Hawking Wrong About Pope

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic League: Hawking Wrong About Pope


Catholic League president Bill Donohue took issue with astrophysicist Stephen Hawking for claiming yesterday that Pope John Paul II once told scientists that "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.” The news story says Hawking did not say when the Pope allegedly made this remark.


Said Donohue: "There is a monumental difference between saying that there are certain questions that science cannot answer” which is what the Pope said - and authoritarian pronouncements warning scientists to back off.



"On p. 120 of Hawking’s book, 'A Brief History of Time,' he says that at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology Pope John Paul II said that it 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. Importantly, there are no quotation marks around those words and no citation is offered. Ergo, this is Hawking’s impression of what the Pope said.

Donohue continued with the actual statement made by then-Pope John Paul II.


"Here is what the Pope actually said: ‘Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question.’ The Pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, ‘We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.’


"In 1988, John Paul said that ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’ Hawking, who claims - without any evidence that space and time have no beginning and no end, would be wise to refrain from positing false absolutes and learn to realize when he’s out of his league. Most important, he should stop distorting the words of the pope.”

[Dreamweaver]

I read about Hawking's statement yesterday, and I knew there was something fishy about it. Pope John Paul II has been very supportive of the sciences (embryonic stem cells and cloning don't count!)

[musturde]

The news agencies don't know that though.......

[Justified Saint]

Now, I have only taken introductory courses on astronomy, but as I was taught the Big Bang, there is no possible way to speculate "before" or about the Big Bang itself for this would be by definition meaningless since time and space only exist after the Big Bang. So, what is the misunderstanding?

Also, Donohue said there are certain questions science can't answer, but what is more there are certain questions science can't even [i]ask[/i].

[jswranch]

I am currently drafting a letter to the editor on this topic because they ran Hawking's statements.

[Era Might]

[b]SALESMAN[/b]: This is our best model. The Cougar 9000. It's the Rolls Royce of wheelchairs. This is like...you're almost glad to be handicapped.

[b]KRAMER[/b]: So now, what's this got?

[b]SALESMAN[/b]: Inductive joystick, dynamic braking, flip-up arms, it's fully loaded. I put Stephen Hawking in one of these two months ago, he's lovin' it! It's rated number one by Hospital Supply and Prosthetic Magazine.

[b]GEORGE[/b]: How much?

[b]SALESMAN[/b]: 6200

[b]GEORGE[/b]: Do you have something a little more...less expensive?

[KatS]

Gee, it surprises me that Hawking believes in the Big Bang at all because it was a Catholic idea. A French priest, Father LaMaitre (I may have misspelled it) theorized that there was "a first day" or "a first moment".

Scientists apparently can also be "cafeteria scientists" too.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

This is off topic, but I'm curious, what do you do with the early geneologies in Genesis if you don't take it to be a historical document (especially Genesis 1-11)? Why include them if they weren't meant to be understood as history?

JPTP

[jswranch]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1008302' date='Jun 19 2006, 12:53 PM']
This is off topic, but I'm curious, what do you do with the early geneologies in Genesis if you don't take it to be a historical document (especially Genesis 1-11)? Why include them if they weren't meant to be understood as history?

JPTP
[/quote]
We are to understand them as theology, not history. It one thing to tell the origen of man and another to tell the history of man.

Edited June 19, 2006 by jswranch

[KatS]

[quote]We are to understand them as theology, not history.[/quote]

The Bible can tell us the *why* of creation; Science can tell us *how* and *when*.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

It still doesn't explain the rational behind including lineages within the first chapters of Genesis (seeing that Catholics tend to accept Abraham as a historical man) if it is meant only to teach theology through mythical accounts of creation. There is no real point to include a detailed family tree to mythical people.

[jswranch]

Letter to editor of local paper who ran the Hawking quote. I plan to send it tomorrow, so please hack and slash it.


I am distraught over “Physicist discusses Vatican, science,” on 18 June as it incorrectly portrayed the Catholic position on science and faith. First, Stephen Hawking misquoted the words and intent of our previous Pope, John Paul the Great. Second, The Gazette was irresponsible by not checking Hawking’s source.

John Paul said, “Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….” Hawking erred by alleging the Pope said scientists should not inquire into the beginning of the universe because that was the moment of creation and the work of God. John Paul did said ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’ Hawking should refrain from false absolutes by not distorting the words of the pope.

As for The Gazette, the article has continued bigotry by stereotyping Holy Mother Church as anti-science. The Gazette should run an article to promote awareness by celebrating contributions to science made by Catholic Bishops and Priests including Fr. Lemaitre’s founding of the Big Bang theory, Fr. De Vico’s discovery of 6 comets, Bishop Theodoric’s invention of general anesthesia during the ‘dark ages,’ and Bishop Steno as a father of geology and discovery of fossilization.

[KatS]

[quote]including Fr. Lemaitre’s founding of the Big Bang theory[/quote]

Sorry, my bad...Fr. Lemaitre didn't come up with the actual words "Big Bang," (it was an insult for the theory long after Fr. Lemaitre died) but he was the first man to conceive of a definite first moment in time.

This is what I got off Wikipedia:

Father Georges-Henri Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer.

"Fr. Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. He based his theory, published in 1935 on the laws of relativity set forth by Einstein, among others, as well as ancient cosmological-philosophical traditions, although at the time Einstein believed in an eternal universe and had previously directed derogatory comments at Fr. Lemaître's mathematical competence."

I've read your article twice, and it sounds great! Let us know when it is published in the paper.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1008325' date='Jun 19 2006, 03:12 PM']
It still doesn't explain the rational behind including lineages within the first chapters of Genesis (seeing that Catholics tend to accept Abraham as a historical man) if it is meant only to teach theology through mythical accounts of creation. There is no real point to include a detailed family tree to mythical people.
[/quote]

They are historical, but not necessarily complete lists.

[kateri05]

oh adam and eve are real people - the Church definitely teaches that because of the doctrine of original sin.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1008363' date='Jun 19 2006, 04:19 PM']
They are historical, but not necessarily complete lists.
[/quote]

If the people are historical, its hard to make the dichotomy that many Catholic scholars do between the historicity of the people and the events. Moses may have not 'been there, done that' but there is perhaps something to be said about the oral tradition of the Jewish people, the inspiration of God, and the ability of God to preserve an accurate account of the early human race through human writers. Calling into question the length of a day I would presume to be well within good study, to question whether these are simply 'mythical stories that teach truths' is another matter.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1008457' date='Jun 19 2006, 04:37 PM']
If the people are historical, its hard to make the dichotomy that many Catholic scholars do between the historicity of the people and the events. Moses may have not 'been there, done that' but there is perhaps something to be said about the oral tradition of the Jewish people, the inspiration of God, and the ability of God to preserve an accurate account of the early human race through human writers. Calling into question the length of a day I would presume to be well within good study, to question whether these are simply 'mythical stories that teach truths' is another matter.
[/quote]
Careful here. You are placing biblical interpretations of Adam, Moses, Abraham all in the same basket when you say [quote]If the people are historical, its hard to make the dichotomy that many Catholic scholars do between the historicity of the people and the events.[/quote]

We simply cannot paint these differing accounts with the same paint brush. We can look at Adam as a "Mythical stories that teach truth." Abraham not so much. Moses, no. As for "mythical stores that teach truth," Jesus told one every time told a parable. Are we to believe there actually was a son who went asked for his father's inheritence exactly, word for word like Jesus said? Are we to believe a first century shephard who was worth his daily pay would leave his 99 sheep alone to find the missing one? No.

Edited June 20, 2006 by jswranch

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1008477' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:58 PM']
Careful here. You are placing biblical interpretations of Adam, Moses, Abraham all in the same basket when you say

You simply cannot paint these differing accounts with the same paint brush, which I believe you may have. We can look at Adam as a "Mythical stories that teach truth." Abraham not so much. Moses, no. As for "mythical stores that teach truth," Jesus told one every time told a parable. Are we to believe there actually was a son who went asked for his father's inheritence exactly, word for word like Jesus said? Are we to believe a first century shephard left his 99 sheep alone to find the one? No.
[/quote]

Hardly, but that is why these message board things don't do a whole lot of good when one must spend time stating what he or she already stated. I previously stated that Catholics usually affirm that Abraham was a historical man. I'm pointing to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, which I'm assuming is agreed upon with a fair amount of certainty. That aside your question here is of the nature of the literature early on in Genesis. I'm not quite sure what about the text allows you to believe that it is a parable or to be taken only in an allegorical sense. This is my reason for pointing out the strong lineages in the early part of Genesis. If the text were to intend to only teach an allegory there would be little, if any need, for such lineage. Jesus did not give us the historical background to the family when he talked about the prodigal son. Moses has given us this data from his account of the origin of the world and seamlessly woven it in with the rest of Genesis. If the people are real enough (someone said Catholics have to believe that there is a first man and a first woman) it seems sensible enough that the stories are not fictitious. No one is claiming though that Genesis chapter one is a scientific manual. It can, none-the-less, describe what happened, even if Moses doesn't know the exact science behind it.

I apologize for 'hi-jacking' this thread.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1008503' date='Jun 19 2006, 07:10 PM']
Hardly, but that is why these message board things don't do a whole lot of good when one must spend time stating what he or she already stated. I previously stated that Catholics usually affirm that Abraham was a historical man. I'm pointing to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, which I'm assuming is agreed upon with a fair amount of certainty. That aside your question here is of the nature of the literature early on in Genesis. I'm not quite sure what about the text allows you to believe that it is a parable or to be taken only in an allegorical sense. This is my reason for pointing out the strong lineages in the early part of Genesis. If the text were to intend to only teach an allegory there would be little, if any need, for such lineage. Jesus did not give us the historical background to the family when he talked about the prodigal son. Moses has given us this data from his account of the origin of the world and seamlessly woven it in with the rest of Genesis. If the people are real enough (someone said Catholics have to believe that there is a first man and a first woman) it seems sensible enough that the stories are not fictitious. No one is claiming though that Genesis chapter one is a scientific manual. It can, none-the-less, describe what happened, even if Moses doesn't know the exact science behind it.

I apologize for 'hi-jacking' this thread.
[/quote]

Well, for starters, the large amount of obvious symbolism in the first three chapters of Genesis are a good clue. I'm not saying that there weren't an Adam and Eve...of course there were...and they were tempted by Satan and fell. However, if you look at, for instance, the structure of the creation accounts, it paints a very beautiful picture about how God works and seems to make a strong point of doing it, even to such an extent that one could say this seems to be Moses' main task in those chapters.

[Socrates]

A bit of proofreading - last sentence should read, "Bishop Theodoric’s invention of general anesthesia during the ‘dark ages,’ and Bishop Steno as a father of geology and [b]the discoverer[/b] of fossilization."