Why doesn’t the church just shut up about science?
Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn’t realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.
“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,” Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
By definition, once a person relies on faith to answer the questions they have about life, the universe, and everything, they lose the ability to determine the facts for themselves. Once someone places their life in the service of any deity, they put themselves at the mercy of those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of that deity’s intentions and desires.
A fear of “The Lord” is simply a displacement of critical thought in favor of accepting whatever rules that those who claim to be speaking for that lord give to their congregation. (They don’t refer to the worshippers as “sheep” for nothing.)
It’s time for bleating!
and with the current pope being the former head of the institution that was founded as “Congregatio Romanae et universalis Inquisitionis”, in short: the former chief inquisitor, it’s not likely they’ll be any happier with science intruding into what the church thinks is their domain.
pj
Once again China is beating us intellectually.
For someone touting science as much as you do, you certainly have a closed mind. Perhaps there isa good reason the pope doesn’t want Hawkings to explore the creation of the universe. How many times have scientists come out eith some theory or even a proof of something and turned out to be completely wrong? Didn’t they used to say it was impossible to run a 4 minute mile and then proved it was impossible? They have also proven that a bumble bee can’t fly. The purpose of the bumble bee proof was to show that science has limits. There is always something we don’t understand and that skews our results.
You guys always just side with whatever opinion is most popular. What if Hawkings proves the creation of the universe and that there is no God? You would act very smug in that knowledge. If in ten years it turned out that Hawkings was just making it up and fooled everybody, you would then act smug because everyone else was fooled. You always just assume that you are on the winning side.
You are a bleating sheep, unable to think for yourself. If not, then ask yourself what popular opinion have you challenged?
“How many times have scientists come out eith some theory or even a proof of something and turned out to be completely wrong?”
You’re right. Merely because it’s possible to be wrong we should never even attempt to find the truth. In fact, since I cannot prove with absolute certainty that my place of employment even exists, I plan on taking the day off and sitting here all day jacking off to porn!
What if? What if? What if? Baaah!
Always worth a chuckle to have the sheep metaphor confirmed.
I find this post more than just a bit amusing. The comment of the pope is a bit ridiculous, to be sure, but so is “By definition, once a person relies on faith to answer the questions they have about life, the universe, and everything, they lose the ability to determine the facts for themselves.” Truly, you don’t know firsthand any of the facts about the universe – you, I, and most other people aren’t first-hand witnesses to that information. We hear it from someone we believe to be an authoratative source. We then act like we’re intelligent and this is fact until a future discovery proves that past information we rallied around to be false and our war cry for ‘science’ as if it were some kind of god was a foolish faith in and of itself. Science is a tool for discovery, not an alternative god.
To illustrate, when I was a young boy we were told the aurora borealis was the reflection of light on glaciers projected into the atmosphere. That was the accepted scientific understanding of the phenomenon. Today we believe quite differently (that it is the interaction of radiation on our magnetic field), and a hundred years from now we’ll refine that idea by leaps and bounds or discard it altogether for something we believe to be more accurate.
How about some more actual “critical thought” comments in future posts, hmm?
“I plan on taking the day off and sitting here all day jacking off to porn!”
At least you’re being honest. Most people would call in sick before they spend the day jacking off to porn.
of course there is a reason.
But it is not the fact that the pope knew better. It’s the fact that the church looks at “eternal truth” as their own domain.
pj
Smartalix, yes, I have faith – that is a beginning, not an end. I make the one assumption that the Bible is absolutely true. I would expect that those on this site who continually bash said faith make the pre-supposition that there is no supernatural, because, by definition, it cannot be scientifically proved. Perhaps certain segments of the organized church do not allow people to look beyond the facts of the Bible, and the current church interpretetaion of it. Please do not generalize this to the entire Christian faith. If you would look beyond “the fact” that God does not exist (your view, not mine) perhaps you would realize this. And though faith cannot be rufuted, it can always be denied, and humans, having free will, are always welcome to do so. (by the way, I thought RM had a good point)
Faith and Opinion aside, everyone should already know that the answer to life the universe and everything is 42.
While I did smirk at the thought of you touching yourself innappropriately at your place of business, I think you missed my point. You implied that religious people or maybe even just religious fanatics are unwilling to use critical thought and that makes them sheep.
My point is that siding with whatever opinion is popular at the time is not evidence of critical thought. Now, please continue touching your wooly self.
You’re wrong, Bruce. Your position is so typical. You always assume that whenever someone criticizes the church, they are against God.
I do believe in God. I just don’t believe in religion.
In your example, if it were based on faith, we’d still think the aurora was light reflected off glaciers. Science allows for the introduction of new facts. Religion does not.
Faith in God does not prevent one from understanding science. Hawking himself said his work helped him better understand God.
The problem is in the bible-thumpers who try and control our minds, words, and behavior with their church.
“My point is that siding with whatever opinion is popular at the time is not evidence of critical thought.”
Exactly what makes you believe that the scientific answer is the most popular answer, at least in the US?! In the US the unpopular answer, the one that will keep you from ever being elected into office, is the agnostic/scientific one.
Bruce IV (10)
it’s not a fact of denying a god. It’s actually an example of occam’s razor:
– the world of modern science is a complicated place, biology as well as physics.
– we don’t have all the answers (yet) and maybe we’ll never find the ultimate answer (as the past has tought us that any given answer will open up a number of new questions demanding new answers).
some people break down at this point of their thinking and define the ultimate unknown as “god”. This seems simple enough, however, it’s not an explanation for anything. It’s a dogma, it’s basically like the Zen “mu” to un-ask a question. If you were honestly interested in science, your asking could not stop with the answer “God” but “God” would be a question. What is it? Where did it come from? How does it manipulate the world?
If you were to ask those questions, you’d find out that any other explanation, known or unknown to today’s scientists, is simpler than the answer “God”, which in reality only moves the problems to a meta world.
Let’s be clear about one thing here: I’m not totally anti-religion. The philosophical and ethical background of most religions are well designed to govern a society (in Dawkins’ words: they are memes that have survived over the millenia because they are well adapted and manipulate their bearers in such a way that they can prosper in a group of equals). It’s the god meme that we should finally get rid of. Not that it would stand in the way of science much today. Those days are long gone, luckily, but in countries like the US, they may come back as the discussion about teaching creationist ideas in public schools shows. Gods were a good metaphor to explain the unknown in the past. They are no longer needed.
pj
Funny thing about being an atheist and having strangers telling you what God wants you to do. All you see is the stranger.
God really does exist, and that’s a “slam dunk” 😉
Interesting that the search for New ideas is depressed in many persons.
As well as the idea of TRUTH.
a person on the net, asked me if Peace in Iraq could happen.
I suggested, that Only if you can keep religion OUT of the government, and the Government only make laws for the interaction of more then 1 person.
dont know if it can happen, but IMHO, its their only chance.
“A fear of “The Lord” is simply a displacement of critical thought in favor of accepting whatever rules that those who claim to be speaking for that lord give”
Good example, the dark ages. Before the birth of Christianity, you had the great societies of the Egypt and the Romans. Then Christianity came and plunged Europe into hundreds of years of stagnation. Thought was discouraged and often punished by death if the church or pope said so. Thought is power and that is one thing the church never liked. They the want the power and your money.
BUCKY:
You don’t believe in God, then?
EINSTEIN:
Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let’s assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?
No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .
Try this link http://reasons.org for a more scientific, Christian view of things.
For so many centuries the church has tried, and been able, to keep our cosmological thinking pretty much in the Dark Ages. Everyone knows that the Bible isn’t literally true: nearly every culture had a flood myth and other similar origin myths to try to explain why we’re here. ITS JUST LITERATURE!
Take a look at the movie “What the Bleep” and what physicists are saying about quantum mechanics and string theory.
Why are those who have faith always categorized as mindless sheep.
Without my faith – I would not have the heart to fight as I do for my daughter’s survival each and every day against a disease that threatens her life – I shudder to think of the “man” I would be without my faith.
But I choose to believe in something greater than my self centered – greedy nature… a faith and love for others (and a God)- that prevents me from lying – stealing – seeking only my pleasure and manipulating others in order to get the things I want.
BUT- OH I’m the fool!
I’m the fool for believing that my faith has given me the capacity to love like never before- to believe that my faith allows me to appreciate the sky, the flowers, the rain – and even be thankful for the science that has saved my daughter’s life.
Please… ITS A LAME WORLD where those who are inspired to serve, love their fellow man – and be committed to serving their families are branded fools by those who claim faith in a “non” religious – religion.
…
Ok… its kind of lame that I typed this but what the heck –
BTW – Flame away
I’ve got GUTS…. I’ve been almost to hell and back and no body can tell me my faith is bunk.
There are lots of differences between religion and science, but I suppose one of them is the essence and the engine behind all the others. I am talking about the importance of belief and faith.
Religion implies faith, which simply stated, is the belief in someting you don’t actually understand, because of the assumption it is above our capability to do so. People either believe in God or they do not.
Science, on the other hand doesn’t base itself on belief systems. One doesn’t believe in science. At most, one can trust, or not, the work of scientists. Science itself is not a matter of belief, as it tries to go forward through logic and explanation. Science’s explanations must make sense to be accepted. The fact that science says one thing one day and it might say something different the other is in fact what makes it so credible, for flaws on previous theories are constantly being found and corrected.
It is easy to be saying always the same thing, like what happens in religion, when indeed you’re not trying to find the truth, but just to believe harder and harder in what you already think to be the truth. The problem is that, just because you believe in it, doesn’t make it to be that way, no matter how strong your faith is. Our minds are not that powerful.
Maybe we will never understand the true complexities of the universe, but at least science makes a serious effort and doesn’t hide itself behind a trully comfortable belief in an unexplainable superior being.
As for the faith in scientists, once again, science is not a matter of belief or faith. I believe in no scientist as he does not ask that from me. What scientists ask from me is to try to understand their theories and to challenge them and that is what I try to do. Shall I find a flaw in that theory, I will try correcting it. Of course, I cannot try to understand all the theories written by all the scientists, but I can trust (trust and belief and are two totally different concepts) that if at least some people challenge a theory, eventually its flaws will be found and it will evolve. If science were a matter of faith and belief, then it would always say the same thing… but then it would also have to change its name to… religion. 😉
One last comment…
Lets assume the Pope said:
“It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.”
I don’t get it… if the Pope was so certain that the creation was the work of God, why was he affraid of it being inquired? Wouldn’t it be nice for the church to have scientific evidence supporting that God did indeed create the universe, should that be the case? Everybody would be happy!
24: OK–you have faith. How about having faith in yourself?
Religion does not always foster ethics. See the Catholic indulgence scandal that started Lutheranism, or the greedy, gouging TV preachers, and their local equivalents. I’m not saying all religions are unethical, but they all too often have money at the roots of their belief systems.
One can be ethical without religion, and it’s a better ethic because you’re living your life ethically because it’s the right thing to do, not because you’re scared of someone you’ve never seen, and a place you don’t know exists.
One can be determined (guts is a perfectly good word for this) in the pursuit of, for instance, the health of your child, because it’s what is needed to keep her alive. Chances are it’s been your own determination (and your daughter’s and her doctor’s) that are the reasons she’s alive today.
23 is right–“holy books” are just pre-scientific literature. You might find some wisdom in them, but there’s awful stuff in there too.
#25.
You say science isn’t based on belief systems, which I agree with, but what about the beliefs of the scientists?
Is it not possible that a scientist could somehow manipulate the observational data from an experiment, in order that it coincides with their beliefs? There are countless experiments that have been manipulated in order to prove what they want to prove.
Example: Mendel’s plant experiments (the exact ratio for dominant and recessive genes being shown thru generations is not what Mendel intended, but he posted the results he wanted anyways),
Heckle’s embryonic development – fabricated to prove his point that all embryo’s go thru the same initial development stages (now called the Heckle Hoax)
Miller-Urey experiments trying to “mimick” the early atmospheric conditions of earth. It shows that early atmospheric conditions weren’t even close to what the Miller-Urey tried to mimick, they just chose those atmospheric conditions so that they could create organic compounds.
Not only that, sometimes scientists are also under a lot of pressure to produce results that are in line with what the scientific community agrees with. Does the scientific community have an agenda to try to make people believe a certain thing? Perhaps…
As long as people like to be sheep and long for a shepard they will believe any crap (scientic and/or religious).
“Why doesn’t the church just shut up about science?”
How antagonistic. Well I feel antagonized.
“Once someone places their life in the service of any deity, they put themselves at the mercy of those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of that deity’s intentions and desires.”
I am a Gnostic, I am my own arbiter. Faith for me does not answer questions as you put it Smartalix. That definition of faith you are relying on is one you accepted, why? I am and have been in the service of various aspects of divinity throughout life the universe and everything, at times participating, other times observing. The elements of experience can easily be misinterpreted as well as misconstrued based on personal experience or the collective experience; at least that has been my experience.
To communicate we rely on the convenience of limited averages in meanings. Those averages are reductions of the overwhelming scale of redundant or exterraneous data. Some people suggest the separation of our senses is so we don’t experience everything all at once, kind of like a denial of service attack. Language naturally suffers from mediocrity.
Over-simplification is taxing in it’s own way as we try to process our experience. Sometimes we require/need or desire/want more data to flesh out our mental simulations in effort to gain understanding of our perceptions. There are others though that live by the KISS-keep-it-simple-stupid rule.
Fear is real and known to displace all kinds of critical thought. The presumption that faith evaporates the ability to determine facts is about as close to crack-pot as the suggestion that Smartalix is smoking both.
It is unfortunate when the baby goes out with the bath water, a tragedy, a travesty even. Process is the foundation of both science and religion; both when handled without care or a disregard for the consequences forms a true axis of evil, great or small.
The word religion at root means to re-link; get connected, wired into, online – with a source of cosmic knowledge, understanding, compassion, power, peace and more, or at times less even. One could generalize this as an effort to cope with a perceived sense of lack, loss or the unknown. All of which can create a great deal of discomfort and fear.
Science and scientists on the other hand appear to thrive on the unknowns which some might construe as a great act of faith. But equally they as well experience discomfort and fear at some of the unknowns they investigate.
Why doesn’t the church just shut up about science? Church is just a bunch of people standing around in a circle breathing together. We might as well ask why are you so petulant and belligerent Smartalix? Shut up? Sounds like you are a bit paranoid from the crack-pot Illuminati conspiracy.
While Hawking’s comments were meant to to recall the context that the Catholic church in many ways has been no public friend to science, he still participated. Smartalix, did you ask yourself why he might have submitted a paper to the Vatican? Or did you email him and ask him directly why he did?
While I am no great fan of institutional points of view & talking points myself, yes I too have raged against the machine in words, I have found that those moments reveal my own hypocrisy more than slowing down that damned machine. It is hard to condemn the inquisition and tell folks to shut up in the same breath. Actually its those moments that turn you into the thing you decry.
So like The Buddha on his death bed said to Ananda,
Smartalix you are woefully misnamed.
This reminds me of Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
“We,” said Majikthise, “are Philosophers.”
“Though we may not be,” said Vroomfondel, waving a warning finger at the programmers.
“What’s the problem?” said Lunkwill.
“I’ll tell you what the problem is mate,” said Majikthise, “demarcation, that’s the problem!”
“We demand,” yelled Vroomfondel, “that demarcation may or may not be the problem!”
“You just let the machines get on with the adding up,” warned Majikthise, “and we’ll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we’re straight out of a job aren’t we? I mean what’s the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?”
“That’s right!” shouted Vroomfondel, “we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”