What did Hawking mean?

[Wayfarer]

A recent Brit TV docu featured an informal face-to-face meeting between Prof Stephen Hawking and Dr Richard Dawkins, but it wasn't much to write home about, just a shallow brief 5-minute affair in which they touched on very general matters.
However towards the end, Hawking asked (via his electronic voice) -"Why are you obsessed with God?"
Dawkins seemed flustered and lost for words as he searched for a reply, and eventually mumbled "You started it!", and the discussion tailed off and ended soon after.
Can anybody explain why Dawkins is obsessed with God?

[UVsaturated]

Because he simply wants to walk again? That may be the psychological answer.

[Rabid1]

Dawkins is an athiest yet he accepts god as a scientfic hypothesis. His ibsession is not god but no god. Like many scientist raised in a christian environment he is conflicted. I think his apparent obssesion is a lack of faith in his science so he needs to prove god doesn't exsit rather than simply accept he doesn't, much like a christian with weak faith feels compelled to prove god exists rather than be happy accepting he does.

[DontBeAfraid]

I think his apparent obssesion is a lack of faith in his science so he needs to prove god doesn't exsit rather than simply accept he doesn't, much like a christian with weak faith feels compelled to prove god exists rather than be happy accepting he does.

You apparently know NOTHING about dawkins...

His "obsession" is simply a direct response to christians trying to push their beliefs into law. If you had read anything dawkins has written or watched much of the media he is behind you would KNOW that his trust in science is unwavering...

[Rabid1]

You apparently know NOTHING about dawkins...

His "obsession" is simply a direct response to christians trying to push their beliefs into law. If you had read anything dawkins has written or watched much of the media he is behind you would KNOW that his trust in science is unwavering...

Actually I do. But just as any overzealous crusader for intelligent design or evolution I question thier motives. Belief in science is hardly an impetus for such an obsession.

I simply gave my opinion as to why he may be the way he is.

[DontBeAfraid]

I simply gave my opinion as to why he may be the way he is.

If that is truly your opinion of why he has zeal then you really DONT know anything about him.

[Beatnik Bob]

If that is truly your opinion of why he has zeal then you really DONT know anything about him.

Then in your opinion, hawkings knows nothing about him either.

Because he simply wants to walk again? That may be the psychological answer.

You are getting dawkins and hawkings confused. Hawkings is the scientific genius that can't walk. Dawkins is the sad man with awful teeth that is obsessed with a God he doesn't believe in.

If anything, he just wants good teeth. That's a better psychological answer.

[lycanox]

Why not ask him?

This is as pointless as speculating why Schumacher likes driving, or Da vinci liked to paint.

It could be an counter reaction to creationism.
But it could just as much be a philosophical interest in the question of whether or not god exist.
Or an scientific interest in debunking creationist claims.
Or he is autistic and this is his thing.

Or Hawking is secretly god, and Dawkins found out and dislikes that.
And Hawking suggested a bet to see if Dawkins can prove gods not existence to the public.
Which would explain the you started it comment.

[Anarch]

It is my opinion that Dawkins may be involved with unregulated adult films with Hawking in an effort to boost the popularity of physics.

[Freddy]

I suggest that if you want to know Stephen Hawking you must read A Brief History of Time. I came away after reading it that Hawking believes in a first cause that began at the first "singularity" setting the universe in motion. Hawking's god is that force that began everything. I doubt he believes Jesus to be divine. He is said to be agnostic, but his ex-wife says he is an atheist. Here are a few Hawking quotes.

"the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

"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."

[The Mule]

Dawkins is obsessed with God because it makes him a lot of money !

Hawkin believes there is no God and therefore wants Dawking to stop wasting his talent as a scientist and concentrate on that instead of earning a few bucks writing about stuff that will probably never be proved anyway

[Cartesiantheater]

I suggest that if you want to know Stephen Hawking you must read A Brief History of Time. I came away after reading it that Hawking believes in a first cause that began at the first "singularity" setting the universe in motion. Hawking's god is that force that began everything. I doubt he believes Jesus to be divine. He is said to be agnostic, but his ex-wife says he is an atheist. Here are a few Hawking quotes.

"the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

"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."

When physicists say "God" they don't usually mean what most people hear.

A recent Brit TV docu featured an informal face-to-face meeting between Prof Stephen Hawking and Dr Richard Dawkins, but it wasn't much to write home about, just a shallow brief 5-minute affair in which they touched on very general matters.
However towards the end, Hawking asked (via his electronic voice) -"Why are you obsessed with God?"
Dawkins seemed flustered and lost for words as he searched for a reply, and eventually mumbled "You started it!", and the discussion tailed off and ended soon after.
Can anybody explain why Dawkins is obsessed with God?

Dawkins is an athiest yet he accepts god as a scientfic hypothesis. His ibsession is not god but no god. Like many scientist raised in a christian environment he is conflicted. I think his apparent obssesion is a lack of faith in his science so he needs to prove god doesn't exsit rather than simply accept he doesn't, much like a christian with weak faith feels compelled to prove god exists rather than be happy accepting he does.

No. You fail here, Rabid. It's clear you've either not read any of his books or your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Then in your opinion, hawkings knows nothing about him either.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Hawking's question was rhetorical. In fact that fits in nicely with what appears to be the current trend among physicists- there's no more point in trying to disprove the (judeo-christian) God as there is in trying to disprove the Easter bunny or Santa Clause.

[Beatnik Bob]

It seems pretty obvious to me that Hawking's question was rhetorical. In fact that fits in nicely with what appears to be the current trend among physicists- there's no more point in trying to disprove the (judeo-christian) God as there is in trying to disprove the Easter bunny or Santa Clause.

Except the easter bunny and santa clause are fictional characters created for kids.
The concept of God, or Brahman (to site the earliest version I can think of) originally came from people who felt God, or experienced it in some way.

[Cartesiantheater]

Except the easter bunny and santa clause are fictional characters created for kids.
The concept of God, or Brahman (to site the earliest version I can think of) originally came from people who felt God, or experienced it in some way.

Don't shoot the messenger, Bob ;). Just relating what I gather from popular physics materials and my general feel for the current popular trend on the subject among physicists I know from school/physics forums and others I read about (you can thank quantum mechanics for this, and the ideologies about physics that arose from it). Whether or not there is logical merit to the position is another question.

[palerider]

Sorry to side track:

Actually to set matters straight, Dawkins hates and resents the notion of God, he articulates many examples as to why he does not believe in God. He himself has admitted how much he dislikes a belief in a God that is so vengeful and unloving [old testament] and questions the actual existence of God. He gos further and looks to evolution as creation, which is no bad thing if you choose to accept it.

He is right to hold his viewpoint, as equally as anyone is to hold theirs!

The problem with attemtping to argue either way is that it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, and so we have discourse between science and non-science; God belivers and non-God believers...etc etc etc

Hawkins on the other hand is a far superior mind to Dawkins, and I am sure Hawkins like many well known physicists would resist the temptation to rule God entirely, perhaps he saw or knew of something that he chose not to share, but out of the two give me Prof Hawkins any day, an intelligent man who blew the bottom out of black hole theory btw.



Is there any middle ground?

[tahn1000]

there's no such thing as a "black hole". anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have seen that long ago. now everyone rushes to cover themselves - "oh, we weren't literally talking about a hole or gravitiational well. you just misunderstood us."

[Cartesiantheater]

Sorry to side track:

Actually to set matters straight, Dawkins hates and resents the notion of God, he articulates many examples as to why he does not believe in God. He himself has admitted how much he dislikes a belief in a God that is so vengeful and unloving [old testament] and questions the actual existence of God. He gos further and looks to evolution as creation, which is no bad thing if you choose to accept it.

It's not quite that simple for him. He hates the fact that such belief causes both great suffering AND it causes so many minds to be deprived of the fulfillment of living in reality and appreciating how wonderful the universe actually is. Moreover, he hates that so many innocent children are essentially FORCED into a religion by parents who are (perhaps unwittingly) taking advantage of the human mind's susceptibility to being brainwashed into a belief system when at a young age. Kids don't know any better, and he sees religion and belief in God as a cruel lie taught to defenseless children.

It isn't nearly so simple as "Dawkins hates God." Dawkins doesn't hate God any more than you hate the Easter bunny.

He is right to hold his viewpoint, as equally as anyone is to hold theirs!

The problem with attemtping to argue either way is that it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, and so we have discourse between science and non-science; God belivers and non-God believers...etc etc etc

Hawkins on the other hand is a far superior mind to Dawkins, and I am sure Hawkins like many well known physicists would resist the temptation to rule God entirely, perhaps he saw or knew of something that he chose not to share, but out of the two give me Prof Hawkins any day, an intelligent man who blew the bottom out of black hole theory btw.



Is there any middle ground?

What does "superior mind" mean? I can assure you that what Hawkins works with is far more abstract and mathematically rigorous, but that doesn't mean Dawkins is incapable of learning it.

But essentially all this is is that he's claiming there is no need for an outside, magical influence to be a "first cause," isn't it?

Technically that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists.

there's no such thing as a "black hole". anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have seen that long ago. now everyone rushes to cover themselves - "oh, we weren't literally talking about a hole or gravitiational well. you just misunderstood us."

That, or perhaps you should have familiarized yourself with the definition of the word from the get go. It has never changed. Just because you personally think the term LITERALLY means a hole does not mean the term ever HAS actually meant that.


In fact, from the very first CONCEPTUALIZATION of the idea it was not ever meant to mean a "hole" or "gravitational well." The very first conceptualization of it was simply the question of what would happen an object fell from an infinite height to a sphere that had a diameter about 500 times smaller than the sun also had the same amount of mass as the sun. This was from the 1700s and had nothing to relativity (according to pre-relativistic physics the object's velocity would be infinite as it hit the surface of the sphere).


And as for the modern concept, that also had nothing to do with a "hole," as I already painstakingly explained to you. "Black holes" have finite masses, they have finite diameters. They extend into space. The issue is the RELATION between mass and diameter, and the fact that light has a finite speed that is influenced by gravitation (experimentally proven on both counts- hundreds of times or more).

Black holes can rotate. They can have angular momentum. At distances outside the event horizon they are the same as ANY spherical object of the same mass, regardless of diameter (and inside it they are only different in that light cannot escape).

You're not torn a part because some magical property of a black hole when you get near one. All that is happening is that the gravitational field is not uniform (because it's a spherical object,and you'll get tidal effects and an inverse square relation between force magnitude and distance), and the magnitude of the gradient is very large compared to changes in location. i.e. you have different force vectors acting in different directions at different magnitudes on your body simultaneously.




In short, "black hole" is just a NAME, and you are putting WAY too much emphasis on the words used in the name.






As for the existence of gravitational singularities inside black holes, (that is, where density approaches infinity in any coordinate system) why should that be a problem? Are you aware that absolute zero is practically a singularity? Of course not, because you don't actually know what "singularity" means. At what value is there a singularity in this: f(x) = 1/(1-x). The speed of light is also a singularity. As an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's momentum and energy approach infinity, so the speed of light is a singularity for momentum and energy. That's what a singularity is. In the function above, as x approaches 1, f(x) approaches infinity. Thus for f(x), 1 is a singularity.

But even still, singularities in the center of black holes (i.e. they extend in space, again) may merely be mathematical constructs. A quantum field theory may remove any mathematical singularities in descriptions of black holes- but a black hole is NOT defined that way, so it wouldn't matter! A black hole is merely something that has an escape velocity greater than c.




Or to put it bluntly: you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And I mean that more than just generally. If I asked you to solve a real physics problem you'd scoff at me. But you certainly wouldn't solve it, because you can't. Because you don't have the training to. Which means you don't have the training to understand the intricacies of highly advanced physics like general relativity, yet you arrogantly claim that the entire population of physicists in this world don't have "an ounce of intelligence."

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[palerider]

I submit to you.....yes I am completely thick and a failure, I have no knowledge and clearly you have a great ability to over react to words like 'black hole', which incidently I thought was a large hole in my back garden, measuring between 4ft and 6ft ...oh and don't you put water in it for the fishies....?????

Had you have raised your objections in a better tone I might have responded more wisely and intelligently.

Oh and by the way why the lecture on black hole theory??? I merely mentioned that Hawkins stimulated new ground in the field that was all...some twenty years ago, and is Dawkins a physicist?? I think not!!!

Farewell oh great master

[Cartesiantheater]

I submit to you.....yes I am completely thick and a failure, I have no knowledge and clearly you have a great ability to over react to words like 'black hole', which incidently I thought was a large hole in my back garden, measuring between 4ft and 6ft ...oh and don't you put water in it for the fishies....?????

Had you have raised your objections in a better tone I might have responded more wisely and intelligently.

Oh and by the way why the lecture on black hole theory??? I merely mentioned that Hawkins stimulated new ground in the field that was all...some twenty years ago, and is Dawkins a physicist?? I think not!!!

Farewell oh great master

Look where it says "originally posted by" in my response and read the name next to that passage.

You'll notice that only PART of my reply was to you. Nothing in my reply about black holes was directed at you. It was directed to tahn, who indirectly declared that all the world's physicists don't have an ounce of intelligence.

All I replied to you about was Dawkins, and I was arguing that it isn't so much that he hates GOD as it is he hates religion and how it operates, particularly how it preys on the minds of innocent children or desperate people at the end of their rope.


Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[DontBeAfraid]

Its HawkinG not Hawkins! And CT if you read paleriders post carefully you will see that he was stating that Dawkins hates the IDEA of god... and what that idea has caused... basically the same thing you posted.

[Cartesiantheater]

Its HawkinG not Hawkins!

When discussing Dawkins and Hawking in the same paragraph, it's almost like a tongue twister. You see the "awk" and automatically add the same ending to the words, particularly since they sound as similar as they are similarly spelled.

It's like:

"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

And CT if you read paleriders post carefully you will see that he was stating that Dawkins hates the IDEA of god... and what that idea has caused... basically the same thing you posted.

You're right, my mistake. But there was a difference: I refrained from agreeing that Hawking was a "far superior mind." But to be honest, I felt the temptation to agree with him. Physics is hard. Biology, at least lower division biology, is like baking a delicious cake in comparison. Easy. Just read and follow the directions carefully.

[Doc Velocity]

"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."

Yet Hawking doesn't even see the illogic of his own definition. Both Religion and Science are products of the eminently-fallible Human brain. Science is even more fallible than Religion, as Science is perpetually asking for evidence that may not be or can never be made available — therefore, Science comes to a standstill while awaiting proof, while Religion forges ahead based on Faith.

— Doc Velocity

[Cartesiantheater]

Yet Hawking doesn't even see the illogic of his own definition. Both Religion and Science are products of the eminently-fallible Human brain. Science is even more fallible than Religion, as Science is perpetually asking for evidence that may not or can never be made immediately available — therefore, Science comes to a standstill while awaiting proof, while Religion forges ahead based on Faith.

— Doc Velocity

Forges ahead in the wrong direction, that is.

Meanwhile, science asymptotically approaches the truth.

[Doc Velocity]

Forges ahead in the wrong direction, that is.

Meanwhile, science asymptotically approaches the truth.

Who's to say what is "the wrong direction"?

As far as I can see, Science has delivered us to the brink of global annihilation with nuclear and biochemical weaponry; it has overpopulated the planet with our kind, which is stretching our natural resources to the breaking point; and it has polluted our air and oceans to the extent that we're even talking about anthropogenic global warming.

And Science did all of this in as little as 100 years.

I would say that Science has taken us sharply in the wrong direction.

Now, religion has been around for THOUSANDS of years, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, and religion never endangered the fucking planet in all that time.

Beyond that, Science isn't responsible for pursuing or revealing the Truth. Truth is the arena of philosophers and clergy. Science can only reveal "facts," and even the facts are open to revision.

— Doc Velocity

[tahn1000]

It's not quite that simple for him. He hates the fact that such belief causes both great suffering AND it causes so many minds to be deprived of the fulfillment of living in reality and appreciating how wonderful the universe actually is. Moreover, he hates that so many innocent children are essentially FORCED into a religion by parents who are (perhaps unwittingly) taking advantage of the human mind's susceptibility to being brainwashed into a belief system when at a young age. Kids don't know any better, and he sees religion and belief in God as a cruel lie taught to defenseless children.

It isn't nearly so simple as "Dawkins hates God." Dawkins doesn't hate God any more than you hate the Easter bunny.




What does "superior mind" mean? I can assure you that what Hawkins works with is far more abstract and mathematically rigorous, but that doesn't mean Dawkins is incapable of learning it.

But essentially all this is is that he's claiming there is no need for an outside, magical influence to be a "first cause," isn't it?

Technically that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists.











That, or perhaps you should have familiarized yourself with the definition of the word from the get go. It has never changed. Just because you personally think the term LITERALLY means a hole does not mean the term ever HAS actually meant that.


In fact, from the very first CONCEPTUALIZATION of the idea it was not ever meant to mean a "hole" or "gravitational well." The very first conceptualization of it was simply the question of what would happen an object fell from an infinite height to a sphere that had a diameter about 500 times smaller than the sun also had the same amount of mass as the sun. This was from the 1700s and had nothing to relativity (according to pre-relativistic physics the object's velocity would be infinite as it hit the surface of the sphere).


And as for the modern concept, that also had nothing to do with a "hole," as I already painstakingly explained to you. "Black holes" have finite masses, they have finite diameters. They extend into space. The issue is the RELATION between mass and diameter, and the fact that light has a finite speed that is influenced by gravitation (experimentally proven on both counts- hundreds of times or more).

Black holes can rotate. They can have angular momentum. At distances outside the event horizon they are the same as ANY spherical object of the same mass, regardless of diameter (and inside it they are only different in that light cannot escape).

You're not torn a part because some magical property of a black hole when you get near one. All that is happening is that the gravitational field is not uniform (because it's a spherical object,and you'll get tidal effects and an inverse square relation between force magnitude and distance), and the magnitude of the gradient is very large compared to changes in location. i.e. you have different force vectors acting in different directions at different magnitudes on your body simultaneously.




In short, "black hole" is just a NAME, and you are putting WAY too much emphasis on the words used in the name.






As for the existence of gravitational singularities inside black holes, (that is, where density approaches infinity in any coordinate system) why should that be a problem? Are you aware that absolute zero is practically a singularity? Of course not, because you don't actually know what "singularity" means. At what value is there a singularity in this: f(x) = 1/(1-x). The speed of light is also a singularity. As an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's momentum and energy approach infinity, so the speed of light is a singularity for momentum and energy. That's what a singularity is. In the function above, as x approaches 1, f(x) approaches infinity. Thus for f(x), 1 is a singularity.

But even still, singularities in the center of black holes (i.e. they extend in space, again) may merely be mathematical constructs. A quantum field theory may remove any mathematical singularities in descriptions of black holes- but a black hole is NOT defined that way, so it wouldn't matter! A black hole is merely something that has an escape velocity greater than c.




Or to put it bluntly: you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And I mean that more than just generally. If I asked you to solve a real physics problem you'd scoff at me. But you certainly wouldn't solve it, because you can't. Because you don't have the training to. Which means you don't have the training to understand the intricacies of highly advanced physics like general relativity, yet you arrogantly claim that the entire population of physicists in this world don't have "an ounce of intelligence."

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9...lmgodzille.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us

what you DON'T seem to get is that the part about light being unable to "escape" is an entirely false premise. it is not that light can't escape, BUT THAT THE STAR - WHICH IT STILL IS - generates insufficent light in the visible realm. and like any other object stuck out in space, you can't see what's behind it. and that the gravitational pull of a "black hole" is the same as any other star in the universe.