Stephen Hawking raised eyebrows recently when he said that Pope John Paul II had said scientists should not inquire into the moment the universe was created, because it was the work of God. It’s thus natural that a reader would write:
I’m somewhat suspect of THIS ARTICLE, specifically when Hawking quotes a dead man, but I thought I’d get your take on what JP2 might have meant when he said:
"It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not enquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."
I’m not sure I understand the distinction here.
Please elucidate.
I’ll do what I can. We have a problem, though, in that we don’t have the full text remarks of what Hawking said, only the snipped you quoted above from the press. There’s also the problem that Hawking said that JP2 said this at "a cosmology conference at the Vatican" (no date given, making it hard to look up what the pope may have said) and he then joked that "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."
In view of the last comment, the whole thing might have been a joke on Hawking’s part that got taken literally. Or it may be that he’s stretching the truth in order to serve the joke or he’s misremembering. He’s certainly not giving a verbatim quotation from the pope, who would not be expected to use the English colloquialism "OK" in an address to cosmologists.
The conference that JP2 addressed may have been THIS ONE, but maybe not. The published version of JP2’s remarks certainly don’t have anything in them like what Hawking reported.
The perplexing statement that we can examine "where" the universe began but not "the beginning itself" suggests that we are dealing with a badly remembered articulation of JP2’s thought, and in the absence of further info from Dr. Hawking or someone coming up with a plausible candidate for the text of the pope’s remarks, I can only speculate on what the pontiff may have been trying to communicate.
But I’m not averse to speculation (as long as it is flagged as such), so here goes: I would conjecture that JP2 encouraged scientists to study the origin of the universe but not to try to force the origin of the universe into a materialistic model that would reduce its existence to purely natural forces, without any Creator. Science must respect its own in-built limits, I conjecture JP2 as communicating, and not presume to preclude the action of the Creator by the theories it proposes. Science must speak to its own realm without trying to settle theological questions, just as theology must speak to its own realm without trying to settle scientific questions.
Or something along those lines.
How can such a brilliant mind make such a rash and errant mischaracterization, unless it reflects some anti-religious bias on Hawking’s part?
You don’t have to have a degree in theology or philosophy to undertsand the actual point that JPII was trying to make. It’s hard for me to believe that it escaped Hawking.
Like I always say, it’s difficult to take seriously the conjectures of a man whose solution to Earth’s problems is to move to another planet.
Nice crisp reply from CL. which will be totally ignored by the MSM, of course, but
It’s funny that after I had read about this and read the Catholic League’s response, my wife and I saw a documentary on PBS about Sir Isaac Newton. Apparently, some newly released documents of his (that have been kept in Jerusalem) show Newton, not as the cold, non-religious or anti-religious scientist that his “mechanical universe” suggests to modern scientists, but rather he was deeply religious (although he denied the trinitarian belief, he studied the Bible extensively, personally owning 18 copies). He also believed that his first law of physics (“A body at rest tends to remain at rest / a body in motion stays in straight-line motion at a constant speed; unless acted upon by an external force.”) proves that the universe must have a Prime Mover. It was too well designed and organized by a supreme being to have been caused by mere chance.
He also predicted the end of the world in the year 2060 A.D., but I think that’s going to be the common excuse for scientists to write-off Newton as a “religious nut”, regardless of his immense genius.
For the transcript of this interesting episode of “Nova”, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3217_newton.html.
I’m a little surprised this is generating so much furor now. Hawking pretty much said the same thing in A Brief History of Time and I recall hearing him say it on the vid probably 8 or 9 years ago. I kinda wish the Papa had put out a clarification notice at the time, because I thought it sounded odd then, too.
Ask me, Hawking heard what he wanted to hear, and ran with it. I’m glad somebody’s finally looking into the matter. It seems odd that JPII would make the sort of remark Hawking alleges only once, privately, and then never expound on it in an address or publication.
Hawking has made some pretty silly statements recently, even in his field of “expertese”. I wonder if he’s ever taken a course on philosophy. It’d seem to be of great help for him and keep him from wasting time chasing the wild goose theories of cosmology.
I remember hearing Hawking relate this story a good 10-12 years ago, though I think he may have phrased it a little differently. Though, I guess if the story originates in Briest History of Time, that would make sense…
Mostly, I think that Hawking wanted desperately to feel like he was doing something dangerous. He’s terribly proud of his atheism, and yet there’s no real edginess in being an atheist physicist anymore.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that his primary assistant/caretaker (one of his grad students from many years ago, and a very good physicist in his own right) is a committed Protestant of some stripe, and so inserted a morning scripture reading into his routine of getting Hawking up and ready for work each day. Then they’d argue about whether or not God existed over breakfast. Can’t remember where I heard that, though, so I may be remembering wrong.
“I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. ”
He wrongly gets how the universe began, and he also gets how it will end wrong. He probably gets the middle wrong as well. (I’m sure I’m getting my English wrong here as well).
Having met Hawking, he’s got a wicked sense of humor. It just doesn’t often come over well due to the delay involved in his typing and the fact that his synthetic voice lacks inflection. It would not surprise me at all if the whole thing was a great joke on his part.
In his “Brief History of Time”, Hawking presents the discredited view that the Catholic Church was the enemy of scientific advancement. This likely reflects his personal prejudice which again showed through with his remarks about JPII.
Thanks for this clarification. I’ve read athiests claim that Hawking’s statement proves that JPII really knew what the truth is (wink, wink) about the creation of the universe. This is very helpful information for run-ins with future expressions of that belief.
A page at this site has been displaying Hawking’s paraphrase for years, and has failed to verify his account of the pope’s words. Here’s the quotation in question from Brief History:
“He [the pope] 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!”
Even if Hawking did say that, I would have to doubt the validity of his claim. Just read his “No Boundry Proposal”. If you want to see circular reasoning that ‘supposedly’ does away with the necessity of God, one should read this.
It’s really a shame though. In his proposal Hawking admits that his idea can’t be supported by what we already know to be true about the nature of the universe; his proposal mainly is supported by his metaphysical beliefs (in the absence of any evidence). He openly admits that it cannot be deduced from some other extant principle. In his attempt to do away with the necessity of God he shows how illogical even the brightest mind can be.— further proof that cosmologists truly understand the consequence of there being a moment in time (singularity) in which the universe (time & matter/energy) began to exist.
I went to a conference Hawking gave in San Jose a few months ago where he made what sounds like pretty much the same statement. During his presentation there was a huge slide show going on behind him showing slides corresponding to what he said. When he got to the part about the Inquistion, it showed a slide of his disability stricken face peering out the bars of an old jail cell window, which prompted the laughter and applause from many in the audience.
At that point, I myself wondered whether this was exactly what JP2 had said about inquiry into the beginnings of the universe, as it seemed somewhat out of character, and I now feel saddened by the fact that so many are likely allowing themselves to be spoonfed this information from Hawking which in an agenda-driven manner perpetuates the monlithic perception of the Catholic Church.
My favourite comment on this elsewhere is someone who remarked that rather than being worried about the inquisition, Hawking should be worried about the “death with dignity” folks coming along to “put him out of his misery” of his disability and euthanising him.
I fear what might have happened to him if he wasn’t a well-known scientist, and happened to live in the netherlands.
Darwin:
I believe the incident you mentioned was in the broadcast of A Brief History of Time–I remember one of the interview subjects mentioning something along those lines.
Hawking’s famous book is not as anti-theistic as it appears from this one silly quote. It is certainly true that he could benefit from some understanding of metaphysics. A good article in First Things related to these issues (and Hawking’s position) is here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9608/reviews/barr.html
My own (somewhat derivative) thoughts are here:
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/jul2005p14_1996.html