Stephen Hawking and the search for heaven

In one of my favorite unaired episodes of star trek, Stephen Hawking is a scientist onboard the Enterprise, and they go in quest of a place called heaven. It turns out to be a place built by beings from another galaxy, that gives people access to other universes.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said. [2.]

- How does he know this? Unless he knows everyone on earth personally, all he can do is assume (without justification) that everyone is like him. There's no science in such a claim; it's completely without warrant.

2. 'PhysOrg told about 40 studies in 20 countries that indicated belief in an afterlife is “hardwired” into the human brain. “The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.” [1.]
- predisposed by what?
- hardwired? how?
- Isn't 'heaven' just a matter of conscious beings being able to imagine various possibilities? (i.e. generic heaven, or generic life after death)

Isn't atheism largely a matter of a certain personality type who loves raining on other people's parades? Isn't there an element of sadism in it? a kill joy spirit? I think atheism stems largely from a dialectical response to theism; that if there were no theists there would be no a-theists, that if there were no theists people like RD would be comfortable speculating on the deity... should such a new development emerge in human culture.

3. 'The 57 researchers were not out to establish the validity of beliefs but to determine whether they are innate or learned. One researcher commented, “Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact.” [1.]

- Clearly different people find it easier to think in certain ways; we make a grievous mistake in assuming people are the same, and have the same metaphysical tendencies, likes and dislikes.
This isn't an either or question in my opinion.

4. “If you think of your body as a machine, it’s kind of hard to believe in life after death,” Heflick said. “You’re not going to be able to think of yourself as a spirit.” [1.]

- Materialists haven't been able to understand human consciousness because (for one reason) they see the body as a machine. Machines aren't creative but human beings are. Machines don't have freedom but humans do. Machines are not able to converse, not able to talk, and human beings are. Machines know nothing of words and language, while human beings do. (I realize machines can be made to 'talk' in the sense of producing audible words; but I see this as simulation, not really conversation. Machines can't engage in conversation because they have no self; no personality.)

I believe the key to human consciousness might well be, ''In the beginning was the word..." If man needed words to have thought, and needed thought to have words, it would appear we see in this (chicken and egg type) conundrum evidence for special creation.
The materialist has the problem of telling us how a person can think before they have words, how they can invent language without any words to use as tools, etc. [3.]

If we think of spirit as information we can imagine a new life after death; imagine we exist purely in terms of information prior to being 'reborn' (reincarnated) in a physical form. (I hate to bring Star Trek into it, but if Captain Kirk can be 'dematerialized' and later materialized then I see no reason people can't survive physical death. ie. where is he when he's being beamed up? doesn't he exist solely as information? doesn't he exist in some computer network?)

I hate to speculate (alright I don't) but if Seth Lloyd can claim the universe is a computer, then why can't God (as information) exist on this computer? He wouldn't be equal to it; no more than a womb inhabitant is equal to his mother, but, having his own separate DNA, is separate from her, although dependent upon her.

I'm not saying this is the case; I'm just pointing out that the existence of God-as-spirit is theoretically possible. I personally have no idea how God can exist as spirit, or even what this means exactly; I'm content to have it be a mystery.

Notes;
1. Cosmology, Mythology, and Heaven Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/16/2011
May 16, 2011 — Stephen Hawking’s recent comment that heaven is a fairy tale (see The Guardian) started blogger keystrokes clicking. But one might ask, what does he know about it? Are the opinions of a cosmologist any better than those of a theologian?
2. Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
We see how arrogant the man is, not only in this claim, but in almost everything he says or writes; he clearly suffers from megalomania.

2a. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.
- You can't get much more patronizing than that can you?

2b. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
- Science predicts no such thing. The fact some scientists make this claim is an entirely different matter, and is a claim that may or may not be true. (I give it a one in a quadrillion chance of being true.)

Is personification (and reification) good scientific method? People like Hawking labor hard to make the project of discovery (science) into a kind of infallible god. They clearly show the need for an ultimate authority in their lives; even if it's an impersonal thing like science. Science is a god who is deaf, dumb and blind; and thus one who is forced to speak via scientists... which makes scientists the ultimate authority in culture. (A position they jealousy guard.)

3. The key to understanding human consciousness is throwing out the idea man evolved from an ape like creature without language. I believe only the biblical creation model can lead to an understanding of human consciousness. I don't believe the materialist will ever comprehend it (i.e. in terms of matter in motion).
4. Unaired because non-existent.