stephen hawking: the afterlife does not exist

[Herbert Anchovy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

 

[Dick Whitman]

Isn't this a really uncontroversial idea among neuro-blahblahblahs? I remember a couple years ago Time did a big blowout on the advance of brain science, and noted that the most shocking idea to the rest of us was the one and only thing that people who studied this stuff for a living were quite sure of: That when you're gone, you're gone. That's it.

What makes it a headline this time around?

 

[User 1019]

I once made a terrible joke about Mr. Hawking.

Someone wondered aloud, maybe HejiraHenry, "I wonder what his IQ is."
Without skipping a beat, I answered, "I dunno. But I know what his time in the 40 is."

 

[hondo]

Isn't this a really uncontroversial idea among neuro-blahblahblahs? I remember a couple years ago Time did a big blowout on the advance of brain science, and noted that the most shocking idea to the rest of us was the one and only thing that people who studied this stuff for a living were quite sure of: That when you're gone, you're gone. That's it.

What makes it a headline this time around?

Well, if you and the eggheads say so, that must make it true. But you're speaking of people who study "this stuff" (the brain) for a living. What about the people who study the soul for a living. They likely have a different take.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Isn't this a really uncontroversial idea among neuro-blahblahblahs? I remember a couple years ago Time did a big blowout on the advance of brain science, and noted that the most shocking idea to the rest of us was the one and only thing that people who studied this stuff for a living were quite sure of: That when you're gone, you're gone. That's it.

What makes it a headline this time around?

Well, if you and the eggheads say so, that must make it true. But you're speaking of people who study "this stuff" (the brain) for a living. What about the people who study the soul for a living. They likely have a different take.

I'm Catholic.

 

[Yodel]

It's sad to be that intelligent yet still a fool.

 

[Stitch]

When I die, I'll be sure to tell you if there's an afterlife.

 

[Steak Snabler]

I don't claim to be as learned or intelligent as either the scientists on one side of this argument or the theologians on the other, but I do know one thing: this thread is heading for a lock.

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

It's sad to be that intelligent yet still a fool.

what about the people who study the soul for a living. They likely have a different take.

Terror Management Theory in full force, I see.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The afterlife: Stephen Hawking does not exist.

 

[The Big Ragu]

This one is easy enough for me to settle without locking the thread.

On the count of three, everyone drink a cup of poison hemlock.

1. ... 2. ...

 

[Clerk Typist]

Lock, schmock (as Steve Allen would have said). Seems a perfect jumping off point to debate the concept of afterlife: Yes, no, or dunno.
Me: Dunno. Still trying to figure out the difference between living and existing.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I don't know about the afterlife.

But in this life, you're on your own. And if the elevator tries to bring you down ... Go crazy.

 

[black dude with pompano]

I tend to fall into the "no" category, but if the afterlife is a fairly tale, it's often a harmless and comforting one to people. There are far more odious things about religion to be worried about.

I also was puzzled how this became headline news today. The news would have been stunning (and frankly exciting) if Hawking or a scientist of similar fame made the opposite declaration.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

If the worst thing organized religion did was sell a belief of an afterlife we would be a lot better off.

 

[Stoney]

I think the afterlife might be the only controversial topic I've never seen debated on this site. Probably for the better, arguments tend not to go so well when a sizeable portion are arguing from a position of suppressed terror (even if they care not to admit it).

I'll admit I'm one of those "afraid of the dark", as Hawking put it. So I know which side I want to believe, I just wish there was some sort of stinking evidence to fall back upon.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Hawking's theoretical physics have been alternately embraced by deists and atheists over a period of only 20 years.

That's when you know (a) you've really made it or (b) you're full of ****.

 

[schiezainc]

As much as I want to believe in the afterlife, I have a hard time doing so. What fuels this? Mainly a thought I had in fifth grade.

I was in religious class and we were studying ancient religions and the way they pissed off "God" by worshiping a golden calf.

That got me to thinking. While the idea of worshiping a golden calf seems stupid to me now, to the people of that time it made complete and utter sense.

From there, I started thinking about all the customs we have and wondered how they'd be looked at in 200-300 years.

I can't say there's much of a difference.

Also, another thought I've often had. Let's say there is an afterlife. Are there pets there? Sure, everyone might think little Fido or Jewel the cat go to Heaven when they die but what about the everyday rabbit killed in traffic? The ants stepped on by some third grader? The evil shark in the ocean?

If you believe in the afterlife, don't you have to believe that there's an afterlife for all those creatures too? I suppose you could think that humans are just special but, really, what are the odds that there would be one afterlife and just humans are a part of it?

And, lastly, we base almost all of what we know of religion on ancient books written by God through man, right? Well, let's say God decided he wanted to write a sequel today. How would those books be received?

I doubt anyone would seriously consider a new bible written today as factual and would write off anyone crazy enough to say they've talked to God so what makes the guys who wrote thousands of years ago so special? Why should we believe they had actual contact with a deity and that that deity has chosen to go to radio silence ever since?

These are the reasons I can't believe there actually is an afterlife. But I don't begrudge anyone who does believe in one. Heck, I hope there is one. The thought of fading to black with nothing else ever creeps me out beyond belief.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

Regardless of what the latest topic is, I have always found it odd that a "theoretical" physicist/cosmologist that can't even communicate by himself gets credit for being the smartest mofo on the planet. You can't prove anything he says outside of a lab. It's theory.

"We got teams of guys just sitting around thinking **** up" and one dude comes along to tell us about black holes. Pretty good gig if you can get it, I guess.

 

[deskslave]

that can't even communicate by himself

Wow. Stay classy.