Fr. Robert Barron on Stephen Hawking

[inocente]

Granted he is not a scientist, that doesn’t mean he has no interest in science. And why shouldn’t he be concerned when science makes claims about the beliefs, not only of Catholicism but all of Christianity ( except of course in certain Baptist enclaves ) which cannot be scientifically substantiated?

Because he is completely negative. Apparently his Church is only concerned with protecting itself from new ideas. His Christianity is negative, it radiates only criticism, its only purpose is to defend itself. It offers nothing positive. it is concerned only with its own existence.

*My goodness, you’re under another dark cloud today. That he is " quote mining " can be applied to us all, yourself included. He was after all relying on reliable people, and if you have watched Hawking videos you know he is correct.

Please note that Fr. Barron was quoting from reviewers who were quoting from excerpts of the Grand Design*. That may be second hand but it is still Hawking’s own words.

And please note, that Hawking did say that “…because of gravity the universe can and did create itself out of nothing…” And on the cover of the book Hawking did say " … the universe does not need God…" So Hawking is equating gravity with " nothing." So he is redefining the meaning of " nothing. " I think you should watch the video again. Now I wonder why you failed to note these little items?

And he didn’t extrapolate anything.

He hasn’t read the book, but takes one sentence out of context as if it’s the entire book. It’s like someone never having read the bible and taking one verse out of context as if it’s the entire bible.

You are doing the same. You’ve not read the book. You take one sentence quoted secondhand from a review, another from the book cover and stick them together to make an argument as if that’s the slightest bit legitimate.

It’s slapdash, as if American Christianity is now run by Fox News.

*If you would ever get to the point of actually reading Aristotle or Thomas or any real philosopher of metaphysics you would know that science, philosophy, and theology all have different objects of study. So science cannot make any leigtimate observations about the data of other fields of study. For example, it cannot make any legtimate observations about law or politics or history.

Not even religious scientists are able to make observations about philosophy, law, politics, etc. based on science because science does not study these fields. So you are barking up the wrong tree, you are not only beating a dead horse, but one that isn’t even there - it is a red herring.*

Even without you reifying science that maketh little sense. Anyone can write a book about anything they want, they don’t have to get your approval. Apparently some Catholics have not learned from the Galileo affair that trying to gag people isn’t in God’s plan.

If Lemaitre’ had the same thing in mind as Fr. Barron, then that would be true. But since both Isiah and Lemaitre’ are making criptic remarks I really can’t say. Fr. Barron, on the other hand elaborated his meaning - God is not a component of this universe because he is unlimited in any way whereas all the components of this world are contingent precisely because they each are limited in their existence ( being ). No one of them and not the sum total of them back through the eons of time comprise the total perfection of existence ( being ), each contains only a limited expression of existence ( being).
Isaiah 45 is a model of clarity compared with that.

But this is not to say that the universe cannot tell us that a personal God does exist. And that is what philosophy does, it observes the universe and by discovering it ultimate princiles of existence can conclude that a personal God dose exist and it can even tell us about some of the characteristics of this God. God may be hidden, but he still reveals himself in his creation, not totally but enough to let us know he exists

Philosophical imperialism. An imperialist denies the existence of all philosophers other than the few he likes. In this case all eastern philosophers are written out of history, along with all others except, presumably, Thomas and a sprinkling of Greeks. They, we are told, are the only True Philosophers, and the armies of philosophers who reached other conclusions never existed.

< sigh >

 

[inocente]

Yep, familiar with those.

There is the recognition of the entropy problem that I mentioned, but no real solution.

This set of FAQ deals mostly with the Baum-Frampton model. What that proposes, is the entroy increases are pushed outside of normal space into the hyperspace Bran ( a series of dimensions outside our normal ones)

So every contraction\expansion has the requisite increase in entropy, but that it is not visible to us as it is ‘diluted’ into the other dimensions.

The problem, once again, is that there is no proposed means to empirically verify this, nor can it be mathematically shown to be true. So that brings us back to the question, is it ‘science’ if it is not subject to the scientific method?

It is substantially no different from me coming up with a theory that states that cyclic cosmology is true because St. Michael sweeps up all the excess entropy and puts it in a garbage can just outside of the Pearly Gates.

That theory would have the same level of proof as the Baum-Frampton model has in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I was responding to you saying things such as “if that is what Hawking is proclaiming, he is so wrong that any 3rd year physics student can defeat him”.

I linked papers to show that in fact cosmologists and theoretical physicists go into a high amount of detail in working through their conjectures. Unlike Fr. Barron who couldn’t even be bothered to read the book and instead took his entire case from one sentence quoted secondhand.

imho the disparity is a very bad advertisement for religion. The scientists work together and argue out detailed hypotheses in attempts to shift the boundary of knowledge, while Fr. Barron puts in no effort at all and just wants to party-poop.

I agree with you that, in Feynman’s words, “if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”, and all these ideas must eventually be open to falsification or they are not even wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Because he is completely negative. Apparently his Church is only concerned with protecting itself from new ideas. His Christianity is negative, it radiates only criticism, its only purpose is to defend itself. It offers nothing positive. it is concerned only with its own existence.

He hasn’t read the book, but takes one sentence out of context as if it’s the entire book. It’s like someone never having read the bible and taking one verse out of context as if it’s the entire bible.

You are doing the same. You’ve not read the book. You take one sentence quoted secondhand from a review, another from the book cover and stick them together to make an argument as if that’s the slightest bit legitimate.

It’s slapdash, as if American Christianity is now run by Fox News.

Even without you reifying science that maketh little sense. Anyone can write a book about anything they want, they don’t have to get your approval. Apparently some Catholics have not learned from the Galileo affair that trying to gag people isn’t in God’s plan.

Isaiah 45 is a model of clarity compared with that.

Philosophical imperialism. An imperialist denies the existence of all philosophers other than the few he likes. In this case all eastern philosophers are written out of history, along with all others except, presumably, Thomas and a sprinkling of Greeks. They, we are told, are the only True Philosophers, and the armies of philosophers who reached other conclusions never existed.

< sigh >

Some old bias, nothing new.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophical imperialism. An imperialist denies the existence of all philosophers other than the few he likes. In this case all eastern philosophers are written out of history, along with all others except, presumably, Thomas and a sprinkling of Greeks. They, we are told, are the only True Philosophers, and the armies of philosophers who reached other conclusions never existed.

< sigh >

Oh, they existed all right. They just didn’t make the final cut.

 

[Brendan]

I
I agree with you that, in Feynman’s words, “if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”, and all these ideas must eventually be open to falsification or they are not even wrong.

I understand that, but my point is that their theories no longer are in the realm of science.

At least more in the realm of science than my ‘concept’ of St. Michael sweeping up the excess entropy and putting it in bin outside the pearly gates.

Both sought to explain how a cyclic expanding\contracting universe could be possible within the bounds of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

Both are equally unverifiable.

But even then, the point of a cyclic universe is probably moot anyway. Most observations on the energy density show that the energy density of the universe exactly equal to 1, which means that that the period of dark energy dominance will continue infinitively. In other words, the universe will keep on expanding, no contractions, no deposit of entropy onto the brane during a contraction ( because there won’t be one)

Which is why physicists such as Hawking have moved on to multiple universes as an explanation for the anthropomorphic effect.

At least with the brane model, there were predictions for that ( subatomic gravity being larger), but the ability for the 4 main dimensions to leak entropy to the brane has no basis other than conjuecture of the same order as my St. Michael analogy.

But the multiverse ‘theories’ are so positively outside the realm of science, it boggles the mind that there are some scientist who think that it is.

They recognize that it is so mind boggling improbably that we should exist at all, that our universe should have come out of the big bang as either an expanding cloud of hydrogen gas, or collapsed back into a black hole.

So how do you account for a 1 in a billion, billon, billon, billon chance? Either a God who specifically created it, or some sort of an infinite rolling of the dice.

Rolling one die over again didn’t work (the one die we know about won’t ever roll again), so why not claim there are really an infinite number of dice, even though we could never, ever empirically test or mathematically prove it.

Infinite Being, or Infinite number of dice, your choice, but neither solution is science.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Infinite Being, or Infinite number of dice, your choice, but neither solution is science.

 

[meltzerboy]

I understand that, but my point is that their theories no longer are in the realm of science.

At least more in the realm of science than my ‘concept’ of St. Michael sweeping up the excess entropy and putting it in bin outside the pearly gates.

Both sought to explain how a cyclic expanding\contracting universe could be possible within the bounds of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

Both are equally unverifiable.

But even then, the point of a cyclic universe is probably moot anyway. Most observations on the energy density show that the energy density of the universe exactly equal to 1, which means that that the period of dark energy dominance will continue infinitively. In other words, the universe will keep on expanding, no contractions, no deposit of entropy onto the brane during a contraction ( because there won’t be one)

Which is why physicists such as Hawking have moved on to multiple universes as an explanation for the anthropomorphic effect.

At least with the brane model, there were predictions for that ( subatomic gravity being larger), but the ability for the 4 main dimensions to leak entropy to the brane has no basis other than conjuecture of the same order as my St. Michael analogy.

But the multiverse ‘theories’ are so positively outside the realm of science, it boggles the mind that there are some scientist who think that it is.

They recognize that it is so mind boggling improbably that we should exist at all, that our universe should have come out of the big bang as either an expanding cloud of hydrogen gas, or collapsed back into a black hole.

So how do you account for a 1 in a billion, billon, billon, billon chance? Either a God who specifically created it, or some sort of an infinite rolling of the dice.

Rolling one die over again didn’t work (the one die we know about won’t ever roll again), so why not claim there are really an infinite number of dice, even though we could never, ever empirically test or mathematically prove it.

Infinite Being, or Infinite number of dice, your choice, but neither solution is science.

I think your last statement is the crux of the matter. Whether the scientific theory rests on a single universe that is capable of both creating itself and maintaining life, or an infinitude of variations in the form of what is called multiverse, the odds based on human reason are vastly improbable. Is an infinite Being, whom we call G-d, therefore our default position? To many scientists and lay people alike, the existence of G-d sounds astonishing, indeed metaphysical and supernatural, but what can be the alternative?

 

[runningdude]

The question should not so much be whether there is no fundamental reason, but whether finding such a reason is so improbable that we may be justifiably skeptical that such a reason would ever be found.

Hawkings’ theory could also be right, given sufficient evidence; but again, the obtaining of such evidence is so improbable that the theory should not be given much credence.

It seems increasingly that there are no bounds to the number of hypotheses that can be offered in order to avoid that hypothesis anyone really wants to avoid, the existence of God.

The evidence is not so abstract as to be entirely impossible to discover. The idea might be supported by finding material from a possible different “Big Bang” expanding in the opposite direction from ours, for instance.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The evidence is not so abstract as to be entirely impossible to discover. The idea might be supported by finding material from a possible different “Big Bang” expanding in the opposite direction from ours, for instance.

And there might be in that other universe a moon made of green cheese!

When the science shows as much, we’ll talk more on that.

Until then, that other Big Bang has no credibility except as an escape hatch for atheists.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[runningdude]

We are talking about much more basic than that. If the gravitational constant, for example, varied by 1/1000 of 1%, the universe would have either collapsed into a black hole, or have been created as an ever expanding cloud of hydrogen gas (no planets, stars, no novas to create anything larger than helium…

Likewise with the ration between the charge of a proton and it’s mass, any slight difference and no chemical reactions would happen ( every element would be ‘noble’) or that they bond forever with whatever atom happens to be nearby.

There are a myriad of others ( speed of light, strong nuclear force etc)

None of those are condusive to life at all.

Again, all this proves is that the universe exists.

 

[runningdude]

The point to a scientific theory is to address observations or evidence. What observations is Dr. Hawking addressing?

You are artificially limiting the domain of scientific inquiry.

But he himself is not proposing that the 2nd Law is wrong, or even alterable. If you are proposing a theory where the 2nd Law can be violated, I would be interested in hearing the details.

As others have pointed out, Dr. Hawking has proposed an explanation that does not violate the second law. I am proposing nothing; I am pointing out that the second law is not immutable, or it may not say what you think it says.

Again, the whole point of science is any particular theory could be wrong and is subject to revision. This includes any theory proposed by Dr. Hawking. I am not claiming Dr. Hawking is correct; I am rebutting non-scientific attempts to discredit his theories.

I understand that, see post #16

Again, see post #16

Not relevant.

Yes, I am aware, and I have addressed both in my various posts, most especially my first one.

Your first post describes a facile description of entropy. You discussed only the most basic concepts which do not necessarily “scale up” when discussing the physics of “universes”.

Again, I cannot stress this enough; I am claiming Hawking’s theories are correct.

What specific predictions? In every theory, there are certain predictions, such as the existence of the Higgs Boson and the certain properties that it would have. Accompanying that, are means to test for such. Those means might not exist at the particular time ( such as a particle collider of sufficient eV to produce the particle, or in the case of Einstein’s General Relativity, the means to test the apparent slowing down of time, but there are specific predictions to test and a proposed means.

How does Dr. Hawking (or any of the other cosmologists) propose to test for alternate universes?

Again, you are artificially limiting the domain of scientific inquiry. A theory does not emerge out of a vacuum; ideas must be shared among colleagues and developed.

His conclusion is not a scientific one, if it was the non-existence of God would be subject to empirical evidence. At best, science can make no statement about the actual existence of God ( who is, by definition, outside the natural realm) and can only state that they have no conclusive proof of any interactions between a divine being and the natural universe.

In that respect, it is no different from either proposing alternate universes, or a cyclic universe. By the definition of ‘universe’ they are beyond our own.

I have maintained throughout that Dr. Hawking’s conclusion that there is no God is inappropriate. I will go further and describe it as an abuse of his credentials, because he is unnecessarily pitting science and religion against each other, unnecessarily hurting the reputation of science to fit his own atheistic agenda.

 

[runningdude]

And there might be in that other universe a moon made of green cheese!

When the science shows as much, we’ll talk more on that.

Until then, that other Big Bang has no credibility except as an escape hatch for atheists.

This is unnecessarily condescending.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

The church does not teach that the “Big Bang” was the moment of creation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The church does not teach that the “Big Bang” was the moment of creation.

No, but scripture teaches that the universe began by God ordering the universe to begin with a flood of light.

And the atheist Carl Sagan agreed.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[runningdude]

Three key points:

#It is theologically irrelevant whether Dr. Hawking’s theories are correct or not. If he is correct, it means* God created* a universe with no discernible physical origin. The doctrine of God’s creation is not damaged.

#As theists, we openly acknowledge that the Second Law is incomplete, because it does not account for divine intervention.

#The church does not have any authority to teach physics, and never claimed to do so. The Big Bang superficially resembles the Genesis account, but the church has always cautioned against attaching theological meaning to physical phenomenon.*

*(Galileo, for instance, was disciplined for using bad theology to explain bad science; his telescopes were too primitive to prove the earth revolved around the sun, so he offered a theological explanation for why it made sense that it would. Copernicus offered the same theory without any theology, and was not disciplined.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

#The church does not have any authority to teach physics, and never claimed to do so. The Big Bang superficially resembles the Genesis account, but the church has always cautioned against attaching theological meaning to physical phenomenon.

So far as I know, the Church has never said that science is not another way to see God’s creation unfolding. What you call a superficial resemblance seems to me a good deal more than superficial.

Genesis is not merely firing a shot in the dark.

“True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII

You may also find these remarks by Pope Pius XII illuminating.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12EXIST.HTM

 

[runningdude]

So far as I know, the Church has never said that science is not another way to see God’s creation unfolding. What you call a superficial resemblance seems to me a good deal more than superficial.

The church cautions. The Big Bang theory was initially rejected by physicists for too closely resembling the Genesis account; they believed it to be religion repackaged. It was only accepted when as it was developed and intergalactic bodies were observed to move as the theory predicted.

There are, however, incredibly minute deviations that are not explained by current theories. Dr. Hawking’s theories may help fill in the gaps, or they may be rejected; it remains to be seen.

Genesis is not merely firing a shot in the dark.

“True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII

You may also find these remarks by Pope Pius XII illuminating.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12EXIST.HTM

I do not understand why you think I reject anything the Church teaches. I only hope to illustrate what science is, and what it is not. Dr. Hawking,** incredibly inappropriately**, used science as a tool to reject religion; we Christians must not in return reject proper science.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I do not understand why you think I reject anything the Church teaches. I only hope to illustrate what science is, and what it is not. Dr. Hawking,** incredibly inappropriately**, used science as a tool to reject religion; we Christians must not in return reject proper science.

I did not say you rejected anything the Church teaches. But you did say in your previous post that the Church cautions us against viewing science as able to help unfold the mysteries of creation .

Clearly Pope Pius did not say that. He said just the opposite.

 

[Aloysium]

The current scientific consensus regarding the origin of the universe is by no means the final word. Given the history of science, these ideas will be turned topsy tervy a few more times before the end of the twenty-first century. I would not expect the scientific view to coincide with Genesis, which is meant to speak to mankind in any era.

 

[Brendan]

You are artificially limiting the domain of scientific inquiry

Nope, simply going by the definition that scienetists themselves offer. That ‘scientific inquiry’ is the question for knowledge using observation and empirical evidence.

.

As others have pointed out, Dr. Hawking has proposed an explanation that does not violate the second law. I am proposing nothing; I am pointing out that the second law is not immutable, or it may not say what you think it says.

I am simply going by how science itself defines entropy.

And while the 2nd Law may not be immutable, such a violation, by definition, would be subject to observation or testing. In such an environment, we would see shards of glass fly up off the floor and reassemble into a glass,

We would see green paint swirl around and separate into yellow and blue

There are all sorts of things that would disprove the 2nd Law, but we observe none of them happening.

Again, the whole point of science is any particular theory could be wrong and is subject to revision. This includes any theory proposed by Dr. Hawking. I am not claiming Dr. Hawking is correct; I am rebutting non-scientific attempts to discredit his theories.

I agree, and for the 2nd Law to be wrong ( if you want ‘scale up examples’) then we would see the iron cores of planets ‘evaporate’ into interstellar space dust, which will collapse into former super-nova (which sucking in an increadible amount of photons). This iron will then fission for billions of years into hydrogen gas, (again, absorbing light and heat in the process) until all that hydrogen gas escapes into a cloud of hydrogen gas.

THAT is what we would see if the 2nd Law had exceptions.

Your first post describes a facile description of entropy. You discussed only the most basic concepts which do not necessarily “scale up” when discussing the physics of “universes”.

It is still an increase and decrease that I speak of.

Again, I cannot stress this enough; I am claiming Hawking’s theories are correct.

But how would, you, or Dr. Hawking, subject them to the scientific method>

Again, you are artificially limiting the domain of scientific inquiry. A theory does not emerge out of a vacuum; ideas must be shared among colleagues and developed.

OK, I propose a cyclic universe is possible because St. Michael sweeps up the excess entropy and places it in a garbage can.

And the universe is closed because our guardian angels will push on the boundaries of Hubble Space and cause it to contract.

And if anyone claims differently, I will simply state that they are limiting the boundaries of scientific inquiry!

Is my claim ‘science’ or not. If not, what defines ‘science’?

I have maintained throughout that Dr. Hawking’s conclusion that there is no God is inappropriate. I will go further and describe it as an abuse of his credentials, because he is unnecessarily pitting science and religion against each other, unnecessarily hurting the reputation of science to fit his own atheistic agenda.

I would go further, as his claim is not subject to testing,

 

[Brendan]

Oh yes,

I will also make the scientific claim that multiple universes DO exist.

There are precisely 4 of them.

1. The current one
2. The one where ‘knock knock’ jokes are considered the height of humor
3. The one where the Lions have won every Super Bowl
4. The one where Peter Jackson made on one ‘Hobbit’ movie, abiet a 7 hour long one.

That is my scientific theory.