Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story' | Science | The Guardian
The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be . A recent article in the New York Times by Cornelia Dean quotes the You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of . if the islands are too spaced out for any one to hope for a meeting with any other. In Pictures · Reality Check Stephen Hawking dies: Scientist's most memorable quotes "Einstein was wrong when he said, 'God does not play dice'. ❝ Without imperfection, you or I would not exist❞ - On Into The Universe races meeting more primitive people on this planet is not very happy, and they. Many people are atheists because they think there is no evidence for God's existence - or It says that we should assume that God does not exist, and put the onus on to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an Reasons to do with science and the history of thought.
Einstein's comments appear on p. In response to not knowing the speed of sound as included in the Edison Test: New York Times 18 May ; Einstein: His Life and Times Philipp Frank, p.
In so far as theories of mathematics speak about reality, they are not certain, and in so far as they are certain, they do not speak about reality. Geometrie and Erfahrung pp. I was sitting in a chair in the patent office at Bern when all of sudden a thought occurred to me: If a person falls freely he will not feel his own weight.
This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled me toward a theory of gravitation. Comment made after a six-week trip to Japan in November-Decemberpublished in Kaizo 5, no.
Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Einstein himself used variants of this quote at other times. For example, in a conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: It is the theory which decides what can be observed. Objecting to the placing of observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces by Abdus Salam ISBN Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.
Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. Weidenfeld and Nicolson Response to atheist Alfred Kerr in the winter ofwho after deriding ideas of God and religion at a dinner party in the home of the publisher Samuel Fischerhad queried him "I hear that you are supposed to be deeply religious" as quoted in The Diary of a Cosmopolitan by H.
Kessler Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.
I believe in Spinoza 's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. Answer paid 50 words. I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason. Science and Religion by Arnold V. Work is x, play is y and z is keeping your mouth shut. Cited with additional notes in The Ultimate Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice and Freeman DysonPrinceton UP p Science is international but its success is based on institutions, which are owned by nations.
If therefore, we wish to promote culture we have to combine and to organize institutions with our own power and means. Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things? One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Viereck interview [ edit ] "What Life Means to Einstein: A scan of the article is available online here. I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination encircles the world. I am a Jewbut I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.
Stephen Hawking dies: Scientist's most memorable quotes - BBC News
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. I look upon myself as a man. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
The meaning of relativity has been widely misunderstood. Philosophers play with the word, like a child with a doll. Relativity, as I see it, merely denotes that certain physical and mechanical facts, which have been regarded as positive and permanent, are relative with regard to certain other facts in the sphere of physics and mechanics. It does not mean that everything in life is relative and that we have the right to turn the whole world mischievously topsy-turvy.
No man can visualize four dimensions, except mathematically … I think in four dimensions, but only abstractly. The human mind can picture these dimensions no more than it can envisage electricity. Nevertheless, they are no less real than electro-magnetism, the force which controls our universe, within, and by which we have our being. Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing. My laurel is not for sale like so many bales of cotton. If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician.
I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music. Reading after a certain age diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking, just as the man who spends too much time in the theater is tempted to be content with living vicariously instead of living his own life.
Our time is Gothic in its spirit. Unlike the Renaissance, it is not dominated by a few outstanding personalities. The twentieth century has established the democracy of the intellect.
In the republic of art and science there are many men who take an equally important part in the intellectual movements of our age. It is the epoch rather than the individual that is important. There is no one dominant personality like Galileo or Newton. Even in the nineteenth century there were still a few giants who outtopped all others. Today the general level is much higher than ever before in the history of the world, but there are few men whose stature immediately sets them apart from all others.
In America, more than anywhere else, the individual is lost in the achievements of the many. America is beginning to be the world leader in scientific investigation.
American scholarship is both patient and inspiring. The Americans show an unselfish devotion to science, which is the very opposite of the conventional European view of your countrymen. Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.
It is not true that the dollar is an American fetish. The American student is not interested in dollars, not even in success as such, but in his task, the object of the search. It is his painstaking application to the study of the infinitely little and the infinitely large which accounts for his success in astronomy.
We are inclined to overemphasize the material influences in history. The Russians especially make this mistake. Intellectual values and ethnic influences, tradition and emotional factors are equally important. If this were not the case, Europe would today be a federated state, not a madhouse of nationalism. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will.
The Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine philosophically. In that respect I am not a Jew. His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must. Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed.
If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being. I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime; nevertheless, I must protect myself from unpleasant contacts. I may consider him guiltless, but I prefer not to take tea with him.
My own career was undoubtedly determined, not by my own will but by various factors over which I have no control—primarily those mysterious glands in which Nature prepares the very essence of life, our internal secretions. Whereas materialistic historians and philosophers neglect psychic realities, Freud is inclined to overstress their importance.
I am not a psychologist, but it seems to me fairly evident that physiological factors, especially our endocrines, control our destiny … I am not able to venture a judgment on so important a phase of modern thought. However, it seems to me that psychoanalysis is not always salutary.
It may not always be helpful to delve into the subconscious. The machinery of our legs is controlled by a hundred different muscles. Do you think it would help us to walk if we analyzed our legs and knew exactly which one of the little muscles must be employed in locomotion and the order in which they work? I think he is even greater as a writer than as a psychologist.
Freud's brilliant style is unsurpassed by anyone since Schopenhauer. The only progress I can see is progress in organization. The ordinary human being does not live long enough to draw any substantial benefit from his own experience.
WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD | relax-sakura.info
And no one, it seems, can benefit by the experiences of others. Being both a father and teacher, I know we can teach our children nothing. We can transmit to them neither our knowledge of life nor of mathematics.
Each must learn its lesson anew. I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29,confirmed my intuitions.
I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.
Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.Dan Barker - God does NOT exist
As reported in Einstein — A Life by Denis Brian, when asked about a clipping from a magazine article reporting his comments on Christianity as taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe. It is quite possible to be both.
When asked by Viereck if he considered himself to be a German or a Jew. A version with slightly different wording is quoted in Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacsonp. We have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies for the sake of social conformity. I do not think that religion is the most important element. We are held together rather by a body of tradition, handed down from father to son, which the child imbibes with his mother's milk. The atmosphere of our infancy predetermines our idiosyncrasies and predilections.
In response to a question about whether religion is the tie holding the Jews together. But to return to the Jewish question. Other groups and nations cultivate their individual traditions. There is no reason why we should sacrifice ours. Standardization robs life of its spice.
To deprive every ethnic group of its special traditions is to convert the world into a huge Ford plant. I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings. Standardization is a great peril which threatens American culture. I am happy because I want nothing from anyone. I do not care for money. Decorations, titles or distinctions mean nothing to me. I do not crave praise.
The only thing that gives me pleasure, apart from my work, my violin and my sailboat, is the appreciation of my fellow workers. I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.
I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.
May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues.
The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
Reasons people choose atheism
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
There have been disputes on the accuracy of this quotation. Sometimes misquoted as, "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". I'm not an atheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. Nowadays it's a branch of astronomy and physics, but in pre-scientific times it was a religious subject, organising the universe in terms of almost military ranks of beings.
God was at the top, and human beings came pretty much at the bottom. In some cosmologies there was also an inverted hierarchy of evil beings going down from humanity to the source of wickedness, the devil, at the bottom.
Power These religious cosmologies were rigid; each being had its place worked out for it in the structure that God had provided, and that was where it stayed. Looking at the universe like this provided great support for the hierarchical power structures of earthly nations and tribes: Everyone in a nation or tribe had their place, and the power came from the top. And if God had decided to organise the universe in such a hierarchy, this provided a strong argument against anyone who wanted to suggest that society could be organised in a fairer and more equal way - God had shown us the perfect way to organise things, and those who were ruling did so by a right given by God.
It was also very good news for whichever religion was followed in a particular nation: The mechanical universe The idea that God steered everything in the universe as he saw fit was demolished by the discovery that there were natural laws obeyed by objects in the universe. Galileo, for example, discovered that the universe followed laws that could be written down mathematically. This suggested that there was logic and engineering throughout creation. The universe behaved in a consistent manner and was not subject to gods pulling a string here and there, or some unexplained influences from astrological bodies.
This didn't give Galileo any religious problems although it annoyed the church greatly and they eventually made him keep quiet about some of his conclusions because he believed that God had written the scientific rules. And around this time scientists began to come up with new ways of assessing whether certain things were true. Things were expected to happen in a repeatable, testable way, that could be written down in equations. God the engineer Although scientific discovery began to explain more and more, it didn't cause large numbers of people to become less religious.
Even many - probably most - scientists still had a place for God in the universe.
At the very least, he had started the whole thing going, and he had created the rules that his universe was shown to obey.
This half-way house between religion and science still had problems for the faithful, since it didn't seem to leave much room for God to intervene in the universe - and certainly it didn't need God to keep things ticking over.
God the creator But the half-way house also provided some support for the faithful. They could look at the universe and see how beautifuly made it was, and be reassured that God had demonstrated his existence by creating such a wonderful place. And since science, until the late 18th, and 19th centuries, hadn't produced any good explanation of how things began, religion still had an important place in explaining how the world was the way it was. God takes a back seat God's role as an explanation for the way things are took a serious knock from the sciences of geology and evolution.
Geologists discovered that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old, and not just 6, years old as was generally believed at that time.
They showed that the rocks that make up the earth had been laid down in layers at different times; a deeper layer by and large came from an earlier time than a shallow layer. In each layer were fossils that showed that different species of animals had lived in different eras. Not only were many no longer in existence but some didn't appear until relatively recent times.
This was incompatible with the idea that God completely created the world in 6 days and so scientists with a faith came up with another compromise - the 6 days of biblical creation were a poetic way of describing long periods of millions of years during which God worked on the world. The theory of evolution Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker The theory of evolution explains the variety of life forms on earth without any reference to God.
It says that from very simple beginnings, processes of genetic variation and selection i. These processes are not directed by any being, they are just the way the world works; God is unnecessary. The result of this for God has been explained by Stephen Jay Gould: No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run.
- Stephen Hawking greatest quotes: 'Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet'
- Stephen Hawking dies: Scientist's most memorable quotes
- WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature. Reasons that treat God as meaningless Relative philosophy Some philosophers think that religious language doesn't mean anything at all, and therefore that there's no point in asking whether God exists. They would say that a sentence like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is neither true or false, it's meaningless; in the same way that "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is meaningless.
Logical Positivism, or Verificationism Logical Positivists argued that a sentence was meaningless if it wasn't either true or false, and they said that a sentence would only be true or false if it could be tested by an experiment, or if it was true by definition. A more accurate version of this idea can be found here: Since you couldn't verify the existence of God by any sort of "sense experience", and it wasn't true by definition eg in the way "a triangle has 3 sides" is truethe logical positivists argued that it was pointless asking the question since it could not be answered true or false.
These particular philosophers didn't only say that religious talk was meaningless, they thought that much of philosophical discussion, metaphysics for example, was meaningless too. This philosophical theory is no longer popular, and attention has returned to the issues of what "God" means and whether "God" exists. Note for philosophers This is how one prominent philosopher put it: We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express - that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject is as being false.
Ayer Ayer actually preferred a weaker version of the theory, because since no empirical proof could be totally conclusive, almost every statement about the world would have to be regarded as meaningless.
A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established in experience.
But it is verifiable, in the weak sense, if it is possible for experience to render it probable. And this led Ayer to dispose of the God question rather brusquely: There can be no way of proving that the existence of a god For if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis.
And in that case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential propositions which were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone. But in fact this is not possible For to say that "God Exists" is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. Ayer Reasons that treat God as a psychological factor Psychological explanations of religon Psychologists have long been fascinated by religion as something that exists in all societies.
They ask whether 'religion' is actually a name given to various psychological drives, rather than a response to the existence of God or gods. Such a belief is clearly atheistic. Religion, to the common man, is a: Freud, Civilization and its Discontents Religion comes from emotions Human beings believe in God because they want: A father figure to protect them from this frightening world Someone who gives their lives meaning and purpose Something that stops death being the end To believe that they are an important part of the universe, and that some component of the universe God cares for and respects them These beliefs are strongly held because they enable human beings to cope with some of their most basic fears.
Atheists argue that since religion is just a psychological fantasy, human beings should abandon it so that they can grow to respond appropriately to deal with the world as it is. Freud Sigmund Freud tackled religion in great detail and had several ideas about it. One of his theories was that religion stems from the individual's experience of having been a helpless baby totally dependent on its parents.
The infant sees its parents as all-powerful beings who show it great love and satisfy all its needs. This experience is almost identical to the way human beings portray their relationship with God. Freud also suggested that childhood experiences caused people to have very complex feelings about their parents and themselves, and religion and religious rituals provide a respectable mechanism for working these out.
Freud also described religion as a mass-delusion that reshaped reality to provide a certainty of happiness and a protection from suffering. Reasons that treat God as a social function Sociological explanations of religion Some people think that religions and belief in God fulfil functions in human society, rather than being the result of God actually existing. Ludwig Feuerbach Ludwig Feuerbach was a 19th century German philosopher who proposed that religion was just a human being's consciousness of the infinite.
He said that human ideas about God were no more than the projection of humanity's ideas about man onto an imaginary supernatural being. Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheima French sociologist, thought that religion was something produced by human society, and had nothing supernatural about it. Religious force is nothing other than the collective and anonymous force of the clan.
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. He believed that religion existed, but he did not agree that the reality that lay behind it was the same reality that believers thought existed. Religion helped people to form close knit groups, in which they could find a place in society. Religious rituals created mental states in those taking part which were helpful to the group.
To put it another way; religious rituals do not do anything other than strengthen the beliefs of the group taking part and reinforce the collective consciousness. Religion fulfilled the functions of: Giving a meaning and purpose to life Binding people together in groups Supporting the moral code of the group Supporting the social code of the group Durkheim thought that this was enough to give people a feeling that there was something supernatural going on.
Since it is in spiritual ways that social pressure exercises itself, it could not fail to give men the idea that outside themselves there exist one or several powers, both moral and, at the same time, efficacious, upon which they depend. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life Durkheim said that religious beliefs divided experiences into the profane and the sacred - the profane were the routine experiences of everyday life, while the sacred were beyond the everyday and likely to inspire reverence.
Objects could become sacred, not because of any inherent supernatural resonance but because the group fixed certain 'collective ideals' on an object. Karl Marx's criticisms of religion Marx's view of religion Karl Marx thought that religion was an illusion, with no real God or supernatural reality standing in the background.
Religion was a force that stopped human societies from changing. A social institution Marx believed that religion was a social institution, and reflected and sustained the particular society in which it flourished.