Is the *only* function of religion to offer solace of an afterlife? In that case, a whole lot of belief systems thoughout the world *fail*.
Setting science against religion normally happens because for the last hundred years, religious people have been attempting to remove science from the proper realms of science.
Why is this being discussed as if Hawking said, "RELIGION MUST BE ERADICATED" ?!
Surely religion is more to do with the framework one uses for interacting with one's fellow beings, and with the world? Not with explaining the physical workings of the world?
Surely science is more to do with how one explains the physical workings of the world?
Asking a man renowned for his insight into science about metaphysics is setting up an idiotic fight that should not be engaged in, anyway. It's a journalistic "let's you and him fight". Either Hawking says, "afterlife is a fairy story" and it's trumpeted as HAWKING HATES ON RELIGION! or he says "yes, I take comfort in religion", in which case it's EVEN STEVEN HAWKING SAYS YOU SHOULD BELIEVE (in the Christian conception of an afterlife).
For adherents of the majority faith to take this as some sort of talking point is mainly evidence of the enormous amounts of blinding privilege that goes along with being part of the default. So much nuance being erased, and continually so, despite the efforts of anyone else to point out that the premises are flawed from the start.
no subject
Is the *only* function of religion to offer solace of an afterlife? In that case, a whole lot of belief systems thoughout the world *fail*.
Setting science against religion normally happens because for the last hundred years, religious people have been attempting to remove science from the proper realms of science.
Why is this being discussed as if Hawking said, "RELIGION MUST BE ERADICATED" ?!
Surely religion is more to do with the framework one uses for interacting with one's fellow beings, and with the world? Not with explaining the physical workings of the world?
Surely science is more to do with how one explains the physical workings of the world?
Asking a man renowned for his insight into science about metaphysics is setting up an idiotic fight that should not be engaged in, anyway. It's a journalistic "let's you and him fight". Either Hawking says, "afterlife is a fairy story" and it's trumpeted as HAWKING HATES ON RELIGION! or he says "yes, I take comfort in religion", in which case it's EVEN STEVEN HAWKING SAYS YOU SHOULD BELIEVE (in the Christian conception of an afterlife).
For adherents of the majority faith to take this as some sort of talking point is mainly evidence of the enormous amounts of blinding privilege that goes along with being part of the default. So much nuance being erased, and continually so, despite the efforts of anyone else to point out that the premises are flawed from the start.