Prof Brian Cox: 'There’s a naivety in saying there is no God’

[cbayer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11143875/Prof-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html

Professor Brian Cox talks about religion, alien life and the Reithian ideals behind his new TV series


'I'm a Manchester academic. I don’t do TV because I want a career in the media,' says Prof Brian Cox Photo: BBC

By Matthew Stadlen
7:00AM BST 07 Oct 2014

Once he was a scientist who used to be a rockstar, now he’s a rockstar scientist. So successful have his TV programmes become that Professor Brian Cox is more in the limelight now than he ever was as a member of the chart-topping D:Ream in the Nineties. “I was playing keyboard so I was always at the back,” he tells me, when we meet to discuss Human Universe, his cosmology series starting tonight on BBC Two.

Early last year, Sir David Attenborough himself hailed Prof Cox as his heir apparent. “If I had a torch I would hand it to Brian Cox,” said the giant of natural history programming. Time will tell whether Prof Cox can scale Sir David’s broadcasting heights, but he already has two things that the 88-year-old lacks: a professorship and a No 1 hit.

Prof Cox is returning to our screens to ask profound questions about our existence. Why are we here? How did the universe make us? What made the universe? The series is, he says, a love letter to the human race. “During the shooting I realised that we are rare and therefore valuable and quite remarkable and worth celebrating.” In the first programme, he takes us on a fast-track journey from monkey to the space station.

Tall but slight, Prof Cox is a youthful 46, though his trademark fringe is beginning to grey. He was born in Greater Manchester to parents who worked in a bank and was privately educated at Hulme Grammar School in the Eighties. He excelled in physics but got a D in his maths A-level (he was “more interested in New Order and the Smiths”). Today, he lives in London with his wife, the American television presenter Gia Milinovich, their five-year-old son and her son from a previous relationship.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. As there is in "knowing" that there is a god. n/t

[whatthehey]

2. ...and what about just saying we don't believe people who say there is one, with no evidence?

[cbayer]

3. Sure. I think that is equally valid.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. That's an amazingly deceptive headline.

"Using physics that is beyond me, Prof Cox explains how his fridge shows that there is no afterlife (thermodynamics, apparently). But then he qualifies himself. “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.” "

He's not saying it's naïve to say there is no god, he's saying it's naïve to do so and then mic drop and walk away without addressing anything else.

[cbayer]

5. I agree that the headline oversimplifies his statement and

takes it out of context.

But I hope that doesn't detract from the article, which I thought was fascinating.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. At leas they put it in single quotes as a paraphrase.

Still, yeah, I think it changes the meaning considerably.

Article is interesting. Not familiar with this person prior.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. He's sort of the British equivalent of Neil deGrasse Tyson

The go-to guy for accessible science TV presenting. He's got the scientific credentials (professor of physics at the University of Manchester, and professor is a senior position in UK universities, not just a general description), but has enthusiasm that's really catching. A new series of his starts tonight, hence the Telegraph interview.

[pinto]

9. Sounds like an interesting guy.

I really like a cross discipline / cross cultural train of thought when it works. Or when I can follow it...

[cbayer]

18. That's what I kind of assumed.

Sounds like a really interesting guy. Hope his show goes well and that we will get it over here at some point.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Check out his "Wonders of the Solar System" and "Wonders of the Universe" programs...

he's pretty damn cool. Also he got in a bit of trouble because in one of the episodes for one of these shows, forget which one, he mentioned Astrology in passing and called it rubbish. Apparently the BBC got a lot of hate mail for that.

[ladjf]

7. What does Cox base his bland proclamations upon? They sound like personal "notions" to me. nt

[cbayer]

19. One might have to read the article to see what he meant here.

[ladjf]

27. I disagree. His basic statement clearly indicated a lack of

corroborative evidence.

But, I still think you have the coolest avatar on DU.

[cbayer]

29. That is so sweet of you. It's an avatar with a very personal meaning for me.

[ladjf]

30. I've spent many happy hours sailing boats.

Years ago you directed me to the site where you obtained yours. But, I couldn't get it to "animate". It's just as well. It's your avatar now. I like it that way.

[cbayer]

31. Do you still get to sail?

I have been off of the boat for 4 months and about to return. It is my home and I'm anxious to get back there.

[ladjf]

32. I sold my last boat 25 yrs ago and have only sailed a few rental catamarans in recent years. nt

[cbayer]

33. Well, I wish for you the opportunity to sail again.

[ladjf]

34. Thanks. nt

[Brettongarcia]

39. Sailing at times appealed to me. But it was the opposite of religion: pure material sense.

[mmonk]

67. One person's wonder, excitement, or

passion is another person's blandness . People are different as individual snowflakes but the same in what they are.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Cox assumes a lot of stuff without evidence.

Why are we here?
- assumes that there is a purpose to our existence.

How did the universe make us?
- assumes "the universe" is an "agent" that "makes things".

What made the universe?
- assumes the universe needs a maker.

[pinto]

12. I reformatted the queries just for a look -

How are we here?

Why is there a universe?

What is the universe?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Those are not the same questions.

You didn't reformat, you replaced.

[pinto]

14. Yeah. Replaced was my original wording but went to reformat for some reason.

My idea was to look at the picture from a slightly different point of view.

A question, though. One thing struck me in your post -

"Why are we here? - assumes that there is a purpose to our existence."

Do you feel there's no purpose to our existence?

[edhopper]

28. Your purpose

is whatever you decide.
There is no purpose pre-intstilled in our existence.
We just are and can choose our own meaning.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Yes there is no external "purpose" to our existence.

We - life on earth - are a miniscule blip in a vast universe. In space and time we barely exist. There is no grand design. There is no designer. Your life can have purpose, but only that which you give it. Enjoy.

[pinto]

36. Agree, save for the grand design point. There's so much design commonality among life that is grand.

The logarithmic structure of the chambered nautilus shell is pretty grand. Etc, etc.

But back to the topic, I agree. And like your earlier comment here somewhere that we make the meaning for our lives. I think that's true for the most part. Enjoy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Given his comments in the article, I don't he's assuming what you think he is

"Why are we here?
- assumes that there is a purpose to our existence. "

No, that can be answered by talking about about natural selection.

"How did the universe make us?
- assumes "the universe" is an "agent" that "makes things". "

In the same way that stars make the heavier elements.

"What made the universe?"

There are hypotheses that universes do (or can) come from other universes, eg by Lee Smolin. But he can easily ask a question like that (which is, remember, what the interviewer wrote, not a direct quote), and answer it with "maybe nothing did".

[Warren Stupidity]

17. "Why are we here" has like 2500 years of loaded meaning attached to it.

I rather doubt that Cox was using that phrase not understanding that this is a fundamental question in philosophy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. If it helps you rest, he is an 'avowed atheist'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/brian-cox-stars-in-his-eyes-2233010.html

[Warren Stupidity]

24. So is Nagel, however teleology is bullshit.

There really is no purpose to our existence and we will likely be long gone before this universe comes to its cold dead dark end.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I'm watching it now, and there's been no sign of teleology

The answer offered so far to 'why are we here?' is "the limits of the variation of the earth's elliptical orbit caused significant climate change in Ethopia, and the growth in brain size of hominid species coincide with these extremes, so it looks like our intelligence is from natural selection environmental pressures caused by the relative orbits of the earth, moon and Jupiter".

[ladjf]

52. I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that a God either exists

or doesn't exit. Personally, I have long since stopped worrying about a question that seems to have no answer.

[Jim__]

11. I hope this show can get some play in the US.

Why does E = mc² by Cox and Forshaw was one of the clearest non-mathematical expositions of the theory of relativity that I've ever read.

[cbayer]

20. I hope we get it as well. I'm not familiar with the Why does….

Is it a show? A book?

[Jim__]

22. It's a book.

I should have said that.

[center][/center]

From Amazon:

What does E=mc2 actually mean? Dr. Brian Cox and Professor Jeff Forshaw go on a journey to the frontier of twenty-first century science to unpack Einstein’s famous equation. Explaining and simplifying notions of energy, mass, and light—while exploding commonly held misconceptions—they demonstrate how the structure of nature itself is contained within this equation. Along the way, we visit the site of one of the largest scientific experiments ever conducted: the now-famous Large Hadron Collider, a gigantic particle accelerator capable of re-creating conditions that existed fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

A collaboration between one of the youngest professors in the United Kingdom and a distinguished popular physicist, Why Does E=mc2? is one of the most exciting and accessible explanations of the theory of relativity.

[cbayer]

23. Putting it on the list.

Thanks.

[pinto]

26. Cool. Thanks for the blurb. Looks like a good read.

I've always been fascinated by Einstein - his life, his time and his ideas. And, in context of this group, his thoughts on religion and all that stuff.

[DrewFlorida]

37. It's one thing to say you know there is a God, it's another to say you know.....

everything about that God. That he looks like you. That he listens to you when you pray for your football team to win. That he is a good God who hates your particular enemies. That he created humans as a special species. That he is responsible for food on your plate yet none on someone else's plate. The list of arrogant egotistical beliefs by religions is baffling, the belief there could be a God or multiple Gods is very different from believing you know it all in the God category!

[cbayer]

40. Agree. There is a big difference between just holding the belief

and taking a definitive stance.

But I think the same applies to taking a definitive stance that there is not god.

[trotsky]

41. At least a billion theists...

take a definitive stance on their god existing, and existing with quite specific attributes.

How many atheists take "a definitive stance that there is not (sic) god"? Even the most hated man in this forum - Richard Dawkins - puts himself at a 6 on the scale of 1 (god definitely exists) and 7 (definitely doesn't exist).

Who constitutes this tiny group of people that you CONSTANTLY insist are equivalent to the billion theists?

[PoutrageFatigue]

44. Okay, i'll bite. There is not god.

There is ZERO evidence that god is or has ever existed anywhere other than in the minds of humans.

Your turn.....

[cbayer]

45. Your first statement is without merit, while your second is true.

Your turn.

[PoutrageFatigue]

46. How is it without merit?

There is zero evidence. Nope, zip, nada, throughout all of history that 'god' has ever existed, not just since we started to look, or since we were allowed to question the narrative without threat of imprisonment, torture and death, but E-V-E-R....

Therefore, one can say, with the utmost confidence that there is no god.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[cbayer]

47. Because you have made a definitive statement without evidence.

The lack of evidence does not prove the lack of existence.

You can say with all the confidence you can muster that there is no god, but it would only be bluster.

If someone says that they believe there is a god, can you prove them wrong?

Of course you can't. Well, if you can, you will become quite famous.

[PoutrageFatigue]

48. You have that precisely backwards. Again.

I am not the one making the fantastical claim. I am saying the fantastical claim is false. I'd be delighted to be wrong. Just one, tiny bit of evidence would be fine. One little thing.

Of course you can't. Well, if you can, you will become quite famous.

[cbayer]

49. You are making a definitive statement.

When you say "There is no god", you have made a definitive claim.

If you say, "I don't believe there is a god", you have nothing to prove.

If someone says to you, "There is a god", you have grounds to ask them to provide evidence for that claim.

I don't care if you believe or not and think you are entirely justified in saying that you will not unless provided with evidence.

There are reams of articles by logicians on this topic. I'm guessing you are not a logician, but go ahead and read this if you are interested:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Then present evidence to me that there is no god.

I'll wait.

[PoutrageFatigue]

53. There are no unicorns.

Do I have to prove that, or is it accepted that there are in fact, no Unicorns because there is no evidence that Unicorns exist?

There is no Tooth-Fairy. Again, do I have to prove that? No.

There is no god. Why do I have to prove that he/she/it DOESN'T exist, when the EVIDENCE backs up my statement 100%.

Again, feel free to prove me wrong. But there is ZERO evidence that god, or Unicorns exist.

Not a fingerprint, a hair, a chipped nail-clipping. Nothing.

But I can wait while you prove me wrong.

[cbayer]

54. It is generally accepted that there are no unicorns.

But no one has proof to their lack of existence other unless one wants to say that everyplace that could possible house one has been searched and none have been found to exist.

One could not make a similar claim about god.

You only have to prove it because you make it as a definitive claim. Where is the evidence that you claim? Again, the lack of evidence is not evidence, no matter how badly you want that to be true.

Did you read the article? I didn't think so.

[PoutrageFatigue]

55. How do you prove something DOESN'T exist?

You still can't seem to wrap your head around that.

Those that say he DOES exist, in the face of ZERO EVIDENCE, are the ones that have to prove he DOES exist.

My evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist is still the same. There is no evidence he exists. EVER.

Feel free to PROVE me wrong.

You are the one that says my statement is incorrect. Prove it.

I'll wait.

[cbayer]

56. I think we have been through this, but I am happy to go over it again.

If I autoclave a petri dish, I can easily prove to you that no bacteria exists on that dish. And if I tell you with certainty that that is the case, I better be able to prove it.

Here is an article, if you feel like making any kind of effort in this area:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Again, lack of evidence is not evidence. This is a flimsy and lazy argument.

You are correct, though. Those that take the position that god does exist have the burden of proof, and the same goes for those that take the position that god does not exist.

Basically, it is only gnostics who have the burden of proof.

Don't bother to wait any longer. I am afraid you might not ever grasp this.

[Brettongarcia]

57. Notoriously, "proving the negative hypothesis" cannot be done, some say

But? Actually, you can prove or disprove God as he is defined in many definitions of God.

As say the one in John 14.13. There we are told that if you "ask" god for a giant miracle, he will give it to you.

This is simple to test and find true or false: ask God for a giant miracle, "now." Then look to see if one shows up.

Since performance of physical material miracles, when you ask, right now, is part of the very definition of God, and since this can tested empirically, this God can be simply proven true or false.

[Lordquinton]

50. ok, proove there is no santa

And then I'll use your methods.

[cbayer]

51. I'm not interested in proving there is no santa.

Do you take the definitive position that there is no god? Are you a gnostic?

[Lordquinton]

58. but you do believe he doesn't exist, right?

[cbayer]

59. Why would it matter one way or another?

[Lordquinton]

60. why do you refuse to answer?

[cbayer]

61. Lol, why do you refuse to answer?

[Lordquinton]

62. so that's a yes you do believe in santa?

[cbayer]

63. I'm agnostic when it comes to santa,

plus I don't care.

[Lordquinton]

64. but you do care so much about it when the subject arises, something doesn't add up.

Aldo, why do you only ever attack atheists about definitave declarations of God and not believers? Why do theists have to always include that they aren't saying there is no god, just that there is no proof, but believers are never subjected to such demends?

[cbayer]

65. No, I don't care about it at all.

Certainly not enough to take a definitive stance and then have to be in the position of proving it.

I feel the same way about god, by the way.

I don't attack atheists. That's all in your head. I do challenge gnostics, both those that say there is definitely a god and those that say there definitely is not.

Once again (and this really does get tiresome), you are making charges against me without any basis. If there has been a believer on this site that has taken the position that they know there is a god, I must have missed it. Can you point out such an example?

I would subject both theists and atheists to the same demands if they said they were gnostic. I would like to know where you think there is any evidence that I would not.

Are you typing on a super tiny keyboard or something?

[Brettongarcia]

38. Prof. Brian Cox deserves that "D" in Math ... and another one in logic.

Does Cox really think it's "naïve" not to believe in a god that promises to give us all the miracles we ask for (John 14.13)? A God that promises us all the wonders that Jesus worked, and "greater things than these"?

Just try to walk on water. Then? Try to deduce how true that God really was. Obviously the miracle-promising side of religion was false. And from that, we can predict that even more "advanced," liberal religion is going to be found false too.

Go back to playing the piano, Brian Cox. That was something you were evidently good at. That "D" in Math is still deep inside you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. No, that's not what he said

See the quote in reply #4. And, as I have pointed out, he is an atheist. It was a remark about having to argue with more than just "there is no god".

[Brettongarcia]

43. So once again, as hundreds of times before, religious defenders used a deceptive headline

We should have known.

In fact the whole of religion is dependent on similar word tricks.

Look for the double and triple and quadruple meanings of almost every sentence in the New Testament, for instance. Now you see it, now you don't. You thought you were promised physical miracles; but after you give all your material things to the church, you are to read the fine print: it was all metaphors for spiritual things. Sorry buddy.

We should have known; even the Bible itself warned us that there were countless bad and "false" things in religious things, religious leaders.

By the way, insisting that we must know lots of religion and its arguments, before rejecting it, is a classic priests' trick. They tell us we must study religion forever, before criticizing it. Thus we are subjected to its propaganda for years. Soon forgetting in many cases, the allegedly "critical" purpose. All criticism having actually been dunned out of us.

Too bad Cox fell for that one.

Sometimes religion takes in people in science; because they have never heard the Humanities arguments against religion.

Wish Cox was actually, a little smarter yet.

[pokerfan]

66. nope, just a dishonest quote-mine

Amazing how just dropping a single word changes the meaning of a sentence.