I have a way of looking at Prof. Stephen Hawking.......and you have another way. I don't think either way is wrong.
You "seem" to be arguing that Stephen Hawking has a soul. I say "seem" because I am repeatedly misunderstanding your words. So, you "seem" to be arguing that the man has a soul. And based on the common definition of a soul (I am really having to watch my words here) this means there is a part of Stephen Hawking that exists independently of his physical being and this part will live on after he dies. Well, with that said I am definitely arguing that I do not believe Stephen Hawking has a soul and I know that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe he has a soul.
These are called mutually exclusive events. The probability that either is true and that the other is false is NOT 50/50, as some people would attempt to argue, but they are definitely mutually exclusive. Another example of mutually exclusive events would be for a playing card to be drawn from a deck - this card is either red or black. It cannot logically be both at the same time.
So if I am arguing that Stephen Hawking does NOT have a soul and you are arguing that he DOES have a soul, both cannot be true at the same time. Either he DOES or DOES NOT have a soul.
I don't think either way is wrong.
Yes, one of us is wrong. Now you will probably say, "But I didn't say that!" Jesus, then what are you saying? This has become a difficult conversation because of the different ways we use words. I am interpreting your words as saying that you believe Hawking has a soul. I know my words mean that I do not believe he has a soul. Only one of us is right. Both cannot be logically true.
To me this is the biggest problem with the way theists think. The logic is flawed. All thoughts are NOT created equal. All theories are NOT equal. All religious beliefs are NOT equally probable.
Hawking either has a soul or doesn't have a soul. One of us is dead wrong. I would gamble my very life that it is you that is wrong. That is how sure I am that the common beliefs about God, gods, spirits, heaven and hell, an afterlife and a soul are completely and utterly wrong. They are a product of ignorance, poor critical thinking skills, and plain old wishful thinking. Richard Dawkins would add in "delusional" thinking.
But now I run into the problem of offending and hurting feelings or even worse coming across as arrogant and condescending. I long ago gave up on the effort to not be these things because there just is no easy way to tell someone that they are not thinking clearly or logically. I haven't found a soft way of candy coating such a message so I pretty much give up.
To argue that both you and I have equally valid or logically coherent approaches to looking at Stephen Hawking is absurd to me. I'm arguing the default position, which is that souls don't exist, and you are under the impression that an emotional argument for souls is somehow just as reasonable as the default position. To me this is the flaw in "faith" or beliefs. I've heard so so so many theists argue that I need to keep my mind "open" to possibilities. Well, my mind is open, but it is not so open my brain has spilled out on the ground and is no longer capable of assisting me with differentiating between fact and fantasy. I opt to employ my brain fully. I don't sit back and say, "Well, anything is possible. Ya never know!" This is bullshit. Anything is not possible. All arbitrary claims are not equally probable.
Your soul concept doesn't make even a little bit of sense. But the good news is you're not alone in this delusion. It is quite common and many books have been written about the subject. But it is a delusion nonetheless. Of course, this is my opinion. But it is also the opinion of most of the world's scientists. There is zero evidence for a soul. Let me make that clear. There is not one iota of evidence for the soul. There is NO reason to believe humans live on after death in ANY form. Yet billions of people share this delusion because that delusion helps them through their daily lives.
'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'
We ought to get this book on one of the book suggestion threads. I've read it and have it right here in front of me. Good stuff.
The difference is.......I would fight to the death for your right to vote....and I would never call you a moron..........
You're assuming that I don't value the right to believe in whatever people want to believe in. Please don't tell me I'm putting words into your mouth. You said, "The difference is," which tends to mean that there is a difference. Right? And you state that you would die for your belief. If you would die for your belief it means you value it. Right? So you would die for a belief, which you obviously value, and based on your statement that you and I are "different" in this regard, you are implying that I don't value the right to believe in whatever people want to believe in.
Well, this isn't a fair argument. Just because I think your beliefs are silly doesn't mean I don't respect your right to believe in them. You can believe whatever you want. I respect your right to believe in unicorns, but I don't respect the actual belief in unicorns.
Truthfully, on a deeper level, I do NOT respect the right to believe in just anything. MOST beliefs are fine with me. As long as your belief doesn't cause me or society much harm then you can have all sorts of delusions and beliefs. Your imagination is yours and yours alone. It so happens that a good chunk of religious beliefs do not remain tucked away in the brains of the believers. Many beliefs manifest themselves in hostility, prejudice and oppression. Should those beliefs be respected?
Long ago I decided that beliefs are not and cannot safely be considered "sacred" in themselves. We should all have the freedom of believing in whatever we like, but when it can be clearly shown that one person or group of people holds a belief that can be readily shown to be dangerous it is the moral obligation of those people that recognize the danger of the belief to try to help eradicate that belief. Beliefs kill.
Your soul belief seems relatively harmless. But what about the Islamic belief that martyrs will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins? Can you see how actually sitting back and not challenging this belief could be deadly? I like to use analogies to make points and I hope this simple analogy doesn't elude you. Step outside your beliefs for a moment and think about the general concept:
Beliefs that lead people to cause harm to themselves, society or the environment should not be considered sacred and off limits to critical examination.
This is the general thesis in Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion." Our culture has taught us a hands-off approach to beliefs because beliefs are somehow sacred. This is a horribly dangerous mentality.
So believe in a soul. I can't see much damage coming from such a belief. Yes, it in essence dumbs down the people you influence, but overall I am fine with you having such a delusion. Whoa! Dumb down? Yes, this is exactly what the belief in a soul (or anything that cannot logically be shown to exist) does to those adherents of such beliefs. The person that believes in a soul is naturally going to approach science and the study of various scientific fields differently than the person that doesn't hold such beliefs. The person who is willing to suspend logical thinking, with regards to the human soul myth, is far more likely to allow the poor thinking to bleed over into other areas of their life.
Can you say the same? (about calling you a moron)
I never called you a moron. Do you believe that Benny Hinn is really healing people? Do you believe that the Virgin Mary really appears in festering wounds? if so then I am now teetering on the edge of calling you a moron. This is truly moronic thinking. So I never called you a moron. I called the people in the Benny Hinn audience morons. And I called the lady who thinks she saw the Virgin Mary in her wound a moron.
To me sitting back and not calling a spade a spade is doing society a massive disservice. Watching people flailing about on the ground after Benny Hinn smacks their forehead and pretending that I find this moronic behavior to be acceptable, reasonable and intelligent is not helping those morons. And help is exactly what they need.
I know my words are harsh, but the world needs more honesty. We tolerate stupidity as if it is a precious little baby that needs to be cradled and rocked and nurtured. I refuse to help raise a silly thought into a moronic belief. And that is exactly what happens when silly ideas are not challenged out of fear of touching a "Sacred Belief(TM)."
And I know that the word "moron" is not necessarily ideal for describing the entire group of people that believes in Benny Hinn. Obviously not all of them are genuine morons. But I would bet any sum of money that the average IQ is extremely low. There will be some bright educated people sitting in the revival tent, but these are statistical outliers and not representative of the average or typical Benny Hinn follower/moron.
So can I say that I would never call you a moron? No, no chance. I will call morons morons so that perhaps their moronic nature can be addressed. You cannot fix a problem you are not willing to even address.
Part of the reason I am continually using the word "moron" is emotional. I am a little disappointed that I'm forced to handle your posts all by myself. Years ago BookTalk was quite a different site. I love the growth we've experienced, but the changes have driven off the type of people that would have chimed in here from the start of this thread. I'm a little defensive because I know I'm right. Wow, arrogant. Yes, I sure am. I actually know I'm right. And it is very hard to be in the minority and also know you're right.