Fr. Robert Barron on Stephen Hawking

[Al_Moritz]

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?

Well, some scientists are much more knowledgeable about philosophy than others. Here is eminent astrophysicist Martin Rees on ‘nothing’; this statement shows that he thinks on a much higher philosophical level than some of his colleagues:

Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise “from nothing”. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a “point”, it is latent with particles and forces — still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s “nothing”. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what “breathes fire” into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” remains the province of philosophers.

Rees definitely earns my respect here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, there are those pockets of insight you will find among scientists who dabble in philosophy, and philosophers who dabble in science.

But Blaise Pascal comes to mind as one who excelled in mathematics, physics, inventions, philosophy, and theology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

This for me is a superb example of Pascal’s philosophical depth.

“For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.” Blaise Pascal, Pensées No. 72

Then there’s Isaac Newton, who though not technically a philosopher, derived deep philosophical insights from his study of physics and astronomy, not to mention his nearly complete obsession and success at deciphering biblical prophecies pertaining to modern times.

isaac-newton.org/statement-on-the-date-2060/

 

[Tomdstone]

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

When did he do that?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Dr. Anthony Rizzi for one. William A. Wallace, O.P. for another. Galileo for another. Newton also studied philosophy as did mostl university students through the 18th century. Then there is Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Faith and Reason.. Also DR. William E. Carroll. I’m sure there are many more, we just don’t hear about them because most of them aren’t on the lecture circuit.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then there is Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Faith and Reason.. Also DR. William E. Carroll. I’m sure there are many more, we just don’t hear about them because most of them aren’t on the lecture circuit.

Pax
Linus2nd

Nor would the mass media be likely to invite them for an intelligent contribution to the debate.

 

[Tomdstone]

Nor would the mass media be likely to invite them for an intelligent contribution to the debate.

Not true. There was a debate between Hawking and Father Spitzer on the Larry King show.

 

[Brendan]

When did he do that?

When he told the world that there was no God. There was no mention of excluding the bishops from his statement.

He thus clamed to know more about the Nature of God that the bishops did, which is about as ludicrous as the bishops claiming to know more about singularities than Dr. Hawking.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . which is about as ludicrous as the bishops claiming to know more about singularities than Dr. Hawking.

Scientific American (March 2014 issue) - What Stephen Hawking Really Meant When He Said There Are No Black Holes:

. . . what Hawking’s paper means is that there is something fundamental about black holes we still do not understand.

It appears that he thinks he knows more about the Divine than matters belonging to his own field.
I believe he says things for the attention. That’s what happens when creativity dries up but the desire for honour remains. One is only as good as the last published paper.

Oh yeah, forgot: scientificamerican.com/article/what-stephen-hawking-really-meant-when-he-said-there-are-no-black-holes/

 

[Faith1960]

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.

Just jumping in here, are you saying that it can never be proven empirically or mathematically that there are multiple universes?

 

[Faith1960]

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.

Just jumping in here, are you saying that it can never be proven empirically or mathematically that there are multiple universes?

 

[Tomdstone]

When he told the world that there was no God.

I don’t recall him saying that. When did that occur?
I recall him saying that he did not need the hypothesis that God intervened and directly created the Big Bang to explain it.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t recall him saying that. When did that occur?
I recall him saying that he did not need the hypothesis that God intervened and directly created the Big Bang to explain it.

Precisely…a very major difference.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t recall him saying that. When did that occur?
I recall him saying that he did not need the hypothesis that God intervened and directly created the Big Bang to explain it.

What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is we would know everything that God would know if there was a God, but there isn’t.

Interview with El Mundo Newspaper.

 

[inocente]

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.

The OP is a critique of a book by Hawking, even though Fr. Barron never read one word of it.

So the thread is about a book, not a peer reviewed paper in a science journal.

Scientists are citizens like you and have the same right of free speech as you. They have the same as anyone else right to say whatever they want about whatever they want in whatever capacity they want.

Unless you are calling for inquisitions and book burnings you’ll just have to get used to that and curb your censorial desires.

 

[inocente]

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.

Ratzinger mentions creation a lot more than that, as the quote is from his commentary on creation. Did you read the link, which reproduces pages 1-15 of his work?

If not, towards the end there’s this:

I just said how, gradually, in confronting its pagan environment and its own heart, the people of Israel experienced what “creation” was. Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater. - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

So, lots of creation accounts, constantly changing time and again, but ultimately “only images, which reveal something deeper and greater” of the creating act.

Personally, I like Isaiah’s account (say from 44:24 to 45:25) but I remember you said you find him cryptic.

I think viewing Creation as the big bang, as a physical event, is the same mindset that sees the Creator as an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. To me it misses the whole point.

 

[Brendan]

The OP is a critique of a book by Hawking, even though Fr. Barron never read one word of it.

So the thread is about a book, not a peer reviewed paper in a science journal.

Scientists are citizens like you and have the same right of free speech as you. They have the same as anyone else right to say whatever they want about whatever they want in whatever capacity they want.

Unless you are calling for inquisitions and book burnings you’ll just have to get used to that and curb your censorial desires.

No inquisitions, but of course, all of us have rights. I have the right to talk about St. Michael sweeping up excess entropy? Must that be called science?

If someone objects to me referring to it as a scientific theory, are they suppressing my rights of free speech?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ratzinger mentions creation a lot more than that, as the quote is from his commentary on creation. Did you read the link, which reproduces pages 1-15 of his work?

If not, towards the end there’s this:

I just said how, gradually, in confronting its pagan environment and its own heart, the people of Israel experienced what “creation” was. Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater. - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

So, lots of creation accounts, constantly changing time and again, but ultimately “only images, which reveal something deeper and greater” of the creating act.

Personally, I like Isaiah’s account (say from 44:24 to 45:25) but I remember you said you find him cryptic.

I think viewing Creation as the big bang, as a physical event, is the same mindset that sees the Creator as an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. To me it misses the whole point.

Yes I read the excerts to those pages and I don’t pretend to understand what he is getting at. Yes he is diffIcult to understand ( cryptic ). But I assure you there is no doubt in his mind about what the Catholic Church teaches, that God created the universe in time out of nothing - and that he firmly believes that…

But I see you still haven’t decided for yourself. I will give you this one thought. If anything at all exists which God did not create then God would not be God because that would mean there existed something outside his power.

Well I find it strange that any Christian or Jew could have any doubt about Creation. Even the Old Testament makes it quite clear and certainly it is crystal clear in the New Testament. Though I understand that for non-Catholics they might be undecided whether creation meant an eternal event or one that was time bound with an absolute beginning.

Linus2nd .

 

[inocente]

Yes I read the excerts to those pages and I don’t pretend to understand what he is getting at. Yes he is diffIcult to understand ( cryptic ). But I assure you there is no doubt in his mind about what the Catholic Church teaches, that God created the universe in time out of nothing - and that he firmly believes that…

But I see you still haven’t decided for yourself. I will give you this one thought. If anything at all exists which God did not create then God would not be God because that would mean there existed something outside his power.

Well I find it strange that any Christian or Jew could have any doubt about Creation. Even the Old Testament makes it quite clear and certainly it is crystal clear in the New Testament. Though I understand that for non-Catholics they might be undecided whether creation meant an eternal event or one that was time bound with an absolute beginning.

Suppose God actually created a proto-world which he destroyed to make the big bang and our world. Or suppose God made some multiverse whatjamacallit and our universe popped out of that. Or suppose even that we’ve misconstrued redshift and the CMB big-time, and actually there was no big bang, God did it some other way.

Did God create us to defend our certainties? Is the purpose of religion to contentedly graze on received dogmas? I guess it could be, but that would be more about protecting tradition than reaching for the truth. A tidy, if dull, world.

And a somewhat remote world, as far as we know 13.798 (±0.037) billion years away from Christ.

Still, if that’s what Catholicism is all about, who am I to disagree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps I’m wrong, and someone is welcome to point out why I am, if I am.

But it has seemed to me for a long time that a lot physicists anymore are simply “playing with mathematics”, though undoubtedly in a competent way as mathematics goes. Some seem to be out there in a world of mathematical models about things that, of their nature, can never be seen, let alone reproduced experimentally.

Reminds me just a bit of a complaint one of my brothers had when he did his Masters’ Thesis in engineering. He said that in order to write a truly “original” thesis, one usually had to resort to positing processes and conditions that can’t be actually approached, like using the total electron output of a star in the vacuum of space to do something or other. Mathematically, it all works out, but it doesn’t tell anybody anything that can be demonstrated or in any way useful.

And these physicists war with each other. No sooner does one “demonstrate” that the collision of “membranes” caused the Big Bang, than another one of them will “demonstrate” that it didn’t and couldn’t.

 

[inocente]

No inquisitions, but of course, all of us have rights. I have the right to talk about St. Michael sweeping up excess entropy? Must that be called science?

If someone objects to me referring to it as a scientific theory, are they suppressing my rights of free speech?

But that’s not the same. Previously you were commenting on Hawking apparently saying science “has convinced him there is no God”. Assuming he said something like that, it’s a personal conviction, not intended as an hypothesis. Perhaps one day Hawking will turn it into an hypothesis and publish it for testing, but until then surely it’s on a par with someone saying that evil in the world has convinced her there is no God, or that an act of kindness convinced him there is a God.