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

Re:If studying the work of God isn't allowed....

[lbrandy]

Funny how they only do this with the sciences that threaten their beliefs.

Huh? What? Threatens their beliefs? The Big Bang? Are you reading the same theory I am? The Big Bang is litterally a religious persons DREAM scientific theory. They couldn't have written it any better themselves. Not only is it the perfect theory explaining the moment of creation, but it also predicts that not only does everything happen, all of creation, in a single moment, at a single point, but it even predicts that our laws and rules and science cannot touch anything that happened before it. It, literally, points to a single moment/point and says the entire universe came from this point, at this time, and we can never hope to know what happened before that.

If that's not "biblical" in it's details, then nothing is.

Re:The Pope

[haluness]

Religion explains who and why.

Just to nitpick (since I have nothing else to do right now) but religion states who and why, rather than explains

I seriously doubt he said it

[Creedo]

If you look at all of the other statements that JPII made regarding science and faith, this would immediately strike you as out of character. Add that to the fact that I've never seen someone actually produce proof that he ever said it, like a transcription or something. So, I think Hawking either misquoted, misunderstood(given JPII's accent, understandable) or made up the quote. After all, it makes a good joke, right?

Not Merely Flawed Logic

[camperdave]

The Pope is not merely using flawed logic, the bible commands us to consider the work of his (God's) hands.

• Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars..."
• Psalm 143:5 I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done.*
• Psalm 92:4 For you make me glad by your deeds, O LORD; I sing for joy at the works of your hands*
• Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!
• Luke 12:24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!

*Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Re:Flawed Logic

[kpesler]

I believe that many are missing a critical point in this discussion. The universe, by definition, encompasses all events which are causally connected, and therefore observable, at least in theory. As such, studying the universe falls within the realm of science. Discussion about what preceded the universe is, by definition, a discussion about things that cannot, even in principle, be observationally confirmed or refuted. As such, it is not science, but speculation. If you want to make such speculations, go ahead, but it shouldn't be passed off as science. I believe the Pope's comments were not intended to curtail legitimate science, but philosophy disguised as science.

In a sense both are right

[Moraelin]

In a sense, JPII is actually right there: it's impossible for science to prove anything about an entity outside the observable universe.

Let me use WoW as an example. Let's say the observable universe is WoW. Even the wisest scholar living _in_ the WoW universe, even with the best gnomish instruments, can only observe and measure things that are _inside_ this universe.

What it _can't_ observe is the universe's creator: Blizzard.

Can such a scholar prove, with only the data in his universe, that Blizzard doesn't exist? No. He just doesn't have the data on which to base such a proof. The best his science can do is state that the universe can be explained well enough without this mystical "Blizzard" entity at the helm.

Same is it with RL science and God. Science _can't_ prove that God doesn't exist. All science can do is explain the universe well enough without needing some "God" entity. But that's all.

No, seriously, I know that we all love to troll and bait the christians. But put your thinking cap for a second and you'll realize the same: if a "creator" exists _outside_ the universe he created (just like Blizzard exists outside the WoW universe), science can't prove or disprove this creator in any form or shape. It just can't get any data from there. At all. Ever.

Not to mention that it's not even possible to prove a negative like that. As long as science can't know every single atom in the universe, _and_ go back in time and observe what happened at every single moment since Big Bang, you simply can't have enough proof that something _doesn't_ exist even _inside_ your universe. It's like proposing to prove that a green three-legged rabbit doesn't exist and never existed. You only need one specimen to prove that it does exist, but it's simply unfeasible to prove that nowhere in the universe such a creature ever existed.

The best science can do is apply Occam's Razor. Basically to say "well, we can explain the universe perfectly well even without some 'God' hypothesis, so we don't need such a hypothesis." But that's all.

Plus, some of the precepts of Christianity are pretty much notions, ideals or moral judgments. How do you scientifically disprove "love thy neighbour"? How would you scientifically disprove "thou shalt not kill"? No, seriously. They're moral precepts that reflect a certain set of values, not something you can run through a spectrograph or whatever other instrument.

So basically, yes, JPII was right: it's not even possible. So while it makes for some good christian-bashing material to compare the answers there, in practice it's about as relevant as asking "what would you do if gravity just suddenly disappeared?" It seems to me like "it's not even possible" is a perfectly valid answer there. Sure, it's not the most interesting or imaginative kind of an answer, but nevertheless it is a valid one.