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.)
#30 Paul, you make some good points, and expand a little on the traditional definition of religion, but certainly in a very useful way. We often fall into the trap of limiting our thinking according to what we actually encounter, rather than the full breadth of what exists. My mind might be a tiny bit larger now, thanks to you.
When you look at the frustration behind Smartalix’s post, and posts of others, it does raise deeper questions. Who knows what discoveries might have been made at an earlier time, if only the persons capable of making those discoveries hadn’t been influenced, discouraged, or even persecuted by the church upon which they relied to interpret Holy Scripture? In many instances, that same church may have been tightly intermingled with the ruling power as well. Critical scientific principles might have been missed, perhaps still awaiting discovery even now.
We might be at a completely different milestone in scientific progress today if various church authorities hadn’t historically suppressed science that threatened their existing teachings. Their tool of choice has often been seemingly innocent faith. Exploring questions for which church doctrine or faith already offers answers (however inadequate) displays lack of faith, and there is a particularly well-known eternal destination for those who lose faith in many religions. In spite of opposition from the church, however, science still forged ahead, but it advanced without its full intellectual horsepower and speed.
As pithy phrases go, few embody this sense of frustration quite like Smartalix’s “Why doesn’t the church just shut up about science?” I’m a little surprised you felt antagonized by the remark, but maybe your Gnostic religion has scientific teachings of which I’m unaware (I plead total ignorance on this). I won’t nominate the phrase for sound bite of the week (sorry Smartalix), but I’m having it engraved on a plaque as a strong runner-up (one of my own quotes came in first again) 😉 Cheers, Paul.
Religon and Science never mix.
Neal Saferstein
OK,
there is a god.
and for many years he has taught us many things, as a father to a child.
BUT, as a father, he wishes us to live by his rules, NOT only Man kinds(which should encompass his ideals), but to think for ourselves also.
He dont want you calling asking his opinion ALL the time. thats a sign of insecurity.
He dont want you Hurting your self, that is stupidity, and you should have learned better.
He DOEs want you to follow his TEACHINGS, and live a decent life.
Try to tell that to the CURRENT polititions.. Who dont give a RATS, BUT, about anything except money.
Gary, to be a Gnostic means to Know god, that implies a first hand relationship with (some words fail here, most of the time thats why a poet usually takes over) the divine. I hear the word wacko in the air… None the less, first hand, means no intercessor mitigating/mediating the relationship, no priests, hence no arbiters. Actually any formal religion surrounding the Gnostic experience, hmmm how to put this, pale, insignificant, unnecessary, oh, and sham come to mind.
While a first hand relationship might be great for me, any understanding gleaned would be personal, related to my experiences and ways that I understand things. To profess that what got me to any understanding could be repeated in another through any formulaic process would be like saying that you could put your finger down in the same place twice leaving two fingerprints one on top of the other, neither smugged and appearing as though it were a single fingerprint.. That just doesn’t happen with any regularity.
Actually I was not antagonized by that “pithy” remark, as you called it, nor the sensationalist title of the post. The fact that Smartalix misrepresents the quote from Hawking’s to put forward the generalized disdain exhibited toward people with faith, and then belittles them from some pseudo intellectual free thinking arrogance. While you call it frustration at the Catholic church, I still see it as an opportunistic digression into blatant Hate Speak misrepresenting what Hawking said.
“You can’t afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically,” he (Hawking) said. “People won’t have time for you.” Hawking’s earlier comments upon his encounter with the Pope recounts the Pope’s point of view not with empathy but with respect. While later Hawking’s poses questions that differ from the Pope’s view as a scientist.
I’ll reiterate: While Hawking’s joking comments in his Hong Kong lecture were meant to to recall the context that the Catholic church in many ways has been no public friend to science, he still participated in the cosmology conference at Vatican. Respecting differences is particularly frustrating when you are on a fascist mission.
Enjoy your plaques.
Thanks, Gary.
Paul,
As a Gnostic, I’m surprised to find you supporting groups that castigate (and far worse) those that question their dogma.
I have faith in God and the basic goodness of my fellow human. I know that I will have to die, and expect that I will usually have to pay taxes. Anything past that is open to interpretation and question.
I do separate faith in God from faith in a church. I have never said that God does not exist. I have often said no church knows, and the nature of God is up to the individual.
My desire for the church to shut up about science is a concept that you are free to ignore as an individual. If my statement were a church decree it would be harder for members of that church to question authority. The church shouldn’t be teaching science, just as scientists shouldn’t be teaching religion.
How did I misrepresent Hawking’s words? Show me the original quote and tell us all how I twisted it in your opinion. You twist other’s words to the point your accusation is laughable, but I wish to see how you think I twisted Hawkings words.
You speak eloquently, but your words are empty.
Smartalix, hi. Look there was not even a hint of negative spin in Hawking’s comments, it was a good natured human interest piece. The fact that Hawking”s has a natural difference to the Roman Catholic view should not surprise anybody, nor that he could have such an encounter with the Pope for that matter. His Joke inside his lecture seemed to me meant, look at the differences over time, we can talk with civility now, we still have differences, but we can respectfully differ. He didn’t play a wave file of a shotgun being cocked, pop a wheely, rally the crowd, “we’re going to Rome, gonna have some lamb chops for supper.” But Smartalix you treated it as though he had, and you generalized open hunting season by qualifying your crack-pot definition of faith with, “Once someone places their life in the service of any deity.” Nothing like escalating the eschatron.(see Robert Anton Wilson & Robert Shea)
The thing about humor is there is no accounting for it, it is just a state of mind. There is no character or context in the generalization, just shadows in the mist. By his actions it is not within Hawking’s demeanor to proffer such a message. Hell, Hawking even sat in on a song with Pink Floyd called “Keep Talking,” in it he says “For millions of years mankind lived just like animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination, We learned to talk.” then after some excellent angst ridden guitar work from David Gilmore, “It doesn’t have to be like this… All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”
This seems to me one of those issues where you scratch your head wondering how anyone can ever get along. I wouldn’t care if you were an atheist or some Militant Fundamentalist Scientist Sect of the Mensa Group, you are just plane wrong in your interpretation of the issue. And while it’s your prerogative to dismiss the context of Hawking’s remarks and substitute truly crack-pot definitions over an expanded sample group saying why don’t they just shut-up is not enough to persuade me to your exclusionary point of view.
You would like me to ignore your statements because I have pointed to to where they fall down. The so called concept you are alluding to which is fascist in it’s own right, that the church should just shut-up is inherently hypocritical. And though it may be your individual doctrine that “The church shouldn’t be teaching science, just as scientists shouldn’t be teaching religion,” well, that is just frankly inane. The fact that no where in your post do you actually reference what part of Hawking’s remarks got your undies in such a bunch, much less mention his name until you ask me “How did I misrepresent Hawking’s words?” is actually how you twist Hawking’s words. You used the clipping a spring board for your ludicrous rant. Sensational.
If I am defending anything it is the context and demeanor of the full quote which contextualizes the remarks from Hawking. “You can’t afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically,” he (Hawking) said. “People won’t have time for you.” He’s the big man on campus, a roll model so many of us have learned from, and with a shoddy citation you would associate your remarks in his company as though it was implied in what he was talking about, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I am sure the Roman Catholic Church will give you plenty of opportunity and fodder for you to practice your campfire tales once you learn how to read.
I was talking to a friend trying to discibe this head scatcher, and I told him it wouldn’t have mattered if it was a Steven Hawking clipping or or some other scientist in the news, Smartalix would have launched into his crack-pot rant. I told my friend that there was somthing, disingenuous/smacked of agenda, in it as well and that left me with questions..
When I say rant I imply the due blustering manafest rhetoric and thats ok, I can deal with graphic and mature material. But the thing about blogging is it can be live and direct. Otherwise is it a placed article, or pr, or spam, or a web page? Oh that’s just an editorial decision. None the less today I found this post from The CageMatch Forms and I wonder where else?
Re: Church making remarkable progress
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2006, 09:39:39 AM »
This whole post was a cut and paste job..
Come on man this is Dvorak.org you can give us a little more than one sentance and provide some better context if you got something to say rather than some canned paragraph out of maybe a not so self explanitory topic. Maybe that’s what makes it disingenuine to me.
“You can smell the lack of fresshness.”
Hows that for pithy.
Crack-pot rant?
You my friend need to learn how to read. You twist my words and attack the straw men you create with them.
You are pathetic.
Any straw men in my comments should not be confused with Smartaleix, my straw men have more character.
A straw man is a straw man, no matter how fancy it is dressed.
What point(s) am I twisting? Be very specific. Otherwise, you’re just spouting shit.
that this is hawking vz the pope.
There is a real story in the clipping, Steven Hawking is really cool.
Stephen even… 🙂
My, the lion has turned into a sheep!
“that this is hawking vz the pope”
As I said, pathetic. You write screeds against all sorts of assumptions on my behavior, beliefs, and character, and when confronted give me a pussy-ass line without even capitalization.
I stand by the headline as a description of Hawking’s own anecdote.
You then take my paraphrasing of Hawking’s statements on understanding the mind of God (which he has made in public many times) and twist it to be in support of that point, when in fact I was using it to support my point that one doesn’t have to drink the koolade of any church to believe in God.
You and your ilk are always doing that – turning every question directed at the church into an attack at God. Sorry, that shit doesn’t fly here.
oh the indignity of lower case