Posted on 06/15/2006 8:24:55 AM PDT by Boxen
An agnostic is a gutless atheist.
Same thing, AFAIC.
I don't see much difference between; "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" and "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."
Both statements, one the Pope's own words without doubt, indicate that the Cosmologist must not go beyond Creation. Dr. Hawking's remarks may suffer from the communication medium.
In other words the Pope said, the more we know of Creation speaks to us of God and that must remain incomplete.
"Much of what modern astronomy and cosmology investigate does not find direct application via technology. Yet it makes a vitally important contribution. For it helps us, at the very least, to put ourselves and everything else into a larger perspective, encouraging us to move beyond our own narrow and selfish concerns. Our view of ourselves, of God and of the universe is radically different from that of people in the Middle Ages. We see ourselves situated in a much larger context -in a much more vast and much more intricately, even delicately, complex world and universe." Pope John Paul II July, 1985
Hawking published in 1998 I believe. You see a problem here?
and being a sick suffering crippled old man, not unlike a grieving widow his authority cannot be questioned. LOL
As an atheist, I have to agree with your characterization of agnostics. They don't have the existential chops to follow the thing right to the ground. As for deists, well, it gets them out of having to go to church and tithe, I guess.
They may have refuted it where it needed to be refuted: with Hawking, personally.
Hawking would never admit it, however.
We can keep going around this tree but, in the end, you will believe Hawking, and I will believe JPII.
Please exppalin how one can study creation and not study creation in one coherent sentence and how what the Pope stated on numerous occasions is coincident with that specious claim. Thanks.
Please explain how cosmologists can do science before t=0.
Hawking doesn't come close to being a genius like Newton. The only reason Hawking gets so much attention is because he is in a wheel chair and talks funny.
How could and why would I do that? I have no idea because I'm not a Cosmologist.
I feel, just as the Pope obviously did, that the Big-Bang was the moment of Creation and we will never be able to understand beyond that. What existed before the Big-Bang? Nothing? God?
By definition nothing can come from nothing. It's a true mystery of existence.
I also don't think Dr. Hawking should be stoned-to-death for pondering the question.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over you or Hawking every time, tough guy.
Did you miss the fact that I said I would give Dr. Hawking the benefit of the doubt over you not JPII?
Facts? Where are the facts? Did I miss something? I don't see facts anywhere.
This article is interesting, and one can possibly surmise by the quotes from Hawking's that he may be agnostic.
Once again though it is the writer of the article that says Stephen denies being an atheist, not Stephen Hawking denying it in a quote, "I am not an atheist." Stephen may have said this but it is only referenced as being said by the writer of the article. Why not quotes I wonder?
People surmise much and write it as fact, which becomes then in the reader's minds fact. If it is a small detail fine, but I still have no proof (which I am completely open to if someone can find a quote with Stephen saying this)that he is no atheist.
Being a believer, I too agree with this assessment. Atleast an atheist, has a solid core belief that walks as it talks. They don't believe God exists. Period. Agnostics believe there is no proof of God . . . blah, blah, blah. So agnostics just hang like some kind of weird, odd beige piece of wallpaper that shifts with the light--ill defined, wormy, unwilling to do the work of either side--can't really pick a color and stick with it. Sounds like the easy way out.
I'd trust an atheist to tell me the truth quicker than an agnostic. They are completely in the world, admitting to just the world. No arguments. No bullsh--. Straight up. I disagree. They disagree with me, but we both know clearly what the other is thinking and where they are coming from.
|
To me a true scientist operates without preconcieved conclusions about anything. This is why the John Paul II statement is so important. Did he say this to Stephen? Did he not? Why do we fight about it so? Well I think the initial comment is right--what sort of relevance does a religion such as Catholism have in a contempory world that examines the beginning of the world scientifically, if it says to not examine. This brings us to whether John Paul II really did say this.
If John Paul did say this I believe one or two things. First this is his role as a pope to set a standard of faith and belief. Yet, from what I have heard of him he was very supportive/inquisitive of scholarly examination and also many other leading men and women of faith have written one shall explore scientifically with an open mind not of God, but of the world in which they study--this does not conflict with faith whatsoever. Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.