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.'"

Comments

Hardly news

[jawtheshark]

He wrote that anecdote himself in "A Brief History of Time". So, this *really* is old news.

Re:Flawed Logic

[Artifakt]

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.
        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, /.'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.