Uh, okay. If that helps: I’m hereby asking specifically of YOU.
That’s all very interesting, but perhaps you could refer to the article I quoted.
The fine tuning argument is not an argument for design.
This is still a canard. Life is adapted the universe, the universe is not adapted to life. Did you read Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy that I quoted above?
I’m the one who linked it and quoted it.
Is there some reason you wish to ignore this one, by the way?
You asked me about God’s ‘opinion’. I asked about yours. Get it now?
Not at all, Hawking has published mre than one opinion, clearly. That is not particularly unusual.
But there are many, many others. It is humourous none have been referred to.
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”
You asked what my opinion would be if the majority agreed to remove a prohibition on child rape. I’m asking what your opinion would be if God agreed to remove it.
A personal favourite…
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
And Mr Hawking again…
“Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
Ah but God would not. Because God is morally perfect. Because the rape of a 3 year old is morally wrong.
Now your answer?
Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees (Cosmologist and Astrophysicist), Just Six Numbers).
So is this ‘design’ or a pure coincidence?
If you can deduce that a morally perfect God “would not” do that because you already know the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong, then what’s to stop an atheist from likewise already knowing the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong?
As far as I can tell, I already gave you my answer.
You asked: “If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?” I answered: “no, I would not.” I then added that I’d find such a rape objectionable regardless of the majority’s opinion and regardless of God’s opinion. I can’t make that much clearer.
Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why.
As far as I can tell, I already gave you my answer.
You asked: “If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?” I answered: “no, I would not.” I then added that I’d find such a rape objectionable regardless of the majority’s opinion and regardless of God’s opinion. I can’t make that much clearer.
[/QUOTE]
OK. But you still haven’t explained the basis for your objection. Neither have you explained the universal abhorrence of a rape of a 3 year old.
There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality.
Well, enlighten us: what’s the reason why – as you see it – such a rape is wrong? I’m not following your argument.
No, there’s an evolutionary purpose.
Assume for the sake of argument that, say, your daughter is three. The odds that she’ll grow up to be a healthy adult who can pass on your genes in future generations improve if you sign on for a culture that enshrines a “don’t rape three-year-olds” value. So long as you weren’t planning to rape any three-year-olds, such a prohibition doesn’t really cost you anything; it just helps your daughter (and cousins, and siblings, and so on) not get traumatized or killed or whatever.
Nonsense. There are however quite a few creationists who see imaginary flaws out of ignorance, or simply lie.
More nonsense. Evolution explains benevolence just fine, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Nor is benevolence a moral problem for atheism.
Ah, the classic attempt to equate Communism and atheism. They are of course not remotely the same.
And no, I don’t agree that atheism, or even communism has caused as much evil as religion. Religion has turned humanity into a twisted, life hating, intelligence hating, knowledge hating species. A mad, crippled species primarily dedicated to a grim hatred of all forms of pleasure that aren’t gained by greed and the infliction of suffering. I doubt that humanity can ever recover from how warped religion has made it.
:rolleyes: And what secret reason do you think we have?
I don’t think you understand the situation. Being protective of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous.
Atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question: does this person believe in a god(s)? If the answer is “no,” you can’t get from there to the motivation for any action.
Now, secular humanism is an ideology, but the only people who might die from its ideology would be people who were dying and suffering, and the secular humanist would choose to help them bring it to an end more quickly.
So you demonstrate that you misunderstand both quantum physics and the theory of evolution, in the same thread.
Why do I object to the rape of a small child? Because it harms the child. Why do I object to that? Because I have empathy for my fellow humans and want to make this world I live in a better place. Why do I desire that? Because humans evolved as a social species and we have an innate desire to get along in order to survive better. Why did we evolve as a social species? Because the populations of social apes were able to survive.
These are all naturalistic explanations - how far back do you want to go?
He has not published contradictory opinions in this regard. The linked statements in this thread do not contradict.
Hawking is an atheist. He was speaking figuratively.