19.5.11

So, Prof. Hawking, how about hell?

Stephen Hawking says something quite ordinary and there is a reaction. The battle between science and religion is old and makes little sense. Although a non-religious person, I really don’t get excited about monkeys or the Big Bang theory. Does that mean there is a teeny-weeny bit of hope that I might be ready for some Edenesque idea or whatever the counterparts? To make it simple, I do not rule out possibilities, which is a scientific attitude.
In fact, most seekers who go to religion do so as an experiment. The main problem I have with Hawking is the statement that has been doing the rounds:

“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.”

This is facile in the extreme. While the brain may be likened to a computer, what about the software? There are several of those and they can be loaded whenever we want as per our requirements. The failure of the computer is technical, not philosophical or psychological. A brain-dead person, or one who suffers cardiac failure for that matter, is the end of life. It does not end the possibilities for the living.

Hawking’s problem is to see religion as a fairytale. It isn’t. Outside of organised religion, there are very many stories, and I have no idea how he concludes that these stories are for those who are afraid of the dark. By saying so, he assumes that death is dark and not as much of a happenstance as his scientific beliefs are trying desperately to convey. I wonder what he has to say about science fiction. It is hypothetical, it creates larger than life heroes with ‘god-like’ abilities. The scientist himself is considered some sort of miracle because he has survived despite a debilitating disease. Of course, it is science that makes him accessible to the world, but when he is applauded for his willpower, what is the scientific basis for it? Where does the urge to live against odds come from?

I am most certainly not alluding to a belief system, but to the philosophical dimensions beyond a computerised brain. It might be a wicked idea to posit the gravitational aspect of Newton’s discovery with the enticement of a serpent. It could have been an orange. Why did it have to be an apple?

It would be interesting to add here that almost all ‘religious’ fairytales are up for scrutiny on a regular basis and hypothetical questions are asked of them. It is true that the vast majority is made up of blind believers, but are there watertight compartments about scientific theories? Have they not been debunked or proven wrong?

I wonder why there has been no mention of hell, which comes as a package deal with heaven. Stephen Hawking should know that the devil is in the details.

8 comments:

  1. Some people say that heaven or hell is right here and depends on our situation and state of mind when experiencing that situation. To take an extreme example being tortured by some one, for example a petty criminal by our police would make it hell for that person. For some people sitting in a very pleasant air conditioned room with nice food may seem heavenly. As for the religious hell or heaven, like you said it may exist but there's probably no way for us to know for sure until we die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The battle between science and religion is old and makes little sense.

    It actually does when either of them are hurting the humanity (landmines to nuclear weapons or social repression to holy wars)

    A brain-dead person, or one who suffers cardiac failure for that matter, is the end of life. It does not end the possibilities for the living.

    It kinda does. Even where the bodies survive the brain failure (like in Terri Schivo case), it is pretty near death.

    he assumes that death is dark and not as much of a happenstance as his scientific beliefs are trying desperately to convey.

    Death has always been a favorite subject for religionists (until Quantum Mechanics took over) because Science has not much to say about it beyond the physiological process and that is not very satisfying even to most scientists.
    Popularity of religion can be attributed to the fact that life (rather than death) for the most of the recorded history has been much more dark for majority of humanity. Just plain old struggle for survival (from African Savannah to Modern Concrete Jungles). It is not likely to change anytime soon.

    when he is applauded for his willpower, what is the scientific basis for it? Where does the urge to live against odds come from?

    After watching this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/everest/ I am pretty convinced no amount of will power will allow me to climb Mt Everest but that may just be my poor will power. On the other hand, I think I can get pregnant if I desire it deeply enough.

    Hawking’s problem is to see religion as a fairytale.

    It would be interesting to add here that almost all ‘religious’ fairytales are up for scrutiny on a regular basis and hypothetical questions are asked of them. It is true that the vast majority is made up of blind believers, but are there watertight compartments about scientific theories? Have they not been debunked or proven wrong?

    So is Science to some extent but only difference is that it is a revealed word of another human-being not immortal one so subject to questioning and altering (like now there are alternatives to Big Bang being explored: http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/) Problem of applying scientific method to the faith is this:

    http://www.strange-loops.com/athdisprovinggod.html

    Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.
    —Henri Poincare (1854 - 1912)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=D3rV2t2XkWYC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=scientific+method+poincare&source=bl&ots=kFBfMwcz6J&sig=qnO9bL05UwVlIXTVvNqGqlyqH2A&hl=en&ei=DXrWTfzHOYGqsAPqi6G0Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Quantum Mechanics is anathema to most rationally (logically, left-brain) inclined people as it completely defies logic. Chapter 6 of the following book describes it fairly well:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=BP6qtXsxFYQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    or for more artistic perspective here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MroBJsi9y6g


    But, scientists use it because of its predictive value. As a matter of fact, its application demands that normal way of looking at particles (going from A to B) be abandoned and instead think of them as disappearing from A and popping up at B and not make any assumptions about between A-to-B.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/


    This disturbed even creative right-brained type Einstein till the end of his life.

    In short, as far as Science goes, the proof is in the pudding. If any theory (including levitating Swami Babas) can provide consistently verifiable predictions, they are Science !

    Sorry for the link bombardment...

    hitesh

    ReplyDelete
  3. here is mostly Indian/Hindu/Buddhist perspective (or at least a claim):

    http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/topic004.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sai Reddy:

    The experiences you mention are emotions; heaven/hell would even philosophically be states of being without emotional baggage.

    Hitesh:

    Thank you for the links. One request: when you quote me to counteract or extend an argument, please use some sort of demarcation - quotation marks, parenthesis etc...

    Holy wars use weapons, but the idea does not spring from them. Many scientific thoughts would then be attributed to the scriptures that talk of flying objects and such.

    Re. my comment about brain-dead, I was talking about life not ending for the living, as in the human life would continue, not necessarily for that person.

    You have made some interesting points. Mount Everest can be reached by helicopter!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Farzana:

    Hell is something we create ourselves... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hell, now that's a lucrative idea, given the huge market at our disposal!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Computer == Brain is just an analogy for common people, you certainly dont expect him to start how human brain works, what are synapsis and how small amounts of electricity is generated in our neural networks and transferred to other neural cells through dendrites, do you ?

    Stephen Hawking is a great scientist, there are many more like him and yes he gets more attention because of his condition but also because he tries to explain science in terms that non-science people can understand, and for that they have to give examples from common life. There are many other people like that - Einstein, Brian Green, Michio Kaku etc.

    Don't look for philosophical reasoning behind what they say because usually there isn't, you will get wrong philosophy and wrong science. Usually you will find Hawking directly debunking religion, he doesn't needs analogies for that :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. You seem to have a fascination with computers, as similes to "hardware and software" appear frequently in your posts.
    As for Hawking, he must be pretty fond of them, as his life depends on microprocessors. He has compared death to darkness... meaning, nothing is left after our demise. Perhaps he is forgetting the miracle of his being so successful in spite of his debilities.
    My two paise worth of insight: Everyone of us have multiple personalities inside our brains. Each of these personalities take possession of us, one @ a time, unbeknownst to ourselves. One may say that these are the different softwares running the hardware(greymatter?).

    But then, how about troubleshooting and virus? And OS choices?

    ~Amitabha

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.