Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pope Tells Hawking Not to Study Origins of Universe
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 16 (321857)
06-15-2006 12:15 PM


quote:
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.
Full article.
Just thought this was worth noting, for the next time someone says organized religion isn't out to stifle knowledge.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 1:54 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2006 2:03 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 6 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 2:10 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 16 (321911)
06-15-2006 1:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 16 (321913)
06-15-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
06-15-2006 12:15 PM


Fair play?
I suspect Hawking was only thinking of it as an amusing anecdote but it seems to me to be unfair to bring it up when the Pope isn't around to defend himself and to clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 12:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 2:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2006 5:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 16 (321920)
06-15-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
06-15-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Fair play?
I'm heartily tempted to make a comment on the irony of defending the Catholic church when it comes to making statements on the true meaning of the words of someone long dead.
But I won't.
I will, however, ask how many ways there are to take the statement, "we should not enquire into the beginning itelf."

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 1:54 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2006 3:47 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 06-16-2006 4:08 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 5 of 16 (321921)
06-15-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
06-15-2006 12:15 PM


That was a long time ago Before even my time! The bit he found really funny was that he was presenting the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal at the time, which does precisely what the Pope told him not to! I think he kept that bit quiet...
Even so, regarding the vicinity of the big bang as a point of divine creation is like pointing at a balloon and asking "which bit was made first?". Removing the initial singularity no more removes the possibility of divine creation than the original big bang promoted the possibility divine creation (despite Hawking's silly soundbite in ABHOT).
Edited by cavediver, : depsite is spelled despite

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 12:15 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 16 (321928)
06-15-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
06-15-2006 12:15 PM


Dan writes
quote:
Just thought this was worth noting, for the next time someone says organized religion isn't out to stifle knowledge.
Organized religion isn't out to stifle knowledge anymore than just about most other organizations and institutions that have ever existed.
Some examples...
Some elements of the Bush Administration have been known to withdraw fundings from science research groups whose conclusions contradict the Administration's claims in environmental issues. A recent one is when fundings were withdrawed from a group that have found that salvage logging hinders a burnt forest's recovery.
Harvard president got canned after remarking that perhaps the reason so fewer females are in the fields of science than males is because of the differences in brain physiology... or something like that.
The US government traded some Japanese war criminals' freedoms for mountains of data on research in biological warfare. These warcrimes were forgotten for a very long time.
Even the scientific community from time to time rejects outright certain modifications in worldview. Big bang, Evolution, ID, etc. have all gone through a period of hardship.
Now, Whether these hinderings of development of certain concepts were justified or not is another matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 12:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 2:50 PM rgb has replied
 Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 2:54 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2006 5:42 PM rgb has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 16 (321944)
06-15-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by rgb
06-15-2006 2:10 PM


Some elements of the Bush Administration have been known to withdraw fundings from science research groups whose conclusions contradict the Administration's claims in environmental issues.
No argument here. The Bush administration is absolutely out to stifle knowledge.
Harvard president got canned after remarking that perhaps the reason so fewer females are in the fields of science than males is because of the differences in brain physiology... or something like that.
And he later acknowledged that this statement was unsupported by research or scientific evidence.
Smacking someone around for saying something stupid isn't the same as demanding total ignorance on a subject.
The US government traded some Japanese war criminals' freedoms for mountains of data on research in biological warfare. These warcrimes were forgotten for a very long time.
Not sure where knowledge is being stifled there. In fact, it looks like you're saying that something was sacrificed to gain knowledge.
Even the scientific community from time to time rejects outright certain modifications in worldview.
Which is by no means the same as saying we shouldn't even investigate a subject.
So... don't know what to tell you. Most of these really don't hold up. But if your initial statement has been boiled back to "organized religion isn't out to stifle knowledge anymore than the Bush administration," we agree wholeheartedly.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 2:10 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by rgb, posted 06-16-2006 3:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 16 (321946)
06-15-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by rgb
06-15-2006 2:10 PM


One other point:
Organized religion isn't out to stifle knowledge anymore than just about most other organizations and institutions that have ever existed.
Even if we assume this is true, so what? Does this somehow make it okay?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 2:10 PM rgb has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 16 (321990)
06-15-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
06-15-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Fair play?
I suspect Hawking was only thinking of it as an amusing anecdote but it seems to me to be unfair to bring it up when the Pope isn't around to defend himself and to clarify.
This isn't the first time, by decades, that Hawking has told this story, so ol' J-Peez Jizones had plenty of time to defend himself if he didn't actually say that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 1:54 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 16 (321992)
06-15-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by rgb
06-15-2006 2:10 PM


Some elements of the Bush Administration have been known to withdraw fundings from science research groups whose conclusions contradict the Administration's claims in environmental issues. A recent one is when fundings were withdrawed from a group that have found that salvage logging hinders a burnt forest's recovery.
It doesn't really make any sense to offer the actions of the Bush Administration as an example of suppression that isn't involved with religion.
Harvard president got canned after remarking that perhaps the reason so fewer females are in the fields of science than males is because of the differences in brain physiology... or something like that.
Not exactly.
Firstly? Not canned. He resigned by his own choice, against the wishes of a considerably supportive administration, I might add.
Secondly? That happened months after his remarks. Months, during which he embroiled himself in a lot more serious kerfluffles, none of which had anything to do with his remarks at the lunch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 2:10 PM rgb has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 16 (322345)
06-16-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
06-15-2006 2:50 PM


Dan Carroll writes
quote:
And he later acknowledged that this statement was unsupported by research or scientific evidence.
I must admit that I am mostly ignorant about this event. It just came off the top of my head at the time.
quote:
Not sure where knowledge is being stifled there. In fact, it looks like you're saying that something was sacrificed to gain knowledge.
In this particular case, social knowledge was stifled to gain scientific knowledge.
quote:
Which is by no means the same as saying we shouldn't even investigate a subject.
True, but it tells us that religious organizations aren't the only ones uncomfortable with new and contradicting ideas to their already well established conceptions of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 2:50 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-16-2006 3:24 PM rgb has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 16 (322346)
06-16-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rgb
06-16-2006 3:19 PM


In this particular case, social knowledge was stifled to gain scientific knowledge.
What knowledge was stifled? Everyone continued to know they comitted war crimes; they just weren't punished for it.
Call it awful if you want, but it's just not stifling knowledge.
True, but it tells us that religious organizations aren't the only ones uncomfortable with new and contradicting ideas to their already well established conceptions of the world.
Questioning a new idea, and subjecting it to scrutiny, is the opposite of saying we should not investigate it. This statement just makes you come off as if you're reaching really far, in silly ways, to defend religion.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rgb, posted 06-16-2006 3:19 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 06-16-2006 3:30 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 14 by rgb, posted 06-16-2006 3:44 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 16 (322348)
06-16-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dan Carroll
06-16-2006 3:24 PM


At least he isn't trying to claim, "This is because the Catholics are treacherous and hate knowledge. Unlike us Protestant fundamentalist true Christians, who love scientific knowledge and the diversity of opinion."

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-16-2006 3:24 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 16 (322356)
06-16-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dan Carroll
06-16-2006 3:24 PM


Dan writes
quote:
What knowledge was stifled? Everyone continued to know they comitted war crimes; they just weren't punished for it.
As a matter of fact, the military wanted to keep the biological data secret so they had to keep everything else surrounding them secret as well. The whole thing was covered up for 50 years. Not only are these war criminals go unpunished, they also got a free ticket to be forgotten.
Japan continues to deny their warcrimes.
quote:
Questioning a new idea, and subjecting it to scrutiny, is the opposite of saying we should not investigate it. This statement just makes you come off as if you're reaching really far, in silly ways, to defend religion.
I'm not defending religion. I'm only pointing out that everyone has a weakness of being uncomfortable with new ideas and facts. Different groups react to them differently. In the case of religion, religious zealots tend to "ask" people not to question or study things that may contradict their doctrines. In the case of politicians, they tend to suppress researches whose conclusions mean bad bussiness. In the case of the scientific community, subjecting new ideas to scrutiny seems to be the way they approach it.
You seem to be under the impression that I am referring these things as somehow bad. I'm not. I just want to point out a different point of view onto this matter.
Added by edit
Just like every entity that we know of, religious organizations do what they can to prevent themselves from being changed and stay in existence. Their fight for non-change can be seen as the same as a person's fight to stay alive. It's within their nature.
Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-16-2006 3:24 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 16 (322357)
06-16-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
06-15-2006 2:01 PM


Re: Fair play?
I'm heartily tempted to make a comment on the irony of defending the Catholic church when it comes to making statements on the true meaning of the words of someone long dead.
But I won't.
you just did, lol.
also, even if jp2 was alive and well, he wouldn't be here to defend his claims anyways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-15-2006 2:01 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024