Anti-science madness

@Ahmad:

The article from the atheist scientist Stephen Hawkins you posted was apparently extracted from a book he published with Penrose in '94.

As a sidenote, I have actually participated in conferences with both (quite spooky for Hawkins due to his handicap).

Now, your quotation:

Hawkins conclusion in '94: Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen....

is built on the following assumption/Knowledge of that time: ...that information will be lost from our region of the universe, when black holes are formed, and then evaporate. This loss of information will mean that we can predict even less than we thought, on the basis of quantum theory.

Now, recently, precisely the 25th of August 2015 he presented his new theory which made him change his own point of view about exactly this prior assumption. This invalidates his/your own conclusion about the dices.
The discussion is probably not settled yet, but there is at least one lesson we can already draw:

Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 26 January 2016 at 2:15pm

airmano wrote: ....As a sidenote, I have actually participated in conferences with both (quite spooky for Hawkins due to his handicap). Now, your quotation: Hawkins conclusion in '94: Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.... is built on the following assumption/Knowledge of that time: ...that information will be lost from our region of the universe, when black holes are formed, and then evaporate. This loss of information will mean that we can predict even less than we thought, on the basis of quantum theory. Now, recently, precisely the 25th of August 2015 he presented his new theory which made him change his own point of view about exactly this prior assumption. This invalidates his/your own conclusion about the dices. The discussion is probably not settled yet, but there is at least one lesson we can already draw: Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth. Airmano

So, as per your own admission, since 2015 > 1994, so don't believe the old especially when they claim to hold universal truth . In the same way, don't you think you may like to do away with einstein's quote, that you cherish so well that it appear as your signature every where after you posts? This is even older than '94. Isn't it? or you think it does not hold 'universal truth'? Your choice!

So your statement Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth. if applied to your own signature as The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses is only valid as long as Einstein's theories are considered 'extremely resilient against the assault of time'? or would you still keep on using it even if his theories no more make sense simply because you might not consider this statement to hold a universal truth? In either case, point remains your 'faith', IMHO is simply as fragile as Mr Albert Einstein's theories are, its just a matter of time, possibly right in your own lifetime you would know it. One can only wish to see science progress beyond Einstein, but would that hurt you? Rationally, that shouldn't; but then why now?

Ahmad So your statement Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth. if applied to your own signature as The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses is only valid as long as Einstein's theories are considered 'extremely resilient against the assault of time'? or would you still keep on using it even if his theories no more make sense simply because you might not consider this statement to hold a universal truth? In either case, point remains your 'faith', IMHO is simply as fragile as Mr Albert Einstein's theories are, its just a matter of time, possibly right in your own lifetime you would know it. One can only wish to see science progress beyond Einstein, but would that hurt you? Rationally, that shouldn't; but then why now?

Religious people have the tendency to throw terms like "truth", "eternal", "omniscient", "almighty" in the air as if they were popcorn.
As I already wrote elsewhere: The more superlatives are used the more suspicious I get. It is for me a rather clear telltale sign of an attempt to cover up the lack of substance - or worse. This is especially the case for groups using the term "truth" in an inflationary way as many in your religion (but also others) undoubtedly do.

This is probably the fundamental difference between your thinking and mine. I don't think that "universal truth" will ever be available to us humans, and certainly not by reading a diary somebody wrote 1400 years ago.
But I think we can get closer to it by using logic and our senses (May be you should read what Muslim thinker Averroes has to say on this subject) but we'll never reach it. This kind of reasoning may be more painful than yours, because whatever you do there is always a (little) doubt on whether it is right or wrong, but it has the real advantage that it allows you to look at the world outside of rigid schemes - at least to a certain extend. You could also call it mental freedom.

Now to Einstein: No, I don't see his work as divine, nor do I see him as a prophet, but I bow my head when I see the deepness of his thoughts. That doesn't make me blind towards the fact that he could be a real ****** towards women and that he didn't care much about his kids. I'd wish that you could develop a similar attitude towards your prophet: Acknowledging the "good" points but also seeing his downsides that are all too obvious in his case. That doesn't imply that we have to agree on him but it would help to overcome some difficulties.

Back to Einstein: I don't think his theories will be "wrong" anywhere near (there is far too much proof for it), but there may be aspects that will have to be revised. Einstein never overthrew Newton mechanics either, he only corrected it for some cases, irrelevant for daily life (well, not quite true in my case and of course there are exceptions like the GPS system).

To conclude: Yes I would change my mind (and thus my signature) if there was some real ground to adhere to (a particular) faith, but Islam does certainly not rank amongst the candidates.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 02 February 2016 at 1:39pm