Theology unnecessary, Stephen Hawking tells CNN

[Aramike]

Obvious how? Gee I don't know perhaps how the very place people drawn their beliefs from, the bible, quran etc was authored, printed and revised by man? I was raised in church and remember laughing to myself at some of outrageous claims much to my parents dismay.Water into wine, one loaf of bread fed everyone, descending from heaven, back from the dead etc All religions make outrageous claims Never understood how an intelligent, educated person can believe that crap, same with any religion.A lot of it has to do with tradition, people want to carry on family traditions and find it so hard to believe their parents, grandparents would believe in such a crock.

Wait - are you suggesting that something which is obvious to you should be obvious to everyone? Flattering yourself a bit?

What about someone who's deeply religious and sees their cancer suddenly go into remission. Would it not be obvious to them that there is indeed a God?

Being "obvious" to ones perception has no place in science (hence my discussion with Skybird regarding intuition). It does, however, have a place in religion. While I would agree with you in disagreeing with religion, what you find "obviously wrong" I find to be "largely unlikely". However, I won't outright dimiss the concept on the grounds that I can only accurately trace its sources back a millenia or so.

Religion was always the way to explain the unexplainable when science was lacking in the past.Now, we can explain so much and will be able to explain more in the future which will hopefully move majority of people away from these absurd beliefs.People used to think disease was punishment from god when its far from that lol.

What would you say if science posited that a creator may be possible? Right now we believe that we may be able to create whole universes in a laboratory.

Also, I don't believe that the concepts behind religion are "absurd" at all. Frankly, I think far less of a person who would posit such a thought than a person who is religious, although I would be in fundamental agreement with the former.

See, I happen to disagree with Marx's idea that religion is the mass' opiate. Rather, I believe religion provides a structure (spiritual and disciplinary) than many people would otherwise seek and quite frankly I'd rather them file into a peaceful church on Sundays than join some militant group or another. If religion is nothing more than a tool created by man (which I believe it is), than it serves SOME purpose. That purpose can range from helpful to absurd, as you put it. But ultimately what defines it is indeed the purpose - not the overarching concept.

If religion motivates people to be philantropic, kind, devoted, etc., that which you see as "absurd" I see as a great benefit to humanity. When religion motivates people to fight, kill, maim, etc., that which you see as absurd I see as a threat that must be countered. But it's not "religion" (as system in belief based upon a deity or deities) that's the problem, it's the SPECIFIC one.

Is God real? I don't think so. But many people truly believe that he IS real, and so his influence is indeed very real. Sure, we could do without the negative influences religion has (or can we??? Another topic I'll explore in another thread) - but would we want to do without the positives?

In fact, the United States is based upon the wonderful concept of God - not the deity, mind you, but the idea that freedom is "God-given", meaning not something granted by man, which means that man should not have the power to take it. In such a case, I don't consider God absurd at all.

Ultimately that you disdain your fellow man merely because of their beliefs rather than the outward manifestation of said beliefs is something only you must deal with daily, and I certainly don't envy such a position. Personally I respect the man who follows, say, Jesus and decides to attempt to become Christ-like (even if you consider him a mythical figure, what he was certainly was beautiful). We may disagree, but I respect him nonetheless. On the other hand, the man who decides to pervert that vision into something unpleasant entirely I oppose.

I've found that beliefs in any system, throughout history, have not caused a single conflict except in the cases where one belief cannot tolerate the existance of another. The fact that you believe that an entire classification of a belief is practically intolerable (absurd) is more concerning to me than religion by far.

In closing, you may wish to try to understand that your perception of the world (and faculties for dealing with it) are not the same as everyone else's. That does not make others absurd, it just makes them differently inclined. Once you realize this you may become a happier person.