereditary material in the form of genes would pass on from their ancestor to the ultimate evolution to banana and bird, there should have certain hereditary material in the form of genes that could be found common among banana and bird. As banana and bird are two different natures without any common genes among them, how could there be common ancestor for both banana and bird? The same is for any kind of plants and animals. As there is no common gene among plants and animals and not even animals, such as, between crocodiles and apes, how could there be any common ancestor among them?
b) If human beings were evolved from apes, which animal would be the one that caused apes to be evolved initially that had the identical genes that would have passed down to them? As none of the animals have the same genes as apes, how could apes be formed through evolution? As apes could not be formed through evolution, how could there be common ancestor between banana and apes as there is no trace between apes and other animals?
The following are the extracts from the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics under the sub-title of ‘Origin of Apes’:
Biologists classify humans, along with only a few other species, as great apes (species in the family Hominidae). The Hominidae include two distinct species of chimpanzee (the bonobo, Pan paniscus, and the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes), two species of gorilla (the western gorilla, Gorilla gorilla, and the eastern gorilla, Gorilla graueri), and two species of orangutan (the Bornean orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, and the Sumatran orangutan, Pongo abelii)…
As mentioned in the extract above that biologists have found two distinct species of chimpanzee; the common chimpanzee; two species of gorilla; and two species of orangutan to have the same gene as human beings. However, there are a few queries that have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of these sources that have been gathered for the support of evolution:
a) As there are only a few apes have been found to have the same gene as human beings instead of all, would there be such a co-incidence in which only these few apes are so distinctive from other apes at the time of their creation to have the same gene as human beings? Or in other words, it would be that these few apes might have already been created initially to have the same gene as human beings co-incidentally and this was not the result of evolution that would have presumed by Charles Darwin. If these apes would have been created co-incidentally to have the same gene as human beings, it would be irrational to use these apes to prove that human beings would have been evolved from apes? Let’s give you an example for illustration. When you examine a stranger that declares to be your missing brother and find out that he has the same blood group of ‘0’ as you, would you simply conclude that this stranger must be your brother. Certainly you could not! This is due to that stranger might not be your brother. The reason that that stranger has the same blood group as you might be simply out of co-incidence. Thus, it might be a co-incidence to have these apes to be created initially to have the same gene as human beings. If it could be a co-incidence, it is irrational to use the reason that these apes that have the same gene as human beings to conclude that human beings were evolved from apes.
b) There would be a possibility that these few apes and human beings could be created distinctively from each other and there should not be any relationship among these few apes and human beings at the time of creation.
c) Charles Darwin might support that human beings were evolved from apes. However, his theory could not have full supported since one might argue why he should insist to choose apes instead of from other animals for evolution. Unless there has been an experiment that has done successfully that could convert the apes as listed above to human beings in the past, it is then rational to support that there is a proven science that human beings could be evolved from apes. To insist that human beings were evolved from apes and yet did not have eye-witness through experiment that human beings could be evolved from apes, the theory is somewhat not tested and simply out of his imagination.
As there could be many alternative reasons that could not come to the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes and yet Charles Darwin was not the one that was born at the time of the birth of first human beings, to jump into the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes without any eye-witness of the evolution but simply through comparing gene is a bit speculative.
If these selected few species of apes were evolved from the few chosen apes as mentioned above, i.e. two distinct species of chimpanzee and etc., a few queries have to be raised pertaining to other apes:
a)Why has it been that the rest of the apes could not have the capability in evolving to other human race except the limited groups of apes that have discovered by biologists that have the same gene as human beings?
b)What made the limited apes that have the same gene as human beings to be so distinctive that only these groups of apes could be evolved to human beings? Would there be any eye-witness or experiment to prove that these limited apes that have the same gene as human beings were those that could evolve to human beings? Was there somebody in the past had tested these limited apes that they could be evolved to human beings? If there were no experiment to be done to have the eye-witness that these apes could be evolved to human beings, the theory itself is rather speculative and not tested. Unless someone did test the evolution theory by changing the environment to could suit the apes in evolution and yet they had been successfully performed the test that these apes could transform into human beings, it is then rational to support Charles Darwin’s theory and mentions that they are really tested.
There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction. Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?
Let’s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon. Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons:
i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal. This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing. As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor) has to be grown backward instead of evolving.
ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism? As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal?
iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa?
iv)According to the evolution’s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time. It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal. This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.