# 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:** 22
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/421 "2011-06-07T16:27:28Z")
Obviously. Would you treat people the same way if you (for example) had the racial beliefs of Hitler? If I believed different thing I would behave differently. I am surprised you would even ask. Please excuse me, bedtime here again. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/422 "2011-06-07T16:46:58Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Obviously. Would you treat people the same way if you (for example) had the racial beliefs of Hitler? If I believed different thing I would behave differently. I am surprised you would even ask. > > Please excuse me, bedtime here again. Did you just compare all atheists to Nazis? Seriously, you are arguing that you are a more moral/better person because you are believe in the supernatural. Has that ever worked out well on this board? ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/423 "2011-06-07T18:23:57Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > It depends on how you judge ‘worth,’ doesn’t it? It seems obvious that a belief is worth something to me if it provides me happiness. Please explain how that value is non-existant. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So although it helps me is ‘worthless?’ I believe that was the contention. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Obviously. Would you treat people the same way if you (for example) had the racial beliefs of Hitler? If I believed different thing I would behave differently. I am surprised you would even ask. > > Please excuse me, bedtime here again. So… It’s actually ok to have racist beliefs if they make you happy? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/424 "2011-06-07T18:31:10Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > So… It’s actually ok to have racist beliefs if they make you happy? Furthermore, if racist beliefs have the documented, ironclad, proof-positive benefit of making you happy, does that in itself lend any evidence toward their being _correct_? ETA: I should think rather the opposite: pleasing beliefs, if anything, are more likely to be incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/425 "2011-06-07T19:05:44Z")
…or to rephrase the last couple of posts a bit… At which point does your personal happiness with your belief become more/less important than how it affects the people around you. How do you correlate that to what you believe to be “truth”. Personal example…a neighbor family growing up was rigidly fundamentalist, and “spare the rod” beatings of the kids and wife were commonplace by the dad. He was living a religiously faithful and fulfilling personal life at the expense of a miserably abused family. Does that prove God exists? Is his belief validated by his personal happiness? Y/N? ---
**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 7, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/426 "2011-06-07T19:34:16Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > 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? Who believes in gravitons? Someone might have a provisional belief that they exist because they explain observed phenomena. But if they did, the first thing they’d do is to design experiments to either falsify or support the hypothesis. You would not start building a gigantic theoretical structure on them. And definitely you wouldn’t worship them. Have you tried to falsify God? I used to believe until I started thinking this way, which is when every God hypothesis I could see either collapsed, like the Biblical God, or became equivalent to no God at all, like the deistic God. ---
**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 7, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/427 "2011-06-07T19:40:06Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Scientific things are testable, by definition. Non-scientific things are not testable. Belief in Deity is simply that, a belief. Were it subject to proof, it would be a theory. Were it ever proved it would be a fact. Belief in a deity is testable. We can watch a person who claims to believe, and see if he acts like he does. You are actually claiming that the existence of a deity is not testable. That would be true if the deity never interacted with us. If that were true, we’d have to ask how you know about this deity, and how it differs from a purple people eater. If you do claim the deity interacted with us, then we can test these claims. So, what is it about God that is more than something you just made up? ---
**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 7, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/428 "2011-06-07T19:42:26Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Scientific things are testable, by definition. Non-scientific things are not testable. Belief in Deity is simply that, a belief. Were it subject to proof, it would be a theory. Were it ever proved it would be a fact. How many times are we going to have to tell some people that proof has nothing to do with scientific theories before it gets through their heads? ---
**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 7, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/429 "2011-06-07T19:48:21Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Obviously. Would you treat people the same way if you (for example) had the racial beliefs of Hitler? If I believed different thing I would behave differently. I am surprised you would even ask. > > Please excuse me, bedtime here again. No, from my observation of your posts I doubt you would behave any worse if you stopped believing in God. You just don’t seem to be the kind of person just rarin’ to loot and rape and reuse postage stamps if you weren’t afraid of divine retribution. Just a belief, but I think there is some evidence for it. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/430 "2011-06-07T20:00:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No, from my observation of your posts I doubt you would behave any worse if you stopped believing in God. You just don’t seem to be the kind of person just rarin’ to loot and rape and reuse postage stamps if you weren’t afraid of divine retribution. Just a belief, but I think there is some evidence for it. I believe the problem here is that most theists feel that it’s fear of God that keeps them in line, because they can’t imagine any thing else that would. But the funny thing is, most former theists who lost their faith didn’t turn into looters and rapists. So I guess it was really something else that kept them in line all along. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/431 "2011-06-07T21:16:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Belief in a deity is testable. We can watch a person who claims to believe, and see if he acts like he does. > > You are actually claiming that the existence of a deity is not testable. That would be true if the deity never interacted with us. If that were true, we’d have to ask how you know about this deity, and how it differs from a purple people eater. If you do claim the deity interacted with us, then we can test these claims. I do take some issue with this, if only by analogy with sociology. We wouldn’t say we can predict the actions of any given person with any phenomenal accuracy, after all–we can only make statistical predictions of large groups of people, and even those aren’t terribly great. Why should we imagine we can test any intelligence that can choose to act or not as it sees fit, and is ostensibly intelligent and interested in not leaving any proofs of its own existence lying about? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/432 "2011-06-07T21:46:21Z")
We shouldn’t. We also have no compelling reason to assume such an intelligence exists. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/433 "2011-06-08T02:17:49Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > We also have no compelling reason to assume such an intelligence exists. Oh, I totally concur–all I’m saying is that there are certainly formulations of “God” that could exist and yet be untestable. ---
**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 8, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/434 "2011-06-08T04:39:16Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Obviously. Would you treat people the same way if you (for example) had the racial beliefs of Hitler? If I believed different thing I would behave differently. I am surprised you would even ask. > > Please excuse me, bedtime here again. > [@BunnyTVS](#): > > So… It’s actually ok to have racist beliefs if they make you happy? > [@Ludovic](#): > > Furthermore, if racist beliefs have the documented, ironclad, proof-positive benefit of making you happy, does that in itself lend any evidence toward their being _correct_? > > ETA: I should think rather the opposite: pleasing beliefs, if anything, are more likely to be incorrect. I love you both. Just sayin’. Also, **Paul** , do you believe that your morality comes from god? Just out of curiosity… ---
**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 8, 2011, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/435 "2011-06-08T07:38:30Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I do take some issue with this, if only by analogy with sociology. We wouldn’t say we can predict the actions of any given person with any phenomenal accuracy, after all–we can only make statistical predictions of large groups of people, and even those aren’t terribly great. I’m hardly claiming that we could predict the actions of a theist in any great detail. Surely theists act in different ways from atheists, in terms of church going, Bible reading, God saying. We’d have to know what kind of theist someone is to predict better, of course. > [@](#): > > Why should we imagine we can test any intelligence that can choose to act or not as it sees fit, and is ostensibly intelligent and interested in not leaving any proofs of its own existence lying about? The God of the Bible seemed to want to be seen. The God of Exodus was very interested indeed in proving his existence. If a God wants something to do with us, he is acting in a very odd way. If a God wants nothing to do with us, why say he interacted with us so much. It is kind of like Kirk and the Prime Directive - never interfere, unless the plot tells you to. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/436 "2011-06-08T12:05:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It is kind of like Kirk and the Prime Directive - never interfere, unless the plot tells you to. So God is William Shatner… Or do you mean William Shatner is God? Oh noes! Theological schism ahead. Warp Factor 9 angel Sulu! ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/437 "2011-06-08T14:28:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m hardly claiming that we could predict the actions of a theist in any great detail. Surely theists act in different ways from atheists, in terms of church going, Bible reading, God saying. We’d have to know what kind of theist someone is to predict better, of course. Why would that be? Doesn’t that make some presumptions not in evidence about which God is being believed in here? > [@](#): > > The God of the Bible seemed to want to be seen. The God of Exodus was very interested indeed in proving his existence. If a God wants something to do with us, he is acting in a very odd way. If a God wants nothing to do with us, why say he interacted with us so much. It is kind of like Kirk and the Prime Directive - never interfere, unless the plot tells you to. See post 433, and I’ll add that the traditional Biblical conception of God is NOT a God concept that is untestable. ---
**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 8, 2011, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/438 "2011-06-08T14:40:32Z")
How is it testable - by which I mean, how is it falsifiable? How do you prove Bible God doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/439 "2011-06-08T16:23:29Z")
The idea is simple: come up with some scenario in which a universe with a god would behave differently than one without one. If you can, even if it is not currently feasible\*, then god is testable. If you can’t, then god (at least as you understand him) is irrelevant to the world we currently live in. \*In an article on time travel, one proposed method to create a worm hole required two massive spheres, each roughly the mass of the whole solar system, each with a massive charge needed to be held steady with a separation of less than human hair. Needless to say, I doubt anyone has applied for that grant. ---
**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 8, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/440 "2011-06-08T16:31:37Z")
But that wouldn’t prove God doesn’t exist, only that he decided to refrain from participating in the test. The thing about trying to falsify God is that God can hide. You can’t make predictions. You can’t force God to show himself. Just because a bear doesn’t come out of a cave to get the picnic basket doesn’t mean the bear is not in the cave. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=23)