Slashdot Mirror


The Vatican Invites World's Leading Scientists To Discuss Cosmology (independent.co.uk)

In 2014, Pope Francis declared that God is not "a magician with a magic wand" and that evolution and the Big Bang theory are real. Now, the Vatican has sent an invitation to the world's leading scientists and cosmologists to try and understand the Big Bang. The Independent reports: Astrophysicists and other experts will attend the Vatican Observatory to discuss black holes, gravitational waves and space-time singularities as it honors the late Jesuit cosmologist considered one of the fathers of the idea that the universe began with a gigantic explosion. The conference honoring Monsignor George Lemaitre is being held at the Vatican Observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 to help correct the notion that the Roman Catholic Church was hostile to science. In 1927, Lemaitre was the first to explain that the receding of distant galaxies was the result of the expansion of the universe, a result he obtained by solving equations of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Lemaitre's theory was known as the "primeval atom," but it is more commonly known today as the big-bang theory. The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says Lemaitre's research proves that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.

17 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Catholics also believe in evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're going to be Christian and don't want to be a retard, Catholicism is where it's at.

    1. Re:Catholics also believe in evolution by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      So long as you don't use a condom. But touching little boys is ok.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Catholics also believe in evolution by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Catholics accept that nearly every falsifiable statement in the Bible is wrong, but still demand that you accept the other stuff on faith. How is that not retarded?

    3. Re:Catholics also believe in evolution by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is that not retarded?

      Take a look at their bank accounts and other holdings.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Catholics also believe in evolution by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say rather that the Church's official doctrine doesn't explicitly bind itself to any particular scientific theory, viewing science as simply another kind of revelation, another kind of truth, apart from Scripture, and that both cannot be wrong. Therefore, if there is an apparent conflict between science and scriptural interpretation, the fault is with the interpreter.

      That being said, one can still be a Catholic in good standing and reject evolution, the Big Bang and other scientific theories that are viewed by the scientific community as being confirmed and as true as anything can be in science (keeping in mind science's fundamentally provisional nature). I do believe that Sola Scriptura is considered, if not heretical, then at least theologically unsound. You aren't going to get excommunicated for being a Creationist

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Catholics also believe in evolution by Empiric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Similarly, on the Protestant side, Sola Fide and, particularly, John 3:16 within Sola Scriptura makes one's stance on creationism versus evolution not a criterion for salvation.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re: Catholics also believe in evolution by getuid() · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Simple. Genesis is a creation myth invented few thousands years ago around a camp fire. The idea was not to answer the question "what's truth", but to convey the meaning of "how we're all in this together and why should look after one another."

      The myth, BTW, was likely put together from several (at least 3) stories that circulated orally between nomad tribes in the middle east. At that time, each tribe was having its own "one true God" - a contrast to the polytheistic ideologies of the time, formed simply from the necessity of not being able to carry around many artefacts for several gods around when you're nomad. Eventually the families (of Israel) evolved into all worshipping the *same* "one true God" - Jahwe, the god of the old testament.

      God image and perception changes from the forefather tribes of Israel, to BC-Israel people (old testament), to Jesus / AD humanity (new testament).

      That's essentially the official teaching stance of the Catholic church. (Source: 8 years of highschool religion lessons in Bavaria, under several catholic priests.)

      Why on earth anyone would try to interpret the bible lierally, in 2017, is beyond me - let alone mistake it for a physics book. But then again, stranger things do happen in the US education system...

  2. Re:When did the big bang happen though? by Master+Moose · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because young earthers are generally not Catholic.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  3. Re:When did the big bang happen though? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "Young Earth" theory of 6,000 years old planet is a relatively recent development, when people impressed by the advances in science and particularly physics and with too much time on their hands started looking for "clues" in the Bible for the Earth's age.

    Reality is that Bible is completely unconcerned with "how old the Earth is" because at the time it was written the Earth's age was completely irrelevant to the lives of most people. (That's true today too.) The Bible and the sacred texts in other religions are only concerned with the psychological -- the idea being to guide you through making everyday decisions in your life. (Of course a lot of people pervert this principle -- the Young Earthers being one example -- but that's a different story.) The Bible is a catalog of archetypes and has no interest in knowledge of the objective universe for its own sake.

    The originator of the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic priest, a Belgian I think, except he gave it a boring name, the British physicist who mocked him called his theory Big Bang, and the name stayed. It's nicely documented in the movie Hawking with Benedict Cumberbatch.

  4. Re:Please by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ask Galileo how that worked out. Sounds like desperate actions of cult who's way past expiration date.

    Not this again. I'm not Catholic, I disagree with a lot of the politics of the Catholic Church, and obviously most of its religious doctrine is hooey.

    But anti-science? Nope. And the "Galileo affair" is a red herring, one of the very few episodes in the Catholic Church's long history where it comes across as anti-science -- although actually, it wasn't so much. Galileo himself was spouting off about stuff that didn't actually make sense according to the science of the time. That doesn't justify shutting him down or placing him under house arrest of course, but that's a free speech issue, not a suppression of SCIENCE issue.

    Anyhow, I'm not going to bother describing the Catholic Church's long history of support of science, how a few 19th-century anti-Catholic revisionist historians basically trumped up the idea that the Church was anti-science, and how Galileo's case was a LOT more complicated than some stupid inaccurate portrayal you've heard from Neil deGrasse Tyson or whatever. You want to know more? I've explained it before here. You want to know more about the details of Galileo's theories and the problems? I've explained that here. I could go on, but hopefully that's at least enough to prove Pope Francis's point here: the Catholic Church throughout its history has rarely been hostile to science and in fact for most of the past thousand years has probably been the biggest and most consistent institution to support it over the longest period.

  5. Re:Baha'i's Believe This by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

    The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

    Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

    - Saint Augustine of Hippo

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:But of course by harlequinn · · Score: 4, Informative

    They've been doing astronomy for over a century. They're hardly trying to look "hip" or "cool".

  7. Re:When did the big bang happen though? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The best part is that God only created the universe so that He could fake the moon landing.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  8. Catholic tradition is at odds with scripture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So long as you don't use a condom. But touching little boys is ok.

    The main reason that there is so much pedophilia in Catholicism is because the Catholic church has created its own traditions which go against the teachings of the Bible. They do not allow priests or the pope to get married, yet Peter, the guy they claim to be the first pope was married. An example of one such passage that is ignored by the church is 1 Corinthians 7:

    "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband."

    and

    "But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

    If the Catholic church allowed its priests to follow the teachings of these scriptures there would be far less sexual immorality and abuse in the church.

  9. Re: Big Bang is false too, just like Creationists by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Penrose's Cycles of Time puts forward a really straightforward mechanism for the big bang. When the last massive particle pops and all the energy in the universe is massless photons, you have no mass, so no gravity and no time. Everything is simple, low entropy, dominated by photons and bingo you have something that looks (and is) identical to the state at start of the big bang.

    It hard to see why it isn't true.

    He's a smart fellow that Penrose.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. On the contrary, say quantum physicists by raymorris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I heard a quantum astro physicist speak on this recently. It was interesting that what he said the requirements for the big bang would be just happened to match up to some things outside of physics.

    You mentioned:
    > It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist

    If time didn't exist within that point, if the gravity was so strong nothing could escape, then *nothing* could happen, within a basic understanding of relatively. For anything to happen, for the big bang to happen, you need either something outside pf physics (something meta-physical) or certain laws of quantum physics must be present in a very particular way.

    Biblically, when God is asked who he is, the answer is basically "I am what it timeless" or "I am what has always been and always will be" (English doesn't have exactly the right words because we give several meanings to the word "is/am" Spanish comes closer with es vs esta). Also "I am the truth". So God states he is, essentially, timeless truth. Whatever has always been true, that's God.

    And the physicists say that *before* the big bang can happen, quantum physics must *already* be true. Quantum physics must be timeless truth in order to get the big bang, or else the big bang has to be caused by something beyond physics, something meta-physical.

    Therefore reading the plain words, the laws pf physics are timeless truth that must have existed before the big bang, and that's what God is - timeless truth that existed before the big bang. The founders of the US would then have been correct to call the laws of nature the laws of God, acts of nature are called acts of God. They are one and the same. They are timeless truth.

    1. Re:On the contrary, say quantum physicists by getuid() · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Highly interesting (I'm a physicist myself, versed in quantum mechanics, but I don't know jack about cosmology and big bang besides from what I've heard on discovery channel...).

      But you shouldn't start looking for God where the physics fails -- that's a recipe for misunderstanding. Essentially, that's what everyone before already did: ancient times looked for god in nature catastrophes and anomalies, middle ages looked for him in the stars and (by today's standards) simple chemistry, and now we're looking for him at the inception of big bang or in "quantum physics" -- in other words, always at the boundary of our scientific understanding. The concept failed before, and it will fail us, as our understanding of the world inevitably advances. (I'm shamelessly assuming that one day we'll understand how the universe holds together, physically... ;-) ).

      Don't mix god and science. God is not there to fill the gaps in physics books. It's the humanistic side of things rather than the scientific, he's there to help us understand the "why" rather than the "how." Every time God or religion appears to meddling with scientific education, it's because somebody's not asking the right question.

      Religion and science go together wonderfully as long as the other doesn't try to diletantly invade the domain of the other. (BTW, this view is not new in the Catholic church, I've learned this in religion classes since the 6th grade. It's just that the current pope is now being explicitly clear about it. And judging by the number of misunderstandings that bubble to the surface I'd say it was about f#@%$ing time, too.)