Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe

Northwest Florida Daily News ^ | 15 JUNE 2006 | Min Lee

[Boxen]

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."

The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying that the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.

His hourlong lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was highly theoretical and technical. During the question-and-answer session, Hawking was asked where constants like gravity come from and whether gravity can distort light.

But there were several light, humorous moments.

Hawking _ who must communicate with an electronic speech synthesizer _ said he once considered using a machine that gave him a French accent but he couldn't use it because his wife would divorce him.

The astrophysicist is wheelchair-bound and uses an electronic voice because he has the neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

Hawking was asked why his computerized voice has an American accent.

"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," he said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it."

But Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware he uses is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.

"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult," he said.

He urged people with physical disabilities not to give up on their ambitions.

"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically," he said. "People won't have time for you."

The moderator at the lecture told the audience that at a recent dinner, she asked Hawking what his ambitions were. He said he wanted to know how the universe began, what happens inside black holes and how can humans survive the next 100 years, she said.

But she added he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."

Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?"

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Exactly. Some one also mentioned in another post that John Paul II is gone and can't defend himself. I smell a rat and its name is Stephen Hawking.

IIRC, Hawking also told this anecdote in "A Brief History Of Time", which was published during John Paul II's lifetime. Since the book received much publicity, I'd assume the Vatican would have contradicted the story if the Pope disputed it.

[Ichneumon]

It was correct as it stood.

You don't know that for a fact, you presume it.

Hawking presented his slander

You are jumping to conclusions.

to a public audience and characterized it as a direct quote of the late Pope.

Not necessarily -- the reporter characterizes it as such, but doesn't quote Hawking's lead-in, he might easily have made it clear it was a paraphrase and the reporter lazily described it as "quoting". This is third-hand stuff, which necessarily leaves out a lot and may have garbled an unknown amount of it in the retelling, which makes your unshakable conclusion all the more ludicrous. If nothing else, you must consider that the reporter may have muffed it or inserted some of his own bias and/or misunderstanding, yet you recklessly conclude that Hawking himself should be pilloried without a shred of doubt in your mind. Forgive me for not joining you with the torches and pitchforks, but knee-jerk lynch mobs based on Nth-hand snippets of conversation aren't my thing.

It is clear from the context of the article

You mean, your presumptions make it seem clear to you that...

that he intended his lie

There you go again... You're infallible, eh? You "know" he's lying, despite having no personal familiarity with either Hawking or the late pope? I wish I was as certain of anything as you seem to be about everything that pops into your head.

to convey the following propaganda: (1) that the late Pope was trying to censor him (when in reality the late Pope had actually invited him to speak freely on a topic of his own choosing) and (2) that the late Pope was a stupid man who did not even realize what the topic was of the paper Hawking presented at the conference the late Pope himself was sponsoring.

I read it quite differently, but I feel that trying to show you why would be a lost cause. Enjoy your desire to presume the worst about people and lead a mob to storm their castle.

[isom35]

I think I saw Hawking in a Capt. Pike wheelchair on tv in the last couple days.

[BlessedBeGod]

I'd like to know word-for-word exactly what JPII said before I'd ever come to a conclusion on this. Who knows what the context was.

[Varda]

I remember reading about this. The other scientists in the conference didn't recall anything of the kind being said and a transcript of the remarks didn't show anything either.

[livius]

In addition, IIRC, JPII was a keen amateur astronomer. The Vatican has (or has access to) its own observatory.

[kitkat]

***The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty--the Faith of Jesus Christ.***

If you're sincere in wanting to understand more, try this link:

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/questions/isthepopeinfallible.asp

[higgmeister]

I don't feel that Dr. Hawking's comments are slanderous or even incorrect. The Holy Father's address below seems to suggest to the audience that there will always be a limit of Creation beyond which science can't go.

I don't have time to mark up the code much for format but anyone can cut and paste the URL's into their browser.

It's not as if the Pope's life wasn't documented from here to eternity. Some of the links are books to purchase.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/july/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850706_conferenza-cosmologia_en.html

ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS
IN THE VATICAN CONFERENCE ON COSMOLOGY

Saturday, 6 July 1985

3. This Conference, I have been told, has as one of its principal focuses the determination of the inherent limitations of cosmology’s competency and its observational verifiability - the limits in principle and in practice of the scientific verification of its theoretical products. With a gradual and constant growth in humble self-knowledge, we are able to avoid the extremes of an inflated evaluation of our own abilities and capacities or a disparagingly narrow and superficial one. And that is true of any disciple or field of study. A sound appreciation of both our limitations and strong points enables us to plan our projects carefully, to maintain proper relationships with the material, personal and divine realities, and to become ever more sensitive to all the valuable information which is available to us through modern science.

4. The more we know about physical reality, about the history and structure of the universe, about the fundamental make-up of matter and the processes and patterns which at the roots of the material world, the more we can appreciate the immensity of the mystery of God, the more we are in a position to grasp the mystery of ourselves - our origin and our destiny. For creation, as we have come to know it, speaks to us in fragmentary yet very true reflections of the God who created it and maintains it in existence. Of course, that picture must always remain tantalizingly incomplete.

http://www.paxbook.com/texec/mediainfo.jsp?product_id=1235

http://libserv.aip.org:81/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!13221~!0&profile=newcustom-aipnbl#focus

http://libibm.iucaa.ernet.in/wslxRSLT.php?A1=29921#TOP

[higgmeister]

Dr. Hawking holds the same Chair that Sir Isaac Newton did.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt before you every time.

[GOP Poet]

IIRC, Hawking also told this anecdote in "A Brief History Of Time", which was published during John Paul II's lifetime. Since the book received much publicity, I'd assume the Vatican would have contradicted the story if the Pope disputed it.

Love to have you post this word for word with page numbers. I'll be happy to go grab my edition. I find it interesting you call something one is calling a quote an anecdote. Which is it that Hawking publishes--a quote from John Paul II or an anecdote? These are two very different things. One can easily and legally challenge a quote.

For your perusal regarding the definition of anecdote. Notice it does not include any reference to a verbatim quote. I am sure there is a reason Hawking choose one over the other. One can be legally challenged, no problem, another is a game or manipulation, as all story telling is--subjective recall and personal choice of what to and to not include.

Of all the writers' genres they say and writers know the non- fiction writer is the biggest liar. The fiction writer confirms that yes, they are writing fiction. The poet, poetry, the non-fiction writer also writes fiction (subjective recall and creative manipulation of what they recall, but call it fact). A fact is 1+1=2. Non-Fiction writers are the biggest deceivers and manipulators of their audience/readers of all the writers.

anecdote

n.

1. A short account of an interesting or humorous incident. pl. -dotes or -do·ta.

2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.

[French, from Greek anekdota, unpublished items : an-, not; see + ekdota, neuter pl. of ekdotos, published (from ekdidonai, ekdo-, to publish : ek-, out; see ecto– + didonai, to give).]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[wideawake]

Dr. Hawking holds the same Chair that Sir Isaac Newton did. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt before you every time.

LOL!

John Paul II held the same Chair that St. Peter did.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over you or Hawking every time, tough guy.

[jwalsh07]

Hawkings quote is a lie, period. Pope John Paul ll never said it. Moreover the made up quote is something that Hillary Clinotn might say.

To wit:

"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."

Now I'll translate the Hillaryese for ya.

It's OK to study the beginning but we should not study the beginning.

BS smells the same whether it comes from cows, leftist loons or scientists.

If you think that Pope John Pauls address to the coference posted by you above reflects the Hillaryese refelcted in Hawking's made up quote, you're nuts.

[wideawake]

I'd be interested in how you defend Newton's successor, William Whiston's, new Theory Of The Earth?

It must be authoritative, of course, because he was chosen Lucasian professor.

[jwalsh07]

What did you say up above that got "struck from the record" so to speak?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Love to have you post this word for word with page numbers.

Given the number of editions, page numbers aren't likely to do you much good. However, the relevant story is written in Chapter 8, and I'll provide a link:

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 round 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 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. 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!

A Brief History Of Time - Chapter 8

Again, therefore, we know that this anecdote was published during John Paul II's lifetime. If he had a problem with the anecdote or Hawking's telling of it, it's likely that he'd have said so.

[gcruse]

Oh my, now you've introduced facts after their verdict. Either 1) trainwreck or 2) disappearing factions. Which way will it go?

[sinkspur]

Again, therefore, we know that this anecdote was published during John Paul II's lifetime. If he had a problem with the anecdote or Hawking's telling of it, it's likely that he'd have said so.

It is such an obvious falsehood that JPII saw no need to refute it. And to state the JPII didn't know what Hawking had said to the Conference is condescending arrogance.

In the absence of JPII ever requesting any other scientist refrain from studying beginnings (I'm not aware of any, are you?), one must conclude that Hawking was intentionally slamming the Pope.

Hawking is an atheist, is he not?

[gcruse]

Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

[jwalsh07]

"The man of science knows perfectly, from the point of view of his knowledge, that truth cannot be subject to negotiation, cannot be obscured or abandoned to free conventions or agreements between groups of power, societies, or States" Pope John Paul II

Hawking is full of crap. John Paul has always agreed with St Thomas and Maimonides, truth can not contradict truth.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

It is such an obvious falsehood that JPII saw no need to refute it.

Not likely. Though "A Brief History Of Time" probably wasn't as widely read as other best-sellers, it was a best-seller and generated a lot of publicity. If Hawking had misrepresented John Paul II's views on a subject as important to both science and religion as the origin of the universe, I think it very likely that John Paul or his spokesmen would have refuted it.