Slashdot Mirror
Pope Advised Hawking Not to Study Origin of Universe
BlueCup submits a link to an Associated Press article running in the Northwest Florida Daily News which begins "Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. The British author, who wrote the best-seller 'A Brief History of Time,' said that the pope made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican."
According to the article, "The scientist then joked during a lecture in Hong Kong, 'I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo.'"
He wrote that anecdote himself in "A Brief History of Time". So, this *really* is old news.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
It is about creationism, just not young Earth creationism.
The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution and the Big Bang, but they still need some kind of mystery involved in creation so that their God has a role to play. The don't want scientists producing results which might imply the Universe did not need some outside force to get it started.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
> Hawking is an American.
Um, no. He's British. Born, raised and lives there. See here
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
There are priests who have done science too (maybe even scientists who became priests :)
:)
Take for example, Lemaitre who is credited with proposing the none too unsignificant Big Bang theory. He was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. He convinced Hubble and Einstein of the expanding universe model using Hubble's experimental work and Einstein's theories.
Jokingly, I would say the Pope advised Hawking not to study the origin of the universe because the Vatican wanted to beat him to publishing the first paper
JPII made some nods towards science (saying that evolution *could* be accurate in the physical sense, but that God made the human soul, etc.) He was also "demanded" that science not contradict Christianity. Exactly what this means is up for interpretation, but if you read enough of the theology of the RCC, you'll find it puts a lot of limitation on physical science, which is why Teilhard de Chardin and others have been shut up in recent years...
The RCC is sadly still anti-science on balance. They admit error in backhanded and deceptive ways only when things are so far gone that they cannot maintain any credibility without doing it. Like with Galileo and evolution.
I agree... it seems highly improbable that the late pontiff would have said such a thing. In Gaudium et Spes (no. 36), the Council Fathers wrote "It has explicitly affirmed the distinction of orders of knowledge between faith and reason; it has recognized the autonomy and independence of science, and has taken up a position in favor of freedom of research."
I dunno who it is
but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
Not trying to pick a fight here but your last statement is one reason the world today (and before) is a mess. Religion explains *nothing*. Religion is about belief without any substance whatsoever. You can not learn anything about the world from religion (you can learn alot about people however), certainly not *why*.
"Galileo got in trouble for saying that the earth moves... in a book that irreverently satirized the current pope."
/. So Galileo proceeds to publish a book in which he thoroughly flames the Pope, and puts the Pope's words, in some cases distorted or taken out of context, in the mouth of a character whose name is just one letter away from "Stupid"... and is pronounced almost the same as "Stupid." In effect it's the kinda flamebait post that goes on and on about how the opponent is just too stupid to understand, only in print.
Read again the part after the "..." and there you have the real problem.
AFAIK, Galileo had had a pretty civilized talk with the Pope, and while the Pope wasn't convinced by Galileo's argumentation, he let Galileo go.
Before you blame the Pope of being too fanatical to accept science, remember that it wasn't just faith, but they did have their own explanations (derived from Aristotles) about how the world works. It may have been wrong in retrospect, but as far as any wise man at the time was concerned, they already had a science of sorts. Something that comes and turns the whole cosmic model on its head, damn better be convincing, and at any rate the Pope wasn't convinced. And remember that the Pope had been willing to hear Galileo's arguments, which doesn't strike me as too closed-minded.
Unfortunately, Galileo seems to have had the same kind of personality one can see often on
Now also bear in mind that the Pope at the time was debatably the biggest political figure. A king above kings, if you will. They weren't big on democracy and freedom of speech back then...
And Galileo goes and flames him in public and calls him stupid...
I don't know, seems to me like science-vs-religion had _nothing_ to do with what happened from there. You get in a public pissing contest with the dictator of the realm, you get roughed up in return. It's that simple.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."
The Catholic church has learned its lesson after Galileo. See for example Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. The main place it continues to fly in the face of scientific opinion is when science affects what it considers to be its own sacred turf of the traditional family, but outside that you can expect the Vatican to be pretty pro-science. (In fact, this is not wholly new. Many outstanding scientists around the time of Galileo were priests at the Jesuit university in Rome). Indeed the Natural Law tradition, which is traditionally strong in Catholic theology, is a motivation to study nature.
The big danger to science as I see it comes from fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise. When scripture is granted authority over actual observations, then science is in trouble.
He was also "demanded" that science not contradict Christianity.
I think I know where you got that semi quote(more than a little mangled):
159 Faith and science : "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (GS 36 ' 1)
From the Catechism, the official teaching guide of the RCC. As far as the Church is concerned, the only caveat to scientific study is that it respects moral law, which boils down to the fact that in biological sciences, you can't treat human beings in ways that are offensive to their innate dignity(Tuskegee study, Axis death camp studies, etc). The idea is that that faith and science can never be in opposition because they have one author, not that science has to be altered to fit religious belief.
Chardin was condemned not for his scientific writings, but because of his religion. He was most certainly, judging from his own writings, not Catholic anymore. His desire was to eliminate most if not all of Christian belief, and replace it with his own. It had nothing at all to do with science. He wanted to create a new religion and call it Catholic, and the RCC understandably said no. He was free at any time to leave and publish his beliefs in any way he wished. But the RCC is also free not to teach his religion in its schools.
Evolution was never condemned by the RCC, so I fail to see how that is "backhanded and deceptive."
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
That's because the Big Bang theory WAS developed by a religious person, namely Georges Lemaître.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtr
A Roman Catholic priest!
From that link
I do agree though, that this is the best explanation of God. Something we can never possibly understand.
God is timeless. ~ The Universe had NO time before the Bang.
Where is God? God is everywhere. ~ The Universe is everywhere.
etc...
= The Universe IS God
Mind you, the theory DOES threaten the beliefs of the Fundamentalists. Of course, suggesting that the world has a history beyond 6500 years ago does as well.
Precisely - Reading the whole of John Paul 2's own comments and even a few of the other things he wrote to scientists shows that he was well aware of what Hawking and others were claiming and why it wasn't science. Hawking is one of a number of Cosmologists that have started from the assumption that many fundamental variables must be randomly selected, and from that assumption, an untestable (and therefore non-scientific) prediction commonly follows, mascarading as science. Hawking's made it, Sagan's made it (although he at least qualified (in Cosmos) that it was speculative), Guth's made it, and half the people pushing String theory or various Brane theories have made it, while the other half have been tweaking their theories to avoid explicitly making it. /.'ers might want to read "The Infinte Book", by John D. Barrow, FRS and professor of Math at Cambridge. He has some great arguements about just what must inevitably exist if the universe (or multiverse if you prefer) is truely infinite in either time or space, and these show just how most of the Cosmology speculation is rooted in niave models of infinity similar to an uneducated layman's, and not real math. Without real math behind it, it ain't science.
This is the prediction that an infinite number of 'parellel' universes must exist. Note that the scientists, unlike SF authors, are careful to say these are likely to be forever unobservable. I'd argue that the prediction that the fundamental constants nust be random is itself unscientific, but why bother, when there is such a common tenedency in the scientists that start from that premise to jump to the consequent and proclaim infinite parellels.
Now I don't personally believe in the whole heirarchial structure of angelic beings postulated by some parts of the Roman Catholc church, with Powers, Seraphim, and Thrones, etc. - but even a claim involving a detailed listing of what every single one of fiftyfive billion angels did every moment of creation would be simpler than a theory that predicts an infinite number of unobservable phenomina, by Occam's Razor. A theory that blames the universe on a conspiracy between Olive (Santa's other reindeer), and Sagan's Invisible Garage Dwelling Dragon is still more scientific than one that makes an infinite number of untestable predictions. It at least has the virtue of testability.
For more on this,
Who is John Cabal?
Science is an antidote to blind faith. Fortunatly, some have taken the time to carefully tease out what works and what doesn't. We don't throw virgins into volcanos to appease the gods any more.
t ml
Your estimates on the world's religions are way off. Judaism is way down the list. Here is one site:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.h
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
My guess is that their statistics undercount the "Chinese traditional religion" and overcount "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist"
Anyway, just because you label blind faith and superstition as part of the human condition doesn't mean that others are constrained by your limitations.
That is patently untrue. Try reading Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell for a detailed listing of historical and archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts. As for "SINGLE, HIGHLY UNRELIABLE", the Bible is THE most accurate historical document of its time. This site has a good writeup on the accuracy of the New Testament documents. There are over 4000 fragments that contain all or part of the New Testament, and the Old Testament was transcribed from ancient documents with incredible accuracy. The dead sea scrolls that predate the birth of Jesus contained a version of the book of Isaiah that contains only the slightest differences (probably typographical) from the book we have in the Bible today.
Uh, what does science have to do with history? Science is the study of the cause and functioning of things by direct observation and reproduction in a laboratory or field test. It has nothing to do with historical analysis or archaeology.
Yes, the likelihood of a group of Jewish fisherman making up a story about a Messiah figure who claimed to be God (blasphemy) and then turning the entire Roman empire upside down in the matter of a few decades is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that they would all suffer torture and death to protect a story that is not true. And yet, that is exactly what happened. If anything, this is a strong indication that their story was real. Would you die for something you know to be false?
The Bible has strong archaeological and textual evidence that supports its accuracy. You may question its interpretation of events, but there is just as much evidence for its claims as there is that a man named Socrates taught in the streets of Athens, or that a man named Julius Caesar founded Rome.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
I would be surprised, if it were true, but it doesn't seem to be. First of all, it defies logic -- that the Church would a conference on cosmology at which the Pope would simply tell people not to study cosmology -- and second, as far as I can tell from a search of several archives of Papal speeches, the only Vatican conference on cosmology that John Paul II addressed was on July 6, 1985, and his remarks to that conference do not include even the remotest suggestion that the beginnings of the universe, or any other matter within the scope of scientific investigation, should not be investigated.
He does suggest that science alone is inadequate to completely understand the mysteries of creation, and that human understanding of our role in the universe must be informed by more than science, but that's not even remotely like discouraging investigation by science of, well, anything.
Buddhism isn't monotheistic.
Its original scriptures make mention of 'devas' and other celestial beings, but none of them are considered worthy of worship or devotion; Mahayana, which substantially 'deifies' the Buddha above and beyond the scope of the original human being, still venerates a number of Buddhas and deities.
Josh McDowell's has already been soundly refuted. Feel free to investigate for yourself : http://tinyurl.com/puhbe
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
Err... you do know that the "thou shalt not kill" is actually a mistranslation? The Hebrew verb stem used (in both versions of the commandments), is the infrequent R.TZ.KH, not the (common) verb for killing, H.R.G. Actually, while murder is a better translation, the concept of manslaughter may be closer to the meaning, as evidenced in the stem's usage in Numbers 35:12, where it is used for an unjustifiable, but not premeditated or even intentional, homicide.
Of course, the reason for the currency of "Thou shalt not kill" is its presence in the King James Version, which, while a fine piece of literature and a religious text in its own right, is one of the worst translations of the Bible. If you locate a reprint of the 1611 Edition KJO. Apparently, the divine inspriation and correction dissipated when it came time to write the preface.
(OT, but the correction has to be made)
Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
First of all, in case you all didn't notice. Pope John Paul II died, therefore is not the current pope. So, it isn't appropriate to refer to him as "The Pope", unless you mean to suggest that he had this conversation with his spirit, in which case I doubt he would be so brash in the recounting of it.
/. a platform for anti-catholic bigotry (not uncommon in puritanical cultures). It is already a platform for agnostics and atheists to spout off about how ignorant and stupid religious people are, and with the arrogance of a teenager about how smart and well-educated *they* are.
/.'er in thread to this story, is that science can somehow be sufficient for us to discover our moral compass. I disagree with this assertion. Science is inherently neutral on moral grounds, neither good nor bad, only seeking knowledge. It is what we do with the knowledge that makes it good or evil.
Second of all, this whole story is based on an anecdote which leads up to a joke punchline. I highly doubt Stevie H. ever spoke to John Paul II, let alone have this particular alleged conversation.
Third of all, there has been countless examples of John Paul II saying that science was a very good thing, and that no science would ultimately lead to something that contradicted truth. An one example check out his words. In fact, his predecessor, Pope Pius XII, stated in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis that the theory of evolution contradicted in no way with the teachings of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII also stated in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that "truth can not contradict truth", and John Paul II seconded that motion.
I would suggest everyone is out of date in their understanding of the Catholic Church's stance on science.
Let's not make
As a Catholic myself, I and my whole family have always been taught that the pursuit of science can only *help* us understand the universe and the world around us, and that this ultimately will help us to know and understand the nature of God. What science can't teach us, but philosophy (and yes religion) can, is how to live our lives or gain a sense of morality.
The assertion that has already been made I see by at least one
Lastly, every good Catholic knows that what the pope says about science is irrelevent. In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility pertains to the singular domain of faith and morals, not science, not fact, not popular opinion, and not politics. Even if John Paul II "personally" discouraged Stevie H. from pursuing his line of scientific hypothesis (which I doubt), he has already officially encouraged it in a dogmatic way (a much more potent way).
w2^7me out.
Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars..."
Clarification: In that verse, God was not telling Abraham to study the heavens or anything of the sort. He was using the numerous (read: uncountable) stars in the sky to give Abraham a familiar frame of reference so he could understand God's promise of an unending family legacy (numerous, uncountable descendants).
Your point, however, remains otherwise valid. As a reasonable human being, I honestly don't understand how people can want to deny or suppress knowledge of the world around us. As a Christian, I give the credit where the credit is due. God created a beautiful universe, whether or not we know how it works.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com