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.'"

Hardly news

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

Re:Hardly news

You got there before me. Well, Hawking once believed that time would reverse when the universe started contracting towards the big crunch, so this would have been news on the way back down the timeline ;).

Re:Hardly news

Ah, that is why lots of drops of coffee from my computer screen just magically jumped in my mouth! ;-)

swen yldraH:eR

!gnineppah si ti ,on hO

Ah incest time

First you crawl back up into your mother then are sucked out of there by your dad. Wonderfull. I hope they have shrinks in the pre-life.

Re:Ah incest time

"First you crawl back up into your mother then are sucked out of there by your dad. Wonderfull. I hope they have shrinks in the pre-life."

What about Santa Claus? What a bastard! He's just a big fat git who sneaks down chimneys and steals all the kids' favorite toys!

Re:swen yldraH:eR

Damnit, how long to I have to wait to get to be the first post?

swen yldraH:eR

.); enilemit eht nwod kcab yaw eht no swen neeb evah dluow siht os ,hcnurc gib eht sdrawot gnitcartnoc detrats esrevinu eht nehw esrever dluow emit taht deveileb ecno gnikwaH ,lleW .em erofeb ereht tog uoY
 

Re:Hardly news

Agreed The real news is that the Inquisition finally caught up with Galileo. I'll submit the story right away!

Re:Hardly news

good idea, nobody will expect that

Re:Hardly news

well, we certainly didn't expect that either...

Re:Hardly news

....was trialled on heresy by Roman Inquisition

Cue a bunch of guys in togas bursting into the room.

"Hey, I expected the Spanish Inquisition!"

Flawed Logic

If you love God, why not read up on his work?

Re:Flawed Logic

If you love God, why not read up on his work?

I know a couple of scientists who are religious (Christian) and none of them understand what the deal is with the fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. As far as they're concerned, they're using their God given brain to study how God does His thing. A very classic way of thinking about science. IIRC, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc... all thought of their scientific work as a way to worship Him.

Re:Flawed Logic

As far as they're concerned, they're using their God given brain to study how God does His thing.

A biology professor I once met was fond of saying that if you study biology in long enough, you will find not only that God exists, but He has a sense of humor.

Re:Flawed Logic

You don't have to study very much, just have a good long look at your own reproductive organs. After all, as the joke goes: "God must be a civil engineer, who else but a civil engineer would put a waste water outlet through a recreational facility?".

Re:Flawed Logic

The problem is he built the recreational facility on the existing waste water plants property, so it sounds like he's a speculation developer rather than an engineer. "Hell, this place will be so much fun they will come no matter how bad it smells."

Re:Flawed Logic

If you need proof, just look at a duck-billed platypus.

I mean seriously, what the fuck? Hair, bill, warm-blooded, lays eggs, nurses its young, males have venomous spurs..

(They also have the best electroperception of any mammal and swim with their eyes closed. You can't make this shit up, check out the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]. They're even wierder than I thought.)

Re:Flawed Logic

When you are trying to recreate an event you collect evidence. Given enough evidence you can have a high degree of certainty that it happened. My wife tells me she grew up on a farm. Her six sisters corroborate the story. I've seen pictures. Her parents live there now. That is a TON of evidence. On the other hand, if some stranger walks up to me on the street and says she grew up in the Louvre then I'm going to be skeptical because I don't know that anybody grows up in the Louvre and on the street I have no further evidence to back up her claim. There is a LOT of evidence about the French Revolution. I could touch artifacts created at that time and subject them to scientific experiments that will validate their age. The same is not true of the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark. Fundamentalist christians are using a SINGLE, HIGHLY UNRELIABLE source to draw conclusions about SINGULAR, HIGHLY UNLIKELY events in the distant past...DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration. That is nothing, whatsoever, like believing in the French Revolution, and you know it. I don't have faith in the French Revolution. I have seen convincing EVIDENCE of it.

Re:Flawed Logic

what does science have to do with history?

The Bible is a historic document in the same way that the Iliad is a historic document. Both are collections of myths and fables that are roughly based on actually occurences in history. Both have supernatural events that were not likely but make for a better story. Science lets us determine which parts are likely to be true (i.e. history) and which parts are likely to be nothing more than myth.

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?

By your logic, a prophet in the middle east who turned the entire regious upside down, resulting in the rapid conversion of the entire area to the same belief must be correct. ESPECIALLY since he has thousands of men and women lining up to die for his beliefs on a daily basis and receive martyrdom for their cause.

Yes... there you have it. Following your logic, both Christianity and Islam are true. And since Muhammed came afterward Jesus and plenty more people are willing to die for Muhammed, Islam must be "more true" than Christianity.

Do you see the flaws in your logic now or are you converting to Islam?

When people require absolute faith regardless of the overwhelming contrary evidence, they have already sacrificed enough of their own identity and ability to reason that sacrificing their lives is merely the next step of losing themselves to their beliefs. Welcome to the Church of Jim Jones, you'll enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Re:Flawed Logic

In fact, even if you did experienced it, you are still having faith that your memories are correct and accurate.

The issue is not whether faith but whether reasonable or blind, unsubstantiated faith.

Rich

Re:Flawed Logic

Yeah, but please BUY his book, don't rip-off God's royalties. Otherwise he might not be discouraged to create other universes.

Not Merely Flawed Logic

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

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.

Re:Flawed Logic

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.

Next up...

Pope Palpatine will advocate not studying conception...since it is an act of God. Great. Guess my girlfriend won't be putting out.

The Inquisition

The Inquisition can't come for Hawking now: he's expecting it!

Re:The Inquisition

Ah, but he knows they can't come, becasue they're expected so they're unexpected. Which means they can come. Except Hawking obviouslyt expects them to know they're expected and therefore unexpected, so he should probably expect this.

Re:The Inquisition

> Hawking is an American.
Um, no. He's British. Born, raised and lives there. See here [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Inquisition

Um, no. He's British

It's true. His speech synthesis machine just has an American accent [per TFA] because he had the "British Charm Unit" module removed from the system. He's now just sounds like a Boorish American Clod. He could've kicked your ass from here to Alberqu..ere..q.....e

(I hope you get this)

From TFA:

[FROM TFA]...he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."

The Vatican was unavailable for comment.

Nevertheless, it inflates

Church versus Science. Not exactly a new story.

But, I'm surprised to hear the Pope said this. I'd thought the Catholic church was relatively progressive in terms of creationism. A few hundred years ago, it might have made a difference what they thought.

These days, this kind of comment makes the church look archaic rather than actually discouraging scientists. At least in Europe.

Re:Nevertheless, it inflates

Well, Pope Pius XII approved of the Big Bang theory in 1951 and Pope John Paul II said "that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe and teach evolutionism."

The Vatican also has some fine astronomers (and one of the oldest astronomical research institutions).
http://vaticanobservatory.org/ [vaticanobservatory.org]

The Vatican isn't as backwards as those fundamental christian creationists that take everything the bible says literally.

Re:Nevertheless, it inflates

The don't want scientists producing results which might imply the Universe did not need some outside force to get it started.

Even if they were able to scientifically prove that fact it would not disprove the existence of God. Science does not work to disprove religion...

During the meeting

Pope, speaking in bad Italian accent: Yeah, you see, it's like this Mr. Hawking... the beginning of everything... that's God's work... he wouldn't be too pleased if you found out too much about what he did... he's very private that way... he tends to get upset easily... and we wouldn't want anything to say, happen to you... you wouldn't want to end up in a wheelchair or nothin'... oh wait...

ask any person of "faith"

It's turtles all the way down.

The Pope

The Pope doesn't represent all of Chistianity or religion for that matter. Hawkings should study and theorize the origin of the universe as much as he wants. He probably will never determine if a higher being actually flipped the switch that made it happen, though. Science explains how, what, where, and when. Religion explains who and why.

Re:The Pope

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

Re:The Pope

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*.

I seriously doubt he said it

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?

Re:I seriously doubt he said it

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."

what a pathetic religion

Just think about what a pathetic concept of divinity that is: a supposedly almighty God who dislikes it when his creation looks at his works. That's in addition to all the smighting, shame, pain, and torture that Catholicism says God inflicts on the world.

I'm agnostic about whether there is some higher power. But a world created and ruled by the kind of schizophrenic and conflicted being that the Catholic church postulates makes no sense to me, and my faith tells me that they are wrong; no omnipotent being could sensibly be as petty and hateful towards mankind as the Catholic church claims God is.

how vs why

I was raised Baptist but am not religious these days. Many many scientists have a deep spirituality or faith and feel that science just gets you closer to the creation. I've never had a problem with science versus faith: to put it into religious terms, I presume that science is our attempt at explaining "how," and spirituality is our attempt at explaining "why." There's no disconnect here.

The bible doesn't explain how the universe was created, and explicitly says that God's timeline is nothing like man's timeline, so there's no point in parsing "six days" as meaning anything in particular to us. If I feel like parsing it at all, I'd say the seventh day of rest aligns quite nicely with the future era of calmness mentioned in Revelations, so maybe we're still in the sixth day as far as God is concerned. I've subsequently heard some Israeli theologians have put forth the same conjecture. But I don't parse the bible that much, as I already figured out what I want to figure out with regards to my own spirituality: do less harm than good, and the world will be alright.

Major organized religions (aka, Church Inc.) just don't want any explaining of either, as it impacts the bottom line. Come in, drop off your tithe, pat a homeless man on the head, and go watch your kids' soccer game. Questions come pretty close to questioning authority, and they like being the unquestioned authority. I mean, really, condoms in Africa...

The actual quote

"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."

reminds me of another story...

I heard this same anecdote from Hawking himself when he visited Chile a few years ago.

I'm reminded of a story Carl Sagan used to tell. He once asked the pope (John Paul II, of course) what he would do if some scientific discovery proved once and for all and irrefutably that the precepts of Christianity were false. The pope lectured him for a few minutes about how this wasn't possible.

Sagan once asked the Dalai Lama the exact same thing. The Lama's answer?

"I would tell the world, of course! There are millions of buddhists in the world and if I find out their all wrong, I should tell them as soon as possible, and we should look for a better way to live then.

Very different mindset.

In a sense both are right

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.

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

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.

The Big Bang WAS written by the religious!

The Big Bang is litterally a religious persons DREAM scientific theory. They couldn't have written it any better themselves.

That's because the Big Bang theory WAS developed by a religious person, namely Georges Lemaître.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre [wikipedia.org]
A Roman Catholic priest!

From that link :

As for Einstein, he found [the theory] suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. ... After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

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.

Re:So?

That's my thought. Why shouldn't we study everything so we can bask in the full glory of God's work?

of course with knowledge comes the fact that most religions are just social engineering scams designed to control the population and make people feel better about themselves at the expense of others^H^H non-believers.

Oh well I have my beliefs and I don't care if no one else believes what I do. A good life involves giving to others, for in the end only kindness matters.

Ah-ha, now you see the REAL problem

"Galileo got in trouble for saying that the earth moves... in a book that irreverently satirized the current pope."

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 /. 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.

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.