# Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818 "2011-05-22T21:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/381 "2011-06-06T14:49:07Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Science simply takes the question back step by step. It adds layer and layer of complexity to make its sums add up. As the proposed solution of big questions gets more complex, it gets less likely. A belief in the super-natural cuts through all that. > > “God.” > “Ah ha! and who created God?” > “Nobody, He exists outside of time, another of His creations.” > “But!” This is a perfect example of how a genuinely smart and thoughtful person can confuse himself into rationales for a baseless belief. The supernatural has utterly no evidence to speak for it, so it is no answer. It’s simply a personification of “I don’t know”. How do trees grow from seeds? _God!_ What makes the sun rise? _God!_ Where do we go when we die? To _God!_ These aren’t questions we naturally know the answers to. But instead of looking in to them primitive men waved their hands and said, _God_! God is the opposite of an answer, and assuming that the Abrahamic God is the one of the millions of options throughout history is doubly shoddy thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/382 "2011-06-06T15:38:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > This is a perfect example of how a genuinely smart and thoughtful person can confuse himself into rationales for a baseless belief. > > The supernatural has utterly no evidence to speak for it, so it is no answer. It’s simply a personification of “I don’t know”. > > How do trees grow from seeds? _God!_ > What makes the sun rise? _God!_ > Where do we go when we die? To _God!_ > > These aren’t questions we naturally know the answers to. But instead of looking in to them primitive men waved their hands and said, _God_! > > God is the opposite of an answer, and assuming that the Abrahamic God is the one of the millions of options throughout history is doubly shoddy thinking. “Arguments that explain everything… explain nothing.” -Christopher Hitchens The issue of _complexity_, especially in regards to Occam’s Razor, only really applies to issues that are both of the following: -Unproven/questionable -dealing with unknown assumptions Let me explain… Using Occam’s Razor to assume that “elves did it” in the case of the automotor is fallacious; we know that in this case, one explanation fits with the assumptions we make. That is, it’s not unproven or questionable. We _know_ how it works. However, the second question is where “god did it is simpler” falls apart. Occam’s Razor deals with basic human assumptions. Things like “My senses offer my correct data about the world” or “it is possible to learn something about the universe”. Whenever you invoke the supernatural, you make an additional assumption: “the supernatural exists”. One that Occam’s Razor deems unnecessary if the previous assumptions you necessarily have made regarding the physical universe are to remain upheld. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/383 "2011-06-06T15:40:25Z")
More than a personification of “I don’t know,” an honest enough position to take, a belief in the deity also provides a personification of “What I find useful.” The explanation may not be completely correct, but it is sufficient to meet my needs. It is a simple, practical and pragmatic philosophy. Science gets needlessly complex, unlikely and frankly rigged as it deals with questions that do not (yet) have answers. If you believe in a God that is undetectable, you are unreasonable. If you believe most of the mass of the universe is undetectable, you are scientific. Or you are making stuff up so your notions meet the observations. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/384 "2011-06-06T15:50:18Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > More than a personification of “I don’t know,” an honest enough position to take, a belief in the deity also provides a personification of “What I find useful.” The explanation may not be completely correct, but it is sufficient to meet my needs. So… “I don’t care what is correct; this works for me whether it’s true or not”? > [@](#): > > It is a simple, practical and pragmatic philosophy. Science gets needlessly complex, unlikely and frankly rigged as it deals with questions that do not (yet) have answers. Um… No offense, but that’s a load of horseshit. Science gets _necessarily_ complex when dealing with extremely complex questions. Things like the existence of the universe, the cause of the big bang, et cetera. Things that are incredibly difficult to deal with. In fact, kind of the entire point of the scientific method is to _weed out_ needless complexity, and provide a fair playground for evidence to accumulate. Let’s take your next example: > [@](#): > > If you believe in a God that is undetectable, you are unreasonable. If you believe most of the mass of the universe is undetectable, you are scientific. Or you are making stuff up so your notions meet the observations. I assume you’re referring to dark matter… Sounds a little like someone who doesn’t understand how light can be more than just the visible spectrum they see, and therefore doubts the existence of microwaves. It _is_ detectable. It took me about 30 seconds of googling to reach this page: [Dark matter: The evidence | New Scientist](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927982.800-dark-matter-the-evidence.html) The scientists aren’t talking out of their asses when it comes to dark matter. I’d school you in the matter further, but I honestly don’t actually know much about it. And I’ll gladly admit that. You… won’t. Admitting that you (and everyone supporting you) have _no_ credibility in the field you’re debating kinda hurts your case… I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I know enough to debunk _your_ shit. You have an incredibly flawed view of both science and the scientific process; “unneeded complexity” is to science as “proof” is to religion: it doesn’t happen because it’s antithetical to the main point (in my case finding the simplest, most realistic explanations that fit with all the data we have; in your case, taking crap on faith alone). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/385 "2011-06-06T15:50:25Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > It is a simple, practical and pragmatic philosophy. Science gets needlessly complex, unlikely and frankly rigged as it deals with questions that do not (yet) have answers. Where do answers come from? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/386 "2011-06-06T15:54:06Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Science simply takes the question back step by step. It adds layer and layer of complexity to make its sums add up. This is completely backwards. > [@](#): > > A belief in the super-natural cuts through all that. No. It has no explanatory power and only regressesthe question, as I said. > [@](#): > > “God.” > “Ah ha! and who created God?” > “Nobody, He exists outside of time, another of His creations.” > “But!” Do you really think that’s how the conversation goes? That you’re stumping science with your “God is outside of time” gibberish? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/387 "2011-06-06T15:59:07Z")
So you think you stump faith when you say the Big Bang happened nothing that was in no place and in no time exploded? In truth, why even worry about matters that have little practical value? People of faith and of science agree on the vast majority of everything. Minor questions on the edge might be interesting, but they are not really critical. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/388 "2011-06-06T15:59:40Z")
Even if god had explanatory power (which he _technically_ does, even if it’s pretty much the same power as “I don’t know”), he has no predictive power whatsoever. Okay, God did it in regards to evolution, flooding, lightning… Doesn’t help me one bit. Doesn’t let me figure out how to protect myself from lightning strikes (or how to avoid them). Doesn’t let me figure out when floods are likely to happen. Doesn’t help me predict the effect glasses, braces, and similar technological enhancements will have on our evolution as a species. It does not help us _one bit_. And I think this is a fair critique of magical thinking; even if it’s true, it tells us _nothing_. Science, on the other hand, has told us how to avoid floods, given us a warning system for tidal waves, shown us not only how to avoid lightning, but how to _cause_ it, and given us evolutionary evidence for the entire field of biology. YEP, THAT’S A PRETTY BIG DIVIDE, DON’T’CHA THINK? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/389 "2011-06-06T16:06:58Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > More than a personification of “I don’t know,” an honest enough position to take, a belief in the deity also provides a personification of “What I find useful.” The explanation may not be completely correct, but it is sufficient to meet my needs. But it’s not useful at all. It explains nothing. It gives you no information. > [@](#): > > It is a simple, practical and pragmatic philosophy. Science gets needlessly complex, unlikely and frankly rigged as it deals with questions that do not (yet) have answers. What are you talking about? Have you ever taken a science class. You seem to have some very peculiar ideas about what it is. > [@](#): > > If you believe in a God that is undetectable, you are unreasonable. Unreasoned, anyway. > [@](#): > > If you believe most of the mass of the universe is undetectable, you are scientific. Or you are making stuff up so your notions meet the observations. Who believes the universe is undetectable? We infer things about the unobserved universe (the mass of which is not “undetectable,” by the way), from what we know of the laws and mainfestations taht we do see. We are able to make testable predictions about things. There is no test for your cloud wizard, nor is he an inferrence from any kind of observed data. It’s just an arbitray figure of fantasy which lacks either demonstrated necessity, evidence or utility. Science is not sone kind of atheistic ideology, by the way. It’s not “philosophy.” It’s a method for discovering information, that’s all. It’s not based on opinions or beliefs and it self corrects for human error. Religion is simly made up out of whole cloth, depends on self-proclaimed “revelations” from human beings (human beings who basically fall into two categories - psychotics and frauds - mostly frauds). Science does not rely on something so puerile as “revelation” or human authority. The data is the data. The tests are the tests. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/390 "2011-06-06T16:11:57Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say the Big Bang happened nothing that was in no place and in no time explode Nobody says that, and implicatons about god beliefs have nothing to do with it. The Big Bang is a fact. it happemned. we have the microwave radiation to prove. Whatever that says about your god beliefs is your problem. It’s not an issue for scientific method. > [@](#): > > In truth, why even worry about matters that have little practical value? People of faith and of science agree on the vast majority of everything. Minor questions on the edge might be interesting, but they are not really critical. People of faith and science are not necessarily opposed. One does not have to exclude the other. It’s a fact that scientific method has never revealed wither necessity or evidence for gods, though. Technically speaking, gods cannot be disproven, but it also can’t be disproven that gravity is caused by psychic elves. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/391 "2011-06-06T16:17:44Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say the Big Bang happened nothing that was in no place and in no time exploded? > > In truth, why even worry about matters that have little practical value? People of faith and of science agree on the vast majority of everything. Minor questions on the edge might be interesting, but they are not really critical. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say that lightning comes from the clouds and is generated by water? > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say that disease is caused by tiny little animals within us? > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say that the tides are caused by the influence of the moon, and the moon is not some disk in the sky but rather a gigantic planetoid? > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say that diversity is accounted for by gradual genome changes over hundreds of generations instead of god putting us all here? > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So you think you stump faith when you say that life originated by chemical reactions, not the hand of an almighty god? God of the gaps. It’s a known and common fallacy. > [@](#): > > In truth, why even worry about matters that have little practical value? People of faith and of science agree on the vast majority of everything. Minor questions on the edge might be interesting, but they are not really critical. How important do you think quantum mechanics are? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/392 "2011-06-06T16:18:03Z")
You do know that typing in all caps is usually interpreted as shouting, don’t you? I am sorry if you are becoming emotional. It was not my intent. A belief in deity shows us that we are special, the purpose of all of creation, the main character in the sitcom. This means we are masters of this sphere and can understand it, mold and shape it. We are not a simple mote of dust in a meaningless and directionless eternity. A belief in deity lets us see the vastness of the cosmos and know that there is a plan, that evil will fail, good will endure. Or not, your milage may vary of course. But it is a comfort and a help to me. Pragmatism I would point out is the most American philosophy. Again, I am sorry if I upset you. (It is bedtime here, please understand that I am not ignoring you.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/393 "2011-06-06T16:21:09Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > A belief in deity shows us that we are special, the purpose of all of creation, the main character in the sitcom. This means we are masters of this sphere and can understand it, mold and shape it. We are not a simple mote of dust in a meaningless and directionless eternity. A belief in deity lets us see the vastness of the cosmos and know that there is a plan, that evil will fail, good will endure. In other words, you choose to believe in a deity, because it helps you to believe in a whole series of other falsehoods as well. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/394 "2011-06-06T16:24:05Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > You do know that typing in all caps is usually interpreted as shouting, don’t you? I am sorry if you are becoming emotional. It was not my intent. Stupidity makes me feel one of two emotions: pity and rage. And when you’ve been at SDMB long enough to understand that we fight _ignorance_ here (took me about one look at the tagline :rolleyes:), and are still spouting crap like that… > [@](#): > > A belief in deity shows us that we are special, the purpose of all of creation, the main character in the sitcom. This means we are masters of this sphere and can understand it, mold and shape it. We are not a simple mote of dust in a meaningless and directionless eternity. A belief in deity lets us see the vastness of the cosmos and know that there is a plan, that evil will fail, good will endure. Except that not only are good and evil entirely man-made and subjective concepts, but just because a feeling is nice doesn’t make it factually correct. A belief in a deity shows that we have superiority complexes, that we are delusional, and that our rationality centers are not working particularly well. It doesn’t matter how useful it is if it’s dead wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/395 "2011-06-06T17:00:05Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > You do know that typing in all caps is usually interpreted as shouting, don’t you? I am sorry if you are becoming emotional. It was not my intent. > > A belief in deity shows us that we are special, the purpose of all of creation, the main character in the sitcom. This means we are masters of this sphere and can understand it, mold and shape it. We are not a simple mote of dust in a meaningless and directionless eternity. A belief in deity lets us see the vastness of the cosmos and know that there is a plan, that evil will fail, good will endure. :dubious: The last part of the vastness of the universe was something that was until very recently denied by all the followers of the deities. It makes me hopeful for the future that there are people that can drop ancient texts when they clearly no longer apply, but one should realize that this attitude is not the norm among believers. What I normally see is constant reminders from believers that their deity is a small one. (Only we are the chosen ones in this speck of dust in the universe, you see.) ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/396 "2011-06-06T17:16:48Z")
> [@Paul in Qatar](#): > > So far, yes, it makes me happy and seems the simplest explanation. Give me a call when you find that dark matter stuff, OK? It’s turtles all the way down! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/397 "2011-06-06T19:34:44Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > God of the gaps. It’s a known and common fallacy. [Moderating] **Budge Player Cadet** , do not use the quote box function to attribute words to other posters that they did not say. If you feel the need to characterize someone else’s words, please do it out side of the quote boxes. No warning issued. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/398 "2011-06-06T19:40:18Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > A belief in deity shows us that we are special, the purpose of all of creation, the main character in the sitcom. This means we are masters of this sphere and can understand it, mold and shape it. We are not a simple mote of dust in a meaningless and directionless eternity. A belief in deity lets us see the vastness of the cosmos and know that there is a plan, that evil will fail, good will endure. Belief in a deity shows nothing. Belief in a deity makes you _think_ creation revolves around you. When you believe in a deity it makes sense that the sun and stars revolve around the Earth. The real universe makes us look very insignificant. It was here before we were, and will be here after we are gone. Belief in a deity makes you think you can trash the Earth and reproduce to fill it. God will not bail us out, and God’s commandments made up by people wishing to grow no longer make any sense. Yes, we can understand the world, but none of this understanding requires belief in the supernatural. > [@](#): > > Or not, your milage may vary of course. But it is a comfort and a help to me. Pragmatism I would point out is the most American philosophy. It is sad that the only things that comfort you are lies. I get my comfort from real people and things, not fairy tales. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/399 "2011-06-07T01:34:51Z")
You mean your belief in things that have never been observed (say gravitons) but must exist because they explain what you observe? So your belief in gravitons is different from my belief in God how exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/400 "2011-06-07T02:13:32Z")
Gravitons are only a hypothesis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=21)