Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:44 AM
Original message
Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/jun2006/hawkingpope.php


Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe
By MIN LEE Associated Press Writer
2006-06-15

HONG KONG (AP) - 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.

Hawking, who didn't say when the meeting was held, quoted the pope as saying, "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 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."

(more...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Heh. K&R. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. i'll join you in that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Didn't the Vatican finally get around to "absolving" Galileo
in 1991!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. 1992. The date is mentioned in the article. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. exactly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
85. it was an "error resulting from 'tragic mutual incomprehension.'"
talk about not taking responsibility while pretending to. isn't that just about the same thing they said about the choir boys too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Candidate for this month's "You Call This NEWS?" award
What possible reason could the pope have for not wanting the beginning of the universe studied? What's two thousand years' worth of religious doctrine between friends?

:evilgrin:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
physioex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. Aren't these the same people....
That tried to burn Galeleio for suggesting that earth was not in the center of the universe and the earth was flat.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Two separate questions
Not so much the "earth is flat" thing; they knew perfectly well it was round. Columbus didn't have to convince Isabella that the earth was round; she knew that. She also knew how big it was and nobody knew if there was a continent between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (nobody but the Icelanders and Greenlanders, and Columbus couldn't mention that he had been to Iceland, for some political reason that I forget).

When Copernicus suggested that the earth and the planets went around the Sun it was hailed as a useful model because it made calculating the date of Easter much easier. Galileo's problem was that he was essentially making Newton's arguments: that tangible forces causes motion in the heavens.

And they didn't threaten to burn Galileo himself; the argument was whether to simply proscribe or to outright burn his books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoseMead Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oh well, if the Pope said so
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
125. Yes, It's a sin to try and, um, learn about God... Oh, you *know*
I say cut the dead dude a break. He did plenty in his life time to dispell the bugaboo that science is a threat to religion. He even went back to the Gallileo thing and said the church was wrong for what it did, which wasn't necessary and certainly took guts and integrity. I can forgive him for slipping into old thinking occasion--I mean he never said he was infallible, did he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. Fucking church
Okay, this is the last of it, then.

I no longer respect religion. At all.

This does it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noel adamson Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. 1% are respectable
Troops refusing Iraq duty get a haven (First United Methodist Church)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2339594#2339605
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Those would be individuals.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:12 AM by kgfnally
They don't get to transfer the respect they themselves have earned by their own individual actions to their church.

The church still has my disrespect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noel adamson Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
39. The church had Jesus' disrespect too and they had him executed
for it. He was the first major figure I know of in history to advocate separation of church and state. That is to say I share your disgust with religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glenda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
126. That's an interesting point, you are right...
He did advocate separating church and state
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
89. I believe the
Methodist leader asked for bush's impeachment? OR am I imagining that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
129. The Pope is not all of Religion.
Nor does the Pope speak for all Christians. (You may have read about the Protestant Reformation.)

Many Roman Catholics would even say that the Pope does not speak for them.

You may be interested in reading The Clergy Letter
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.


Follow the link to read some of the more than 10,000 signatures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
8. Mr Hawking, if they had the power to Galileo you, they would.
In a heartbeat.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
46. Yep, they sure would. No question.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noel adamson Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Isn't that the reason the Hubble is being abandoned by BushCo?
They have stopped just short of burning scientists, and others, at the stake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
86. Had not thought about Hubble's demise like that
as it was thinking the unthinkable. But you may well be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noel adamson Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #86
99. That was my first thought when they said they were going to let Hubble
fall out of orbit just as it was getting such great images from so far away/back in time. Definitely more than 6,000 years back in time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. not a catholic and not defending the pope, but the headline implies
a more forceful directive from the pope than you get from within the article.
the actual quote from hawking sounds more like its the pope's opinion.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoseMead Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Opinion huh?
"But we should not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

In my opinion, a statement of opinion would be more like, "I think we should not..." or "In my opinion, we should not...," or even, "I believe we should not..."

But to be fair, this isn't a direct quote. So maybe it was a statment of opinion only.

Either way, it's stupid. In my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. I didn't get the impression from the article, except for hawking's joke,
that the pope was ordering them not to enquire.
For example, I can say "we should not use genetically manipulated grains", but I cannot force farmers not to, because I have no jurisdiction.
Even if the pope meant it as a directive, he has no jurisdiction over Hawking or other scientists, not in this day and age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #18
103. Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. well its the headline of the article
its not necesarly forcefull, the 'direcivie' is actually pretty confusing (as are most things with the Pope for me)

Just what the hell is this supposed to mean? "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."

So its OK to study the beginning of the universe, but we can't enquire into it? Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. you picked up on what I did, that the statement is confusing at best.
since the statement was confusing, I found it odd to characterize it as a directive.

I am not sure, but it almost sounds like a misquote, that the pope meant to say:

"It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we cannot not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

it almost seems to me he was making the point that the actual moment of creation is unknowable through empirical means. But I'm only guessing, because it IS very confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. Your interpretation seems correct to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
55. You know, that would make more sense to me as well.
Rather than a direct order, "Don't look there",
it would parse more as The Pope using the subject under discussion
to reiterate the concept of "Proof denies faith".

Which is a very old, well-worn point indeed....and one that seems
more in character with JPII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
31. It is not even the Pope's opinion - Hawking was just selling Atheism
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:55 AM by papau
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. Steven Hawking is not an atheist
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:57 PM by pschoeb
more like a deist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Then he has changed - because he was an atheist in 81 through 00
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:00 PM by papau
Indeed his pathetic over use of the anthropomorphic principle to sell his atheism in the 90's was later apologized for by Hawking (the anthropomorphic principle is both real and very weak logic as it explains nothing and excuses everything - it is lousy science).

The Fun thing is to watch each generation of physicists redo the same illogical task of disproving God. There is a discussion on DU of a fellow that tried to joke about there being no need for God because the size of matter needed to start a universe is so small we could be the result of some other universes high school lab experiment in someones petri dish. Beyond the obvious "petri dish" question, the equally obvious fact that he is into "a Creator must create the creator" non-logic that is rejected by the faithful is not discussed in reviews of his recent article. And there is a good reason for this. His throw away comment does not diminish the fact that his theory of banes and dimensions and string theory is a major accomplishment.

So we take him at his word that he was joking, and note that nerds and geeks tell lousy jokes.

There will be enough time later to point out the obvious lack of logic in the joke if he later wants to claim there is some logic in his joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
101. In the article the pope says "we should not enquire..."
"Should" is quite a bit more demanding than "it's my opinion".

Not that the Vatican has any authority over science, but it's obvious the Vatican wouldn't mind if it had such authority.

And the "we" is interesting, implies the pope thinks he speaks for Hawking, or for all of humanity... Can't be that he means the Vatican, since the Vatican IS not inquiring into the beginning of the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #101
105. read post #27
I think it could be a misquote. not that the catholic church doesn't have a track record of meddling in things it shouldn't, but the phrasing is confusing to me, and I think my reinterpretation of the misquote makes a great deal more sense.

also keep in mind its not a direct quote, but a second hand quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #105
106. A non-apology based on a guess?
"cannot" would hardly make any sense because it clearly is possible to inquire about the origins of the universe.

Either way it makes the pope sound as though he is living several centuries in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #106
124. what do I have to apologize for?
not sure I understand you.

I"m not defending the pope, I'm not catholic and don't care either way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #124
130. I don't say that you have to - you say that you don't
Point is, it's based on a guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. a guess based on a second hand quote.
so its murky as heck, I know that.
Its also murky to indict someone for saying a precise thing when its basing on someone else's recollection and then reported through a third party.

the Pope may very well have stated things as quoted, but my reinterpretation makes more sense contextually.

:shrug:

I was just offering my take on things. You were the one who used the word "apology" in reference to what I said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regularguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. He talks about this meeting in "Brief History..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. To be expected of the Catholic "Dark Ages R Us" Church...
as well as most organized Religion in general.

Ooooh, don't look there--don't a c t u a l l y t h i n k--don't even think about thinking or you'll be damned/God won't love/save you! Don't ask anything except what does your God want you to do for Him today! Asking questions and thinking are sure ways to lose your "Faith" (unless you're really good at fooling yourself or believing the unbelievable).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
16. I love how the pope made Galileo's excommunication Galileo's fault
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:08 AM by closeupready
as much as the church's. "tragic mutual incomprehension". :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. JPII was just as much as a douchbag as this Pope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saskatoon Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
84. ----as this pope
You're just jealous because you dont live in fabulous accomadations and eat pate de foie gras and all that other fancy stuff and have the servants and accolades and parades and and and
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
98. He didn't get excited too much
As his priests were rectally "laying the wood" to a group of little boys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
17. Gosh, silly me, I thought Christians thought everything in the universe
was the work of God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Some of us actually believe in science!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
24. The church hung the threat of the Inquisition over Galileo (twice). Too
bad the church no longer has the bonfire option for Hawking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
97. "Can a man walk upon hot coals and his feet not be burned?"
Cardinal Bellarmine in a threatening Biblical quote to Galileo Galilei in the wonderful Brecht play on this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
25. now Hawking is saying to flee the earth
because since we've trashed it, it's time move on.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/14/hawkings_leave_earth/
Stephen Hawking has called for a new diaspora, telling a Hong Kong press conference that humanity must leave Earth and colonise the rest of the solar system if it is to avoid extinction.

The respected physicist warned of the increasing risk that some kind of natural or man made disaster - such as global warming, or a nuclear war - could destroy the Earth: "It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," he said.

I think Stephen is feeling his mortality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
26. Perfect example of how religion is the enemy of scientific thought
"God did it" stifles all inquiry, because to inquire is to doubt that basic premise and to do that is blasphemy. We know what good religious people do to blasphemers, history is full of horrible examples.

The only problem is that too many of the blasphemers have been right and the religious men who tortured them to death were wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
29. Under this pretzel logic (does religion have any other kind?)
christians shouldn't study the bible either because that is also the "work of god".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. I study the Brick Testement instead
Especially the part about Marriage Duties.... rotflmao! Such a creative use of Legos...

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_on_marriage/1co07_01-02.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
60. By definition, religion does not need logic, it merely presumes that
people believe in it. (and pay their tithes)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
30. Bullshit reporting about a Hawking spinning atheism"lie" debunked long ago
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:53 AM by papau
Timothy Ferris offers an even more interesting and more readable account of the big bang in his excellent book "Coming of Age in the Milky Way". Hawking has put an atheist spin on all his books since he became ill http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Hawking , and has had to admit his overuse and exaggeration of the power of the anthropomorphic principle. But for the record re "A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes"

(From an old review at Amazon.com that can now be found at http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/587):

... Hawking himself has acknowledged that he played something of a shell game here, by introducing the idea that the work of cosmologists like himself is helping us reach a point where we may "know the mind of God."...but in fact,...the ultimate purpose of the book appears to have been to present the case for unproved theories which actually deny the possibility of God (Hawking had just recently proposed that the universe has no boundaries which meant that it had no beginning, and therefore no moment of creation - the age of 15 billion years means is not be considered a boundary for some reason - plus all the boundary work should be tossed).

Hawking starts by recalling a dramatic encounter with the Pope:

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went around the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope.
He told us that is was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference--the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!

...more revealing is a look at the actual transcript of what the Pope said that day (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981):

Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

I suppose it's possible to interpret the Pope's comments in different ways, but it certainly seems that Hawking has at least misunderstood and, at worst, willfully misstated what was said that day. In fact, the Pope's statement, as I read it, indicates that the Church has no real stake in the actual mechanics of the Big Bang, that whatever science and scientists finally determine about the actual processes through which the event occurred is acceptable. The only doctrinal interest that the Church has in the matter is that the event be understood to have been caused by God and that it be recognized that God's purpose in Creation was to create the Universe as we now behold it. One can sympathize with Hawking's desire to present himself as the new Galileo, an intellectual hero fighting against rigid orthodoxy, but it is inexcusable to actually warp the Church's views in order to do so. <snip>

...Hawking, relying on the most advanced ideas about the origins of the Universe, arrives finally at a point where his understanding stops; this is where we locate God.

He even seems to acknowledge this in the now famous final sentences of the book:

f we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Hawking's reply to a question re his "Mind of God" statement is that
he does not believe in a "personal god." Nor did Einstein who believed in Spinoza's God (i.e. nature).
A non-personal god pretty much leaves the Catholic Church out of the loop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. You might be able to put Plato and Buddha into that category too
Although there is always room for debate on these matters. If there is a personal God, he ought to be pretty understanding on these matters anyway (although dogmatists don't see it that way).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. You caught him...
Take that You wiley atheist publicists and Your wiley atheist propaganda!!

The nerve of atheist celebrities to repeat 'stories' on a lecture tour...maybe God should look into this abomination sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. LOL - Just thought DUer's should know that the Pope's expressed view on
the same day Hawking met with him - a view expressed in a speech that is easily available - makes Hawking look a little less like a truth teller.

Hawking's atheism - his no personal God claim, in other of his conversations, was said by him put out there only to sell books by mentioning the word "God" - is no problem and should never be a problem to anyone. It is a legitimate response, albeit I think the wrong one, to a disease.

I just don't like liars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. I hear ya Brother...
I wasn't dissing you...my comments were more for people like myself that have been burned one too many times going to see academics and book writers, who clearly want to be respected for their opinions, but end up doing little more than reciting antedotes they already gave away in interviews (obviously read by 'fans') and re-reading segments of books (obviously read by 'fans')...

I don't mind if they are free and sponsored, but I do resent paying for a re-hash in events based more on awestruck celebrity worship than 'ideas' in which one is not suppose to mention this arrogance because the money is going to a 'good' cause. :eyes:

And again kudos to you and I apologize if my reply didn't emphasis that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #71
122. Peace, Brother :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
45. And what if it is understood not to be God's work?
What if the cosmology reveals a Godless universe/multiverse? Would the Church be against that research as it was against Galileo's?

The only doctrinal interest that the Church has in the matter is that the event be understood to have been caused by God and that it be recognized that God's purpose in Creation was to create the Universe as we now behold it.


Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.


The Church is trying to predefine the origins of the universe for it's own cause. How silly, naive, and egocentric to think that the universe was created for man, or that we should learn how to go to heaven. What dinosaurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. There can be no proof - and for Hawking to pretend otherwise is a con
That of course is true of what the Church says as well.

There are a large number of folks that think that because Hawking is a scientist, he must be using logic in all statements.

He isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. While this is true
I believe the central point to all of this is the Church's friction towards science asking questions and seeking answers. Scientists do, AFAIK, admit their mistakes when exposed and are willing to look in other directions for answers. Religion, as a general rule, does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. I don't see that friction except with the fundi's of any religion -or non-
religion belief/assertion system. It is a fundi problem that crosses all boundaries.

Of course that is just my opinion - and I do understand what are referring to in terms of religion and science friction. I just do not see the vast majority of the religious having any problem with whatever science asserts that is scientifically derived (science itself has its own "fundi's" :-) that like to assert by saying such and such is obvious and need not be proved )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Majority of religions?
Sure, but the Catholic church has had problems with this in the past, and with this new Pope, more likely to have further problems down the road. Most other religions don't care, if you divide them up into their separate parts (counting Catholics apart from Methodists, from Evangelicals, from Quakers for example) But if you collect them into their master groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists) then many of them do have serious problems with what science is doing. Muslims stand to loose as much as Fundies should science prove the existence/non-existence of some kind of Deity. Other religions, Buddhism for example, really couldn't' care less from what I know (which isn't much).

Having said all that, I believe that science fits the definition of a religion. It has its own intricate rituals, is chock-full of fetishes like religions, has doctrine, dogma and rhetoric just like religions. It is a religion, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. I agree :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. If you say science is religion, then you stretch the definition of
religion into a meaningless term. All man-made organizations have their own codes, rituals, doctrines, etc., INCLUDING religion. Science fits the definition of a religion because they are both man-made organizations, not because they are the same. As man-made organizations both religion and science suffer from human fallibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. At the cosmological edge where experiment is impossible and alternative
mathematical approaches are offered, it become a matter of faith and consensus.

Rather like a religion-

and there are indeed those who are very sure of themselves, just like those we call fundi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Exactly, rather like religion. Not religion. Just human fallibility.
The cosmological edge is far better understood in 2004 than it was in 1904. Science differs from religion by building upon a growing set of ideas, hence the more we know the more we can know. Religion merely presumes a belief in a doctrine, that is all that is necessary to be religious, hence it becomes the pablum of the masses. It is a closed system, all that can arise is more dogma. True, we have many scientists that falsely assume that they can know more than is known "at this point in time", but even they are a far cry from true fundies like Phelps, Robertson, Falwell, et al.

You are very correct that those who eschew new ideas in science are dogmatic, but they are not religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. OK - it looks like we are in agreement :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Great! Thanks for the chat! nt
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. Then they are not scientists.
If they are not using the scientific method, then they are not being scientists in the strict sense, perhaps philosophers? If they are believing in a theory without testing it or proving it mathematically some how, then I would agree, that by accepting on faith, they are making a religion out of cosmology. I doubt most cosmologists fall into that category, but some probably do. I think most cosmologists think of these theories as possible ways of explaining their observations of the universe.

Religion, on the other hand uses faith to say that God created the universe. The cosmologist doesn't express theories with certainty, just possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. cosmologist doesn't express theories with certainty, just possibility.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 04:01 PM by papau
I agree -

indeed many have noted that scientists discussing QM and the cosmological edge resemble philosophers in a working discussion.

QM works, to the error margin we can measure - and asserted stuff including crazy math implications beyond that are labeled "interesting" - at least that is my opinion! Although I do like the concept of real imaginary matter!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Nature rolls dice.
Einstein was right. God doesn't roll dice, but nature does. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. I like the new genetic evolution algorithms that roll the dice to see
which way to walk the tree in order to evolve. I'm trying to apply genetic algorithms to the stock market but Bush's incompetence is defeating me! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Beware the PPT!
;)

I used to suspect that Alan Greenspan read fractals, but I just think they prevented the bear market by massive deficit spending, 0% interest rates. We've been living off home equity for the past 4 years, now the cumulated perosnal and national debt and rising interest rates only allow one way out, and that is down. The bear market of 2000 resumes. Probably by election 2008, we'll be getting down to a good medium term bottom. The country will be sick of Republicans by that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
93. But in a sense, much of the scientific method is based on
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:31 PM by nealmhughes
paradigms, which when a rift is beginning, causes those who want to tweak or oppose the prevailing present paradigm to be viewed as heretics.
Is metaphysics more capable or less capable of solving problems than physics? Are both equally entwined to such an extent that it is hard to know where one begins and another ends? Isn't the practice of logic a philosophical exercise?
I would say that only absolute pure mathematics lies outside the realm of each, that is to say, wholly within the realm of both!
Life without aesthetics is meaningless, but those things we hold to be most beautiful are not tangible, such as love, the sound of the wind, etc. None of these can be presented as a mathematical equation, or even measured. All we can meaure is perhaps physical response to various stimuli, not the emotion that is raised by the stimulating phenomena.
Why do we persist to consider things in a linear or circular sequence? Is there not also a Mobius sequence in theory?
Revealed religion tends to see things as either linear or circular. Perhaps it is a Mobius Strip, instead. Small sections of time/space can appear to be linear, when at a larger view it has no geometry...
We still do not know what the strong nuclear force even really IS. Why is it there? Why are spin, charge, charm, etc. only defined as opposites of one another or neutral?
There either is a supernatural element to life. Most people in history have found a supernatural element to be of some comfort to absurdity of their lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #93
110. Hi, just an observation. Simple 3 valued logic can never represent real
world knowledge. Socrates proved that long ago. Assert that birds fly is an attribute of birds then what to do with with penguins? By the time one adds all the exceptions to the rules, the rules become too intertwined and fall apart. Even mathmatics based on a set of rules and theorems has problems. One can't one divide by zero because the rules for division have no halting point for the zero operand and the algorithm would continue forever. Mammals appear operate by a cognitive set of evolutionary neural networks. Networks of this type are ideal pattern matchers. Since the brain is composed of neurons, and neurons are essentially digital devices (i.e., the all or nothing response) then the brain can be viewed as a discrete mathematical model. Since all art, math, music, literature, god, death, and philosophy arise from this digital device then one certainly does not to look to the supernatural for a reason. I once operated on cats brains when I was in graduate school. It was a life changing experience when probing into the optical regions of the brain with an oscilloscope and walking in front of the cat and seeing the oscilloscope track me through the cats eyes. A little lump of gray tissue. Some interesting work is now going on where mammal neurons (digital devices) are being fused with silicon digital devices (transitiors on a chip) and operated with neural networking software. In the future, you might have to feed your computer a bannana at the end of the day to keep it going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. I agree, there has to exist a natural tension between those who would
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:52 PM by VegasWolf
find their "truths" in natural causes and those who would find their "truths" in the supernatural world. These are fundamentally different philosophical approaches as evidenced by the great debates. In my opinion, Sartre was right :).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Sartre is one complicated fellow - I often wonder if he really was an
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:26 PM by papau
atheist that had a liberating view, or had a depressing view or believed in a creator.

In the Simone de Beauvoir interview, Sartre said that he often saw himself "as a being that could, it seems, only come from a creator."

But then he remembers what he has been preaching for all those years and adds "this is not a clear, exact idea..." claiming his atheism is a source of personal and ethical power.

Kind of interesting he died an existentialist, but one who had replaced Marx with Messianic Judaism - claiming his liking Messianic Judaism did not mean he was into God, and still claiming to be an atheist. A complicated fellow.

I liked the rejection of authority and his feeling that real world happenings were important (he and I would have made very bad monks), but I failed to see the world's indifference to us as liberating, or that free will, if you like, caused nausea! :-)

I am not sure Sartre knew what he thought, beyond knowing it was right! :-) And indeed, as to knowing what I think, I find myself in agreement with that last thought!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. LOL! I like Sartre for his concept of Absurdity.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:49 PM by VegasWolf

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. I'm into there is an ultimate justification- I just do not know what it is
and I could be wrong, but I have faith and believe that I am not.

:toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. You would make Keirkegaard proud! Watch out for mountains! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #77
96. Thanks - Placing the mountain on my shoulders and moving it myself
is indeed a way to view the relationship at many points in life.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #96
108. LOL! I was thinking more along the lines of "leap of faith". Shame to
lose good men of belief who leap from mountain cliffs trusting that they will be caught!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. Even Jesus refused to Jump when Satan teased him during the 40 days
Don't think many are called on to perform that act :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Seriously,
why is it that you want to believe? Just curious since I can't imagine it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. It is interesting how believers see non-believers as blind to truth and
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 01:24 PM by papau
real life experiences, denying what is obvious from day to day observation/living, pretending that the obvious creation by God is not important as they brush aside creation, saying it is a problem that they are not interested in and see no problem with not having an answer to, ot even more amazing, making science into a religion by having faith in an eventual scientific answer when just about all scientists agree that science can not now and will never be able to answer the question, when all scientist say they can never explain the why, and can only give today's best guess on the how of anything, as they reject the theist position that God is, was and ever shall be by saying the universe is, was, and ever shall be (or interestingly some say something 15 billion years old had no start and there was no before before that start.

Indeed to the theist, the atheist is not to be condemned, but is to be pitied as someone so badly disabled they can not see the obvious truth.

Of course the atheist, as I understand it, rejects the definition of rational as that which the normal/average human brain sees as true - as that would make belief in God rational - and instead demands proof, scientific proof, on that which can not be proven by scientific means. As the atheists are the only ones demanding scientific proof, they declare themselves the only rational persons, the free thinkers, etc. The Theist asks "Does the fact that no one can prove that Sally loves Bill mean that there is no love between the two" - and notes that mosts folks can see, feel, hear the love. The atheist responds that they do not see love - they only see actions and hear words, and asks the theist to prove it is not all an act, Then again I suspect for some atheists the demand for science extends only to GOD, and love and such gets a pass as one can show bodily changes - no one knows if caused by being in love or thinking your in love or because you are acting as if you are in love, or have convinced yourself you are in love, etc.

In everyday life the difference between atheist and theist should have no impact on anything. People sneer at others and feel superior to others all the time over just about anything. It is only when the superior, let me help you learn, gets in your face that it impacts on your space. And my take is that at least on the liberal/progressive side of the house both atheist and theist join hands in telling the in the face folks to get out of our face. Indeed separation between Church and State is a common goal.

But as to converting atheist to theist, or theist to atheist, we just talk past each other, get mad or exasperated, and end up counting the time spent trying to convert as wasted. Along the way some folks on each side assert things that are not true or at least not proven, which is where I get some energy and want to post in R/T - but that usually just gets me on the path to being exasperated and tired and feeling I have offended folks I did not want to offend. :-)

It is, in my opinion, a topic that is totally personal - that can be talked around, as we are doing, but a topic that has no upside if one person is trying to convince another of a "truth".

Please note that in the above I have not attempted to move from God of Creation to a personal God, or a life after death, as similar points are made by those that believe, and similiar points are made by those that disbelieve - or believe just so far, as with our friend Einstein. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Thanks :) Interesting to see it from a different view!
You see atheists in a very different way than I see myself. If you read my post 110 you can see the evolution of my thinking where I become convinced that all is a biological process. I started out as Catholic but I was never really spiritual. Atheism to me is not goal, not a practice, not even a belief. Rather, my atheism could be described as a simple lack of interest in the supernatural. I am a firm believer in the biological processes. To me, this is not a "truth", it simply is what it is. I have seen it functioning and I have worked on living brains.

I don't see the great battle between good and evil that Steven King makes all of his money off :).

My irritation with religion is when they try to force their viewpoint on civilization.

I admire the way you present your arguments and I was just curious about different points of view.

Thanks!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sad4world Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #75
117. A Brief History in Time
Hawking alludes to your thoughts in this book.

And I respect him for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Hawking is not predefining a truth as is the Pope.
He is not pretending to know a truth about the universe, only the use of the science toward achieving an understanding. Where that leads, we don't quite know yet, but we can't pretend to know a truth about the origin like the Pope would prefer. What is the correct relationship of man to God has nothing to do with science or the origins of the universe. The Pope is looking out for the Church and their antiquated system of beliefs.


Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. the Pope prefers ??? - he said nothing except the obvious - and Hawking
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:44 PM by papau
later agreed that he was just pushing the atheist spin.

The use of science toward achieving an understanding of the universe is not what our atheist friend Hawking is asserting, and if that was what he was asserting the Pope's speech makes clear he welcomes whatever are the results of that scientific endeavor. However, Hawking is off on one of his quests to get folks to accept his assertion that one does not need a God because there was no creation in the forming of the universe. It is not science - it is only an assertion, with the same truth value as the assertions the Church makes, if you like.

I find his real talent to be in physics when he is working on what happened after creation - meaning when he is doing science. His idea/proof that information escapes a black hole has very large implications - if true.

I have yet to see a peer review on the idea, but I look forward to such a review.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #53
66. The Pope prefers Cosmogony
to state the correct relationship of man and God with the universe, to declare that the world was created by God, and to teach this truth. Isn't that essentially what he is saying here?


Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth


Hawking is a scientist. Where science leads we will know when we get there. At this point, we can make some theories about the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.

You may remember this Hawking quote:


Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.


I think he is just being coy here like Einstein was. The world is not quite ready to accept a godless universe, but science is for the most part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #66
81. I do recall Einstein going back and forth, and indeed saying a similar
"embodiment of the laws of the universe" comment.

My limited reading/observations lead me to believe that Einstein died a Deist. Hawking has commented that he only speaks of God so as to increase book sales - the comment may have been meant as a joke, just as the Larry King comment could have been coy. But my gut says he is what he seems to be - an atheist.

I agree that the low less than 15% of math/physics folks that profess a belief in God/Religion (per the very small sample self reporting NAS study) may make a godless universe an accepted idea in that area of work.

But "scientist" includes others working in other areas - and the large group of all scientists remains majority God believing (per the extremely large survey that was redone recently of all those with science degrees)- albeit by only a small margin (I recall the margin as between 8 and 12%).

But the only point really at the bar is the idea that "we can make some theories about the Big Bang and the origin of the universe" - a true statement on the big bang and not a true state on the origin. Creation is just not a topic science has any tools to explore.

I once had a friend spend a lunch insisting that since quantum allows for the spontaneous blinking into existence of energy, QM explains creation. By dessert we agreed it did not!

:toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. He was an agnostic/atheist.
He did say at one point (1921) that his god was that of Spinoza's, but later he says that he is not a pantheist, and in 1949, six yeasr before his death, he says that he is an agnostic, essentially an atheist, but of the "weak" variety.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." (Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Einstein

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AEinstein.htm

Regarding religiosity vs. science, here are two surveys, the first by Scientific American and the second by the British science journal Nature. Those with B.S. degrees had 40% belief in a personal God. Mathemeticians slightly more, biologists about 30%, physicists about 20%, "great scientists" (NAS) only 7% had a belief in a personal God. So, I dispute your claim of over 50%. :)


Scientific American, September 1999
"Scientists and Religion in America"

"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."



Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.


http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. Your '99 SA article's discussion of the '97 survey is the one that I recall
The 40% personal God plus the deist estimate is the over 50% I was recalling. I had forgotten that SA had an article on it. It is a solid survey, and a solid number. I had forgotten that the question that got the 40% demanded not only a personal god but also an afterlife belief - indeed I do not recall the question and am now "in search of" that wording as well as the intro wording to the extent my memory allows for future tasks. :-)

The NAS survey tells little except that of the about 300 folks that sent cards back out of the about 2500 in the membership, about 280 had no belief in God. A fairly pointless exercise until they get the participation a great deal higher.

Einstein was no atheist. The excerpts below explain this better than I can (Quoted and paraphrased below from http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm)


"In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together, for it seemed to Einstein that nature exhibited traces of God quite like "a natural theology." Indeed it is with the help of natural science that the thoughts of God may be tapped and grasped. 1 On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." 2 I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith" (eines gelebten Glaubens)."

Einstein regularly read the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike (which he continued to do throughout his life - also he composed songs to the glory of God in his youth). (Later in life in a speech delivered in Berlin he said) "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there. 5

(His marriage to the Greek Orthodox Mileva Maric left him using for the rest of his life terms such as "transcendent" and "incarnate" to speak of "the cosmic intelligence" which lay behind the universe of space and time. Per the 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview:, in 1929:
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7

When the Rev. Andrew Blackwood handed him a magazine clipping about the interview published in the Saturday Evening Post, and asked him if it was accurate, he read it carefully and answered, "That is what I believe". 8

His feeling toward the Church is nicely expressed in the letter Einstein sent to an American Episcopal Bishop about the behaviour of the Church during the holocaust.

Being a lover of freedom...I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. 9

However, in relation to petitionary prayer Einstein not infrequently reacted against "the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes", for that implied for him, as we will note, a selfish "anthropomorphic" idea of God which he rejected. 10

On hearing a Yehudi Menuhin, the great violinist, give a recital at a concert on Beethoven, Bach and Brahms, by the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Bruno Walter, Einstein was so overwhelmed that he rushed across the stage into Menuhin's dressing room, and exclaimed, "Jetzt weiss ich, dass es einen Gott im Himmel gibt"—"Now I know that there is a God in heaven." 11 What does all this tell us about Einstein the scientist and "God"? That is a matter which calls for a more considered thought than is usually given. And so, in the rest of this lecture I would like to address myself to two questions: 1) What did "God" mean for Einstein himself, and 2) What did "God" imply for his mathematical and physical science?

Early in his life Einstein came to refer to God as "cosmic intelligence" which he did not think of in a personal but in a "super-personal" way, for, as he learned from Spinoza, the term "personal" when applied to human beings cannot as such be applied to God. 12 Nevertheless he resorted to the Jewish-Christian way of speaking of God who reveals himself in an ineffable way as truth which is its own certainty. Spinoza held that "truth is its own standard". "Truth is the criterion of itself and of the false, as light reveals itself and darkness," so that "he who has a true idea, simultaneously knows that he has a true idea, and cannot doubt concerning the truth of the thing perceived." 13 Hence once a thing is understood it goes on manifesting itself in the power of its own truth without having to provide for further proof. 14 Thus when God reveals himself to our minds, our understanding of him is carried forward by the intrinsic force of his truth as it continually impinges on our minds and presses for fuller realization within them.

In this way Einstein thought of God as revealing himself in the wonderful harmony and rational beauty of the universe, which calls for a mode of non-conceptual intuitive response in humility, wonder and awe which he associated with science and art. It was particularly in relation to science itself, however, that Einstein felt and cultivated that sense of wonder and awe. Once when Ernest Gordon, Dean of Princeton University Chapel, was asked by a fellow Scot, the photographer Alan Richards, how he could explain Einstein's combination of great intellect with apparent simplicity, he said, "I think it was his sense of reverence." 15 That was very true: Einstein's religious and scientific instinct were one and the same, for behind both it was his reverent intuition for God, his unabated awe at the thoughts of "the Old One", that was predominent.

Although Einstein was not himself a committed Jewish believer he would certainly have agreed with the call of Rabbi Shmuel Boteach today to restore God himself, rather than halacha, as the epicentre of Judaism. 16

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 17
That statement comes from his 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, but far from being unique, it is reflected in statement after statement he made about science, religion, and God.

Count Kessler once said to him, "Professor! I hear that you are deeply religious." Calmly and with great dignity, Einstein replied, "Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious." 18

By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.19

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. 20

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. 21

While at one point he refers to his believing in a pantheistic' Spinoza ("By God", Spinoza wrote at the very beginning of his Ethica, "I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality". Proposition XV of the Ethica stated: "Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived." 25) God. 22 , when asked about this later he says

"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. 26

Einstein held that the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lay in "the concept of a personal God" for that was to think of God in an anthropomorphic way, and to project into him figurative images and human psychological notions of personality, which give rise, he held, to religious practices of worship and notions of providence shaped in accordance with human selfish desires. That did not mean that Einstein thought of God merely in some impersonal way, for, as we have noted, he thought of relation to God in a sublime superpersonal way which he confessed he was unable to grasp or express and before which he stood in unbounded awe and wonder. Hence he felt it deeply when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston charged him with being an atheist. 31 When a newspaperman once accosted him in California with the question, "Doctor is there a God?", Einstein turned away with tears in his eyes. 32

What, then, did Einstein mean by claiming to believe in Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, the intellectual love of God, the highest happiness that man can know? He was approving of Spinoza's idea that to be rational is to love God and to love God is to be rational, so that for one to engage in science is to think the thoughts of God after him. With Spinoza, however, that involved the outright identification of God with nature, a causally concatenated whole, whereas, as we have seen, with Einstein the Verständlichkeit of God was so exalted that it could not be reduced to the logico-causal intelligibilities of nature. A transcendent relation had to be taken into account.

Here let me refer to a very interesting letter, recorded by Helen Dukas, which Einstein wrote to a child who asked him whether scientists prayed.

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. 33

Early in his career Einstein's studies of Newton and Kepler convinced him that there is no logical path to knowledge of the laws of nature, for there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles. 34 This was greatly reinforced by his study of James Clerk Maxwell. 35 It is the extra-logical problem, he held, that is essential, namely, the ontological reference of thought to reality. 36 Within the preestablished harmony of the universe, "ideas come from God"–they are revealed to the mind tuned into the master plan of the universe, and are apprehended through intuition resting on sympathetic understanding of experience. "He has to persist in his helpless attitude towards the separate results of empirical research, until principles which he can make the basis of deductive reasoning have revealed themselves to him." 37 "The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those elementary universal laws from which the cosmos can be built up by deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them...There is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; that is what Leibnitz described so happily as a 'preestablished harmony.'" 39

Einstein used to speak of this non-logical, intuitive way of reaching knowledge, as "tapping into God's thoughts". 40 "The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God." 41 Once when drawing out the implications of relativity theory in an amusing way which he hoped was in tune with the thoughts of God, he said "I cannot possibly know whether the good Lord does not laugh at it and has led me up the garden path"! 42 I think of that in connection with the fact that the equations of relativity theory predict their own limits, and thus direct us back to a zero point in the expansion of the universe from what is commonly known as "the black hole", which, as Henry Margenau held, implied the principle of creatio ex nihilo. 43 Einstein pointed out that "one must not conclude that the beginning must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense." Then he added: "This consideration does, however, not alter the fact that the 'beginning of the world' really constitutes a beginning." 44 Such a beginning, a creatio ex nihilo, was of course an idea which was ruled out by Spinoza's Deus sive Natura notion of God as an infinite, eternal self-creating substance, and of his conception of the universe as non-contingent and completely necessary in its identification with God.

"God does not play dice". (QM was seen as a way to get answers, but of no help in the quest to get a rigorous scientific description of the intrinsic orderliness of nature at its micro-physical as well as at every other level of reality. Einstein once wrote of his objections to the then current form of quantum theory that his view of the matter "does not represent a blind-man's buff with the idea of reality". 46 - causing Max Born to accuse him of being a hardline determinist - causing Wolfgang Pauli to show, writing to Born in Edinburgh from Princeton, 47 that Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find. 48 )..(..while in the logical sense belief in order in the universe is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, it remains the most persistent of all scientific convictions, for without it there could be no science at all; hence we do not believe that there is or could be anything that can ultimately count against it. God is faithful, and does not let us down; he is always trustworthy).


(1) Einstein never gave any attention to the problem of evil–evil is ultimately irrational and inexplicable, an abysmal mystery, as St Paul called it. There is no reason why to evil. (2) As far as I know, Einstein showed no interest in redemption–either in the biblical significance of atonement, or in the Jewish celebration of Yom Kippur. Yet it is only from God who does not play dice, who does not wear his heart on his sleeve, and who is deep but not devious, that we may be given an understanding of the ultimate reason for the created universe, and of his redemptive purpose for a world that has gone astray. It may be interesting to note that another Jewish scientist, Ilya Prigogine, who is not a believer, yet not a determinist like Spinoza who had no place in his thought for "time", has actually spoken of time as "redeemable". 58

Notes for Einstein and God
Max Jammer, Einstein und Die Religion, Konstantz, 1995.
Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Albert Einstein, Z ürich, 1979, p.12, cited by Max Jammer, op. cit. p. 54: "Einstein pflegte so oft von Gott zu sprechen, dass ich beinahe vermute, er sei ein verkappter Theologe gewesen."
While in his religious years he tried to dissuade his parents from eating pork, it is related of a later occasion that when he and some friends were entering a restaurant, an Orthodox Jew asked whether the food was strictly kosher, Einstein replied, "Only an ox eats strictly kosher"! Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life, New York, 1996, p.128. But Einstein was never disrespectful of the beliefs and habits of his orthodox friends.
Cf. Abraham Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord...', Oxford, 1982, p. 319. Cf. also Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954; "The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition." See also Max Jammer, op.cit. p. 48f.
Cited in Brian, op. cit., p. 234.
Ibid., p. 12.
George Sylvester Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein", The Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929.
Brian, op. cit., p. 277f.
Reported in The Evening News, Baltimore, April 13, 1979.
See his 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, Ideas and Opinions, p.46.
This is also recounted by Brian, op. cit., p. 193.
Cf. Stuart Hampshire, Spinoza, revised edition, Harmondsworth, 1962, p. 49: "It is a general principle in Spinoza's philosophy, which he constantly repeats to prevent misunderstandings, that no term when applied to God can possibly bear the meaning which it has when applied to human beings."
The Chief Works of Benedict De Spinoza, Vol. II, Ethica, Proposition XLIII, translated and edited by R.H.M. Elwes, London, 1889, p. 114; De Intellectus Emendatione, pp. 12-19. Cf. Hampshire, Spinoza, p. 99f.
Tractatus de intellectus emendatione, ed. Elwes, p. 19.
Alan Windsor Richards, Einstein as I Knew Him, Princeton, 1979.
Rabbi Shmuel Boteach, The Jewish Chronicle, 26.10.96.
Ideas and Opinions, p. 46.
Cited by Brian, op. cit. p. 161.
Out of My Later Years, New York, 1950, p. 32; and Ideas And Opinions, p. 49.
Cited by Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Einstein, New York, 1948, Mentor soft cover edition, 1963, p. 109.
Ideas and Opinions, p. 40.
Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
Ideas and Opinions, p. 44f. In his reference to Buddha Einstein may have had Ben Gurion in mind or even David Bohm! Cf. the discussion, reported by Max Jammer, which Einstein once had with Rabindranath Tagore about his book The Religion of Man, when Einstein said: "I am more religious than you are!" Op. cit. p. 43.
Brian, op. cit. p. 127.
See the translation by Elwes, London, pp. 45 and 51.
Brian, op. cit. p. 186.
Spinoza's Correspondence, letter LXXXIII-see Spinoza's Works, Vol. II, p. 299.
A Theologico-Political Treatise, Spinoza's Works, vol. I, p.9.
Letter XXIII (LXXV), The Chief Works of Spinoza, Vol. II, p. 303.
John Reuchlin, De Verbo Mirifico, 1552, 2.7, p. 129. Cf. my essay "The Hermeneutics of John Reuchlin, 1455-1522", Church, Word and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by J.E. Bradley and R.A. Muller, Grand Rapids, 1987, pp. 107-121.
Cf. Jammer, op. cit. p.54; and Albert Einstein–The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, Princeton University Press, 1979, p.132.
Brian, op. cit. p. 206.
Dukas and Hoffmann, op. cit. p. 32f. My attention has been drawn to this passage by Mark Koonz, formerly of Princeton Theological Seminary.
Einstein, The World as I See It, p. 125f.
See The Evolution of Physics, from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, 1938, pp. 125ff; and "Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Conception of Physical Reality", by Einstein, reproduced in my edition of James Clerk Maxwell, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Edinburgh, 1982, pp. 29-32.
Ibid. p. 174.
Ibid. p. 128; and see the essay on "Physics and Reality", Out of My Later Years., pp. 60ff.
The World as I See It, p. 125f.
Brian, op. cit. pp. 61 and 173.
. p. 129.
. p. 67.
Henry Margenau, Thomas and the Physics of 1958, Milwaukee, 1958, pp.
See Jammer, op. cit., pp. 102f. and 115.
A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton, 1953, p. 129.
Baruch Spinoza, Ethica, proposition XXIX: In rerum natura nullum datur contingens, sed omnia ex necessitate divinae naturae determinata sunt ad certo modo existendum et operandum. English translationd by Andrew Boyle, Everyman's Library, vol. 481, London, 1959, p. 23. See also Jammer, op. cit. p. 38f.
Irene Born, The Born-Einstein Correspondence, London, 1971, p. 180f.
Ibid. pp. 217-218 and 322-224.
Brian, op. cit., p. 370.
Einstein, Out of My Later Years, pp. 30,60.
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 49; cf. also p. 40.
Thus Brian, op. cit. p. 127.
See Pais, op. cit., frontispiece.
"Geometry and Experience", the 1921 lecture to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Ideas and Opinions, p. 233.
Brian, op. cit. p. 370.
"Über den Gegenwärtigen Stand der Feld-Theorie", Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstag von Prof. Dr A. Stodola, Zürich, 1929, pp. 126-132.
Ibid., p. 126: "Wir wollen nicht nur wissen wie de Natur is (und wie ihre Vorgänge ablaufen), sondern wir wollen...wissen warum die Natur so and nicht anders ist."
Ibid., p. 127.
"The Rediscovery of Time", Zygon, Journal of Religion and Science, December, 1984, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 444, with reference to T.S. Eliot, "Burnt Norton".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #95
107. Agnostic in his own words.
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 10:01 AM by ozone_man
One thing is clear, that he didn't believe in a personal God. He says plainly here that he is an agnostic in this letter written six years before his death.


"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." (Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)


He also mentions God in a number of contexts, including the God of Spinoza, the first natural Pantheist. But later he says that he is not a pantheist. People's beliefs do change over time.


“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.


In these later essays and letters, he is pretty clear about his agnostics views and mentions that he is a nonbeliever in numerous cases.


“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.



“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.


This is my favorite quote and I think the best indication of his beliefs.


“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.



“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.



“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”

Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.


In regards to the OP, here is a view on science and religion. Written in 1930, again reflecting an earlier period. He uses God more often in his earlier essays, but mainly in the context of it being ingrained into our JudeoChristian ethics.


“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0vK_kxAPxuUJ:www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html+einstein+in+this+way+alone+i+am+a+deeply+religious&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Theologians as you have referenced are notorious for trying to make believers out of nonbelievers, particularly at death bed conversions. Einstein did undergo change in his views also, so it's best to give his later essays and opinions more weight, since they reflect his most evolved views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. We agree on the no personal god, and on the quotes, which are also in my
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 01:46 PM by papau
post. The rejection of life after death is also obvious. The quotes in my post go up to date of death, as do the books quoted from. The folks at Princeton at time of death saw no change over the later years and are quoted in my post. The letters you post do use the word Agnostic - but the reports by those around him in his last years do not.

So for me He was not agnostic, he was not atheist, he was very religious, he rejected a personal God, he rejected a God of intervention, he rejected life after death, he likes Spinoza, but rejects pantheism. I do not hang my hat on any interpretation of what "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion." means.

The whole of his life was a religious journey, in my opinion - and the exhausted old man quotes in the letters of the fellow as he is waiting for death are not definitive in my mind.

So -Sorry - I believe he died on April 16th, 1955 with the same religious beliefs he expressed to his friends in the 30's and the 40's.

At least that is how I read the historical record.

But of course you are free to see it differently :toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. What he meant by "religious"
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 07:46 PM by ozone_man
is not the normal usage of the word.


“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.


Aside from his claiming to be an agnostic, in several letters and essays, he explains clearly that he is religious only in the sense described above. That is in the scientific, naturalistic way. There is no supernatural aspect to his religious feeling. Science and nature with all of their mysteries was his religion. Mine too. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. I do not think we disagree all that much- post 95 says almost exactly what
you are saying -

only it interprets the reported life history as not agnostic, interpreting Einstein's referring to discovering how "the old one" makes things work in this world as indicating that Einstein had no doubt in the fact that a Greater Power had created and maintained the universe - granted that Einstein rejected the view of a “personal God” in the Judeo-Christian tradition and continued to embrace, until his death, the view of that God is a creative mind that manifests Itself in the wonders of nature

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God (as cited by Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Einstein, New York, 1948, Mentor soft cover edition, 1963, p. 109).

“I am not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Clarck, Ronald, W. The life and Times of Einstein. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 18-19)

From the essay "The World As I See It" published in "Forum and Century," vol. 84, pp. 193-194, 1931, the thirteenth in the Forum series, Living Philosophies, and included in Living Philosophies (pp. 3-7) New York: Simon Schuster, 1931.
"The Meaning of Life
What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion...The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Einstein at SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION: A SYMPOSIUM, 1941)
======================================================================

I think we agree that for Einstein religion was science and science was religion, with, as you say, no "supernatural superstitions" (which I define as a personal god who made man in his image and provides an afterlife) - but perhaps even with that agreed summary we still have room to call him a deist, regardless of his use of the word agnostic as he approached death? In any case calling him a deist is where I am on this.

And I believe I understand where you are - and indeed long ago I wanted to go where Science and nature with all of their mysteries was my religion when I graduated, because it felt safe and pure, but I was not smart enough for pure math or its equivalents in physics.

However I think where I am at now is the right place as to religion, but as always that is just my life experiences shaping my opinion.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. He never says that he is a Deist.
Edited on Sat Jun-17-06 12:11 PM by ozone_man
Also, he says that he is not a Pantheist. But he does say that he is an agnostic, in his private letters. So, going by that, I have to conclude that he is an agnostic as he says on several occasions.

The same applies when trying to determine the religious views of Thomas Jefferson. We have to go to his private letters with Adams and other close friends who he confided in. Here we see that he is a Deist, that he doesn't believe in supernatural elements of the Bible, even going to the extent of editing all supernatural references out. But he does believe in the god of nature, written lower case even in the draft of the Constitution. To confess being a Deist publicly would have been disastrous for Jefferson. Paine was an example of what happened to those that did.

Einstein, though he uses God numerous times, uses it less as he gets older, and makes it clearer that it is really the cosmic mysteries that are his "religion".

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. I agree on Jefferson and disagree on Einstein although we also
Edited on Sat Jun-17-06 01:57 PM by papau
agree that for Einstein the "cosmic mysteries are his "religion" "

Jefferson was a deist as far as I can see, although he never joined or communicated with any deist groups, and guided his own actions by the sayings and actions of Jesus - the latter leading some Christians to claim him as a Christian. His last words on his death bed were "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country." (His child was his daughter, Mrs. Randolph). As last words go I kind of like those.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on Einstein as I see a deist in the gestalt of his adult life, and you see an agnostic, noting his using that word in his last years to describe himself.

I note that discussions ending in "agree to disagree" conclusions still make for interesting chats! And I thank you for this interesting chat!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. Jesus was a mortal for Jefferson.
Though one with some of the finest morals, though he did have to sort through them and reject some misinterpreted by the four evangelists. In his own words, he had to sort the "diamonds from the dunghill".

We can agree to disagree about Einstein. But I think if he says he's an agnostic, I'll take him at his word.

Jefferson lived in an era before the Theory of Evolution. For him, Paine or Franklin to believe in Deism was natural. Their god was the god of nature. Einstein was much later. Deism was out, as was Spinoza's type of Pantheism. The form of Pantheism he might be described as having is scientific pantheism, for which there is no place for God. Pure scinece and nature and the transcendent feelings that often go with them. I think anyone who appreciates the beauty of nature has this form of pantheism to a certain extent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
32. Steven Colbert, "Just because the Pope is infallible, doesn't mean that he
can't make a mistake!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
33. Galileo was tried in 1633
for stating that the Earth revolved around the Sun (heliocentrism). The Church formally declared that viewpoint heretical and ordered Galileo into house arrest for the rest of his life.

In 1741 the Church decided that his works were no longer heretical, and authorized full publication.

In 1758 the Church prohibition against heliocentrism was lifted.

In October 1992, the Church formally apologized.

Wow, the progressiveness is just marching along at a astounding rate, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Hey it only took them 250 years! Back off, or I'll send the local...
...witch-sniffer after ya! :evilgrin:

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
35. Catholic Doctrine: Don't ask any questions, just fill the collection
basket and run along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
38. Hawking claims that new advances in cosmology put us close to
finding answers to the origin of universe. He is co-authoring a children's book with his daughter on Theoretical Physics. Guess it runs in the family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
41. well, that takes care of any respect I might have had for JPII--oh wait, I
didn't have ANY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
44. *scratching head*
This is news? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
61. Alctually, the RCC had a political motive for condemning Galileo.
Since the 13th century, the RCC thaught a Christianized version of Aristotlianism in the universities, and the Aristotlian view of the universe was geocentric. As a result, an attack on Aristotle became an attack on the political power of the RCC. This was, of course, less then a century after the Reformation so it was easy to see why the Church, in it's counter-reformationary fervor, would react so strongly against Galileo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sad4world Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
62. Dumbing down
I bought and read "A Brief History in Time" when it first came out.
This book was Hawkins first book that was dumbed down so the masses could understand his theories.

I was so enamored by his theories, that I bought more books and gave them out to friends. Seventy per cent gave the books back because they could not understand this "dumbed down" book.

I suspect the fascist Catholic government is just as uneducated as the 70% of my friends(I was raised catholic and remember them as horrible people).

The dumbing down of the people will always create Tyranny as has happen in America(soon to be called "The North American Union").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. LOL! Welcome to DU. I was raised Catholic but I saw through it at 13.
Did get a good education in Catholic Schools though, I even became an altar boy so that I could steal the wine from the priests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sad4world Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Welcome
Thank you for such VegasWolf.

My brother was an alter boy and went on to be a killer for the goverment.
I guess he paid attention to the teachings of the Catholic fascist, I did not.

My memory of these historical mass murderers is one of mean, angry people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
78. I was an altar-boy too...
...and in the process developed quite a taste for warm, cheap sauterne swigged straight from the jug.

Ah, the little joys in life!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. I do have to admit to an "occasional" pass at the offerings box for lunch
money too. Good thing I don't believe in hell. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
83. Heh heh. Amusing anecdote. heh.
<Nervously glancing over shoulder>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
87. oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
88. "MC" Hawking RAWKS!!
!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
91. That "Inquisition" remark was a cheap shot.
Will we ever just drop that?

Hawking doesn't need to be glad he wasn't handed over to the Inquisition. He should be glad he wasn't molested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #91
120. The exisistence of an Inquisition is an unfortunate reality ....
it is one of the primary reasons I quit catholicism, and christianity .....

Now you wish people would just shut up about it ?

Sorry .... Aint gonna happen ..... not if I am still alive ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
92. Another Radical Cleric
in a long line.

This is like saying 'Don't study AIDS since it is a punishment from Jeebus-Gawd.'

If there is a Gawd, it must think some humans are pretty freakin' stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
94. so what is it that the church fears about studying the origin of the
universe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #94
100. The same thing the church has always feared.
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 04:09 AM by bling bling
Losing power and control. Power and control have been the driving force behind the church's laws since the dawning of Christianity. For example, the reason that priests have to be celibate has nothing to do with the bible. That rule is rooted in territorial rights. Back in the day the church owned all the land the priests lived on. If a priest were married and then died, it would be undesireable for them to have to share "their" territory with the priests widow and children.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. Maybe the church doesn't want evidence of the existence of God?
After all if what the church believes is true, investigating the origin of the universe will find that it is god's work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #102
127. Or could it be that it would prove that god lied about creating
the universe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
104. Pope: Dont study the beginning of the universe
weve got bigger fish to fry, like bashing gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #104
131. Or better yet by hiding
Pedophile Child Sodomites from the light of day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
119. Sounds like Hawking HATES freedom ....
He must love terrorists, saying stuff like that ....

Seems he may need to be re-educated, because the pope is infallible, and is the vicar of christ .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
128. Hawking tells Pope that the world not created in 7 days. nt
Edited on Sat Jun-17-06 09:47 PM by VegasWolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
occuserpens Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
133. Two more conspiracy theories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC