Fr. Robert Barron on Stephen Hawking

[adawgj]

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.

Number 2 should be the Cleveland Browns not the Lions.
and number four should be Peter Jackson making ‘The Silmarillion’ into a 9 hour film.

 

[Brendan]

Number 2 should be the Cleveland Browns not the Lions.
and number four should be Peter Jackson making ‘The Silmarillion’ into a 9 hour film.

Hey, you could have your scientific theories, I can have mine…

 

[inocente]

Some old bias, nothing new.

Sure, by insulting any view other than your own then you’ll always be right, which must be very comforting. The philosophy of no one’s going to change my world, if it feels good then it must be good.

 

[inocente]

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.

Developing ideas in this area is necessarily complicated by all the observations and laws which must be conformed to, so I wouldn’t have thought it’s an issue if making the idea open to falsification is given lower priority at first, that will come in time or the idea must be abandoned. I agree there need to be limits - string theory has been around for more than a generation - but am not sure if Hawking’s notion has yet reached that point.

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)

It seems a bit optimistic to make such long term predictions. The prediction would have been different less than 20 years ago, before the effect of dark energy was observed when, as far as I know, no prediction of accelerating expansion was taken seriously. Something new could get discovered tomorrow and change the odds again.

*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.*

Trouble is that the “deity solution” is a kind of double whammy argument from ignorance. Not only does it ignore that anyone can use it to argue for any deity, not just the Christian God, but it relies on a false dichotomy. From a science perspective it presupposes we must choose right now, we must speculate rather than bide our time and research. From a religious perspective it presupposes God can or ought to be made the subject of hypotheses.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sure, by insulting any view other than your own then you’ll always be right, which must be very comforting. The philosophy of no one’s going to change my world, if it feels good then it must be good.

Well, give us you understanding of how the universe came to exist. Forget about Hawking, just tell us what you understand to be the reason the universe exists, based on the Bible.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Well, give us you understanding of how the universe came to exist. Forget about Hawking, just tell us what you understand to be the reason the universe exists, based on the Bible.

One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …

I believe that this view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. And so the suspicion grows that ultimately perhaps this way of viewing things is only a trick of the church and of theologians who have run out of solutions but do not want to admit it, and now they are looking for something to hide behind. And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece. …

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.

Same old bias, nothing new I hear you say.

Except that was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - from In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

 

[Brendan]

Developing ideas in this area is necessarily complicated by all the observations and laws which must be conformed to, so I wouldn’t have thought it’s an issue if making the idea open to falsification is given lower priority at first, that will come in time or the idea must be abandoned. I agree there need to be limits - string theory has been around for more than a generation - but am not sure if Hawking’s notion has yet reached that point.

I actually DO understand what you are saying, people can certainly offer conjecture. But when that conjecture, by definition, leaves the realm of the scientific method, can it really be called ‘science’ anymore.

It seems a bit optimistic to make such long term predictions. The prediction would have been different less than 20 years ago, before the effect of dark energy was observed when, as far as I know, no prediction of accelerating expansion was taken seriously. Something new could get discovered tomorrow and change the odds again.

The subject of dark energy only makes an open universe more likely. The observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of decelerating ( as would happen absent the effects of dark energy) made a closed universe that much more unlikely.

I’m not saying that it is conclusive, but very few physicists are now talking about closed universe.

Trouble is that the “deity solution” is a kind of double whammy argument from ignorance. Not only does it ignore that anyone can use it to argue for any deity, not just the Christian God, but it relies on a false dichotomy. From a science perspective it presupposes we must choose right now, we must speculate rather than bide our time and research. From a religious perspective it presupposes God can or ought to be made the subject of hypotheses.

Understood, but in terms of applicability to the scientific method, my ‘theory’ and Dr. Hawking’s are one the same level. And there is no compulsion, on the scientific level, that one must accept my theory over Dr Hawking’s, but the converse is also true.

The analysis of each now rightly belongs in the realm of metaphysical philosophy, not science.

 

[Winterwolf00]

It’s always amusing when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to educate experts who do.
The product of the popular anti-intellectualism I suppose.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …

In one paragraph or less, what religious experience have you as a Baptist gleaned from the Bible that was approved as authentic by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century and that Baptists still use to this day?

 

[inocente]

In one paragraph or less, what religious experience have you as a Baptist gleaned from the Bible that was approved as authentic by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century and that Baptists still use to this day?

I experienced a vision of a Catholic Revert earnestly claiming ownership of the Red Sox because he once found a Babe Ruth bubblegum card.

 

[inocente]

I actually DO understand what you are saying, people can certainly offer conjecture. But when that conjecture, by definition, leaves the realm of the scientific method, can it really be called ‘science’ anymore.

You got me to look up Hawking’s CV. Turns out he’s a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and won its Pius XI Medal. He’s won stacks of other awards and has an alphabet soup after his name - CH CBE FRS FRSA.

So I guess he has earned more right than me to say what is and isn’t science.

The subject of dark energy only makes an open universe more likely. The observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of decelerating ( as would happen absent the effects of dark energy) made a closed universe that much more unlikely.

But in 20 years time a poster might be arguing the opposite due to some new observations. In any event we know the predicted long term heat death is dead wrong, as the universe is prophesied to end much sooner in a little thing called the apocalypse.

Which tends to get overlooked on this kind of thread, not sure why.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Science cannot make any conclusions about God, because God did not leave physical traces of himself in creation to be observed.

I thought that is exactly what creation is…physical evidence of not only His existence, but His nature…power, beauty, justice and love.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You got me to look up Hawking’s CV. Turns out he’s a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and won its Pius XI Medal. He’s won stacks of other awards and has an alphabet soup after his name - CH CBE FRS FRSA.

So I guess he has earned more right than me to say what is and isn’t science.

Hawking has not earned the right to confuse science with philosophy, as when he says that science has convinced him there is no God.

 

[Aloysium]

it’s always amusing when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to educate experts who do.
The product of the popular anti-intellectualism i suppose.

View attachment 21138

 

[Brendan]

Hawking has not earned the right to confuse science with philosophy, as when he says that science has convinced him there is no God.

Exactly. He ceases to speak as a scientist when he makes such declarations. To do so would require that he has empirical proof of his statement. Which he does not.

 

[Brendan]

It’s always amusing when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to educate experts who do.
The product of the popular anti-intellectualism I suppose.

Like when Hawking attempts to ‘educate’ the bishops on the existence of God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Like when Hawking attempts to ‘educate’ the bishops on the existence of God?

Atheists can get the limelight almost any time they want, and Hawking has the voltage turned up about as high as it can get.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …

I believe that this view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. And so the suspicion grows that ultimately perhaps this way of viewing things is only a trick of the church and of theologians who have run out of solutions but do not want to admit it, and now they are looking for something to hide behind. And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece. …

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.

Same old bias, nothing new I hear you say.

Except that was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - from In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

No, it sounds like someone who simply doesn’t know or one who is confused, Because you did not answer my question. Is that it then - you just don’t know for sure and/or you don’t know what the Bible teaches about the creation of the univere. You seem to be saying, based on the argument above, that the creation of the universe is a purely scientific question and cannot be known through your understanding of Divine Revelation in the Bible?

BTW that is not what Ratzinger is saying. He mentions creation at least half a dozen times, but without any doubts, and he is getting that from the Bible.

Linus2nd .

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s always amusing when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to educate experts who do.
The product of the popular anti-intellectualism I suppose.

Hawking is a great scientist, but an ignorant amateur in philosophy. There is no “popular anti-intellectualism” involved in pointing that out – quite the contrary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

hawking is a great scientist, but an ignorant amateur in philosophy. There is no “popular anti-intellectualism” involved in pointing that out – quite the contrary.

I can’t think of a single scientist who was a profound philosopher, nor of a single philosopher who was a profound scientist.

Somebody help me out here?