Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe

[blutoski]

Excerpt:
Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.

Link: Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/international/news/20060615p2g00m0in039000c.html)

blutoskitorial:
I'm suspicious that this news report really reports a true quote from Hawking.

[Pauliesonne]

Something tells me Hawking didn't listen and something about that makes me very, very happy. :)

[ceo_esq]

Hawking is an official science advisor to the Vatican, so he certainly would have been in a position to discuss such things with the pope. However, it doesn't make much sense; not only was the previous pope a big science booster, but presumably the middle and the end of the physical universe - not just the beginning - are also God's work from a Christian perspective.

[drkitten]

However, it doesn't make much sense; not only was the previous pope a big science booster, but presumably the middle and the end of the physical universe - not just the beginning - are also God's work from a Christian perspective.

Also God's work, but in a less theologically contentious way.

[Kiwiwriter]

....walk into a bar, and the Pope tells the Scientist, "Don't study the creation of the universe."

"Why not?" asks the Scientist.

"Because you'll find out the Devil made Him do it!" says the Pope! :D

Actually, I can see the Pope's point: without mystery, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no church.

But I agree with Hawking. I want mysteries solved.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Chapter 8, paragraph 2 of A Brief History of Time I believe.


Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He 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!

http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/g.html

[hgc]

Galileo was born in 1564, and Hawking in 1942. I'm a little perplexed by what he means by "exactly."

ETA: Reading comprehension not my strong suit. 300 years after his death.

[Jimbo07]

Galileo was born in 1564, and Hawking in 1942. I'm a little perplexed by what he means by "exactly."

And when was Galileo's death?

[rocketdodger]

Actually, I can see the Pope's point: without mystery, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no church.


Actually that is not entirely correct. The pope's point would be: without most of humanity remaining in complete ignorance of our scripture being utter BS, there would be no faith in ridiculous dogmatic doctrine. Without faith in ridiculous dogmatic doctrine, there is no oppressive church funneling power up the hierarchy.

[I less than three logic]

And when was Galileo's death?
Galileo died on January 8th, 1642, and Stephen Hawking was born on January 8th, 1942. Exactly 300 years, to the day at least.

[Jimbo07]

Galileo died on January 8th, 1642, and Stephen Hawking was born on January 8th, 1942. Exactly 300 years, to the day at least.

Informative post, I<3, but I was just pointing it out to hgc, who has now edited the post, so my point is really pointless... :o

[Hawk one]

I personally like best the second last sentence in this report. :D

[KingMerv00]

I personally like best the second last sentence in this report. :D

Ha! He's not smart enough.

[ceo_esq]

Assuming that the anecdote predates Hawking's appointment as a papal advisor, you'd think by now he'd have had ample time to reconsider what the pope was really saying. His interpretation of the incident in A Brief History of Time doesn't - to my mind - seem consonant with what we know of JPII's attitudes.

[ImaginalDisc]

Assuming that the anecdote predates Hawking's appointment as a papal advisor, you'd think by now he'd have had ample time to reconsider what the pope was really saying. His interpretation of the incident in A Brief History of Time doesn't - to my mind - seem consonant with what we know of JPII's attitudes.
Oh? What was the Pope saying?

[ceo_esq]

Oh? What was the Pope saying?

It's not clear, since all we're going by is Hawking's account, but in light of what we know about JP2 it seems more than a bit unlikely that he would intend something in the vein in which Hawking apparently interpreted it (when he infers a negative attitude on the pope's part toward legitimate scientific research). But according to the OP, Hawking - who may not have known JP2's mind on such things in 1981 but presumably would be more familiar now - is still recycling the same anecdote with the same interpretation.

Whether the pope actually expressed something arguably hostile to science, or that Hawking is still under the mistaken impression that he did - either way, there's something mildly surprising in all this.

[Jimbo07]

is still recycling the same anecdote with the same interpretation.


Many people do this, but what shocked me, as I became aware of it, is that even capable scientists do it as they get older! :eye-poppi

[ceo_esq]

Oh? What was the Pope saying?

After some further Googling, here is what Pope John Paul II apparently said on the occasion in question:

"Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question…." [The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying,] "We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma."

(source (http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%202/060616_Hawking.htm))

[ImaginalDisc]

After some further Googling, here is what Pope John Paul II apparently said on the occasion in question:



(source (http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%202/060616_Hawking.htm))
So the Pope, without any evidence whatsoever, is telling the greatest astrophsyicist in the world not to study the origins of the universe, because the Pope, a supremely ignorant man on the subject of astrophsyics, claims there's no answer to be found?

Yeah, I would have been offended too.

[c4ts]

What does the Vatican need science advisors for? Shouldn't God fill them in on this?

[Bob Klase]

"Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question…." [The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying,] "We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma."

The pope did not continue by saying "Religion on the other hand will never have an insoluble enigma- we will make up an explanation for anything".

[RandFan]

Actually, I can see the Pope's point: without mystery, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no church. Yeah, I see the fear on the part of religious leaders but is it really grounded in reality? It was believed midway in the last century that advances in science would bring about the decline of religion. Yet here we are, we've synthesized carbon molecules (the providence of god), cloned sheep (ditto), mapped the human genome, sent space ships to the far reaches of our galaxy (we climbed MT Olympus and found no gods there) and split the atom and yet there has been a shift toward religiosity and not away from it.

[ceo_esq]

So the Pope, without any evidence whatsoever, is telling the greatest astrophsyicist in the world not to study the origins of the universe, because the Pope, a supremely ignorant man on the subject of astrophsyics, claims there's no answer to be found?

I'm afraid that the source I cited was right on this point: "There is a monumental difference between saying that there are certain questions that science cannot answer - which is what the pope said - and authoritarian pronouncements warning scientists to back off."

The pope appears to have been pointing out that scientific theories regarding the origins and early history of the universe do not address certain metaphysical questions regarding its beginnings (such as, one presumes, the existence of metaphysical efficient, formal and final causes, among other things). That's actually a fairly banal observation and is a natural corollary to the definition of physics and the nature of the scientific method. It's not an empirical claim, so it makes no sense to reproach the pope for saying it "without any evidence".

Since the pope was not making an astrophysical claim per se, his personal familiarity with astrophysics is not especially relevant. Still, one wonders why you would characterize the prior pope - a philomath who had a reputation as one of the best-informed persons in the world - as "a supremely ignorant man on the subject of astrophysics". John Paul II reputedly took an eager layman's interest in the natural sciences, and for more than 25 years he had the personal benefit of the world's most distinguished scientific consultative body (including Hawking). It seems implausible that he would be more ignorant about astrophysics than the average person (much less "supremely ignorant"), and certainly one cannot legitimately infer such a thing from the statement in question.

One is tempted to conclude that both the ad-hom and the bad-faith mischaracterization of the prior pope's words are symptomatic of an unseemly bias on your part.


What does the Vatican need science advisors for? Shouldn't God fill them in on this?

Has the Catholic Church ever asserted that matters independently discoverable by science were included within the divine revelation they believe God imparted to the Church? If they truly thought that, why would the foundations of modern science (to use Edward Grant (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521567629/104-1178223-1043105?v=glance&n=283155)'s phrase) have been laid within the context of the Church in the first place?

[ceo_esq]

Yeah, I see the fear on the part of religious leaders but is it really grounded in reality?

I'm not sure this was a fear of religious leaders so much as a hope of some secularists, but as you point out it didn't come true in any event.

[RandFan]

I'm not sure this was a fear of religious leaders so much as a hope of some secularists, but as you point out it didn't come true in any event.Considering the trial of Galileo and the resistance to many scientific inquiry I think it safe to conclude that religious leaders very much feared scientific discovery. I think it possible that one could construct an argument that religious leaders were more concerned with the ethics of scientific endeavor or simply where concerned with blasphemy, and perhaps, to a degree, that is valid but that doesn't explain the extreme measures taken. I would have to say that many leaders felt threatened.

[ceo_esq]

Considering the trial of Galileo and the resistance to many scientific inquiry I think it safe to conclude that religious leaders very much feared scientific discovery.

Which "resistance to many scientific inquiry"?


I think it possible that one could construct an argument that religious leaders were more concerned with the ethics of scientific endeavor or simply where concerned with blasphemy, and perhaps, to a degree, that is valid but that doesn't explain the extreme measures taken.

Which "extreme measures taken"?

[This Guy]

Of course the church wasn't afraid of science! It was just trying to protect the sheep from false teachings!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

"That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it"."

To quote another poster in these forums -

It's True!:covereyes (oops did I use the wrong smiley?)

[ceo_esq]

Of course the church wasn't afraid of science! It was just trying to protect the sheep from false teachings!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

"That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it"."

To quote another poster in these forums -

It's True!:covereyes (oops did I use the wrong smiley?)


Are you suggesting that the quoted passage is materially inaccurate? If so, in precisely which respects?

[lifegazer]

The pope needs to have a word with me, or read my thread. Hawking's views about the origins of the universe relate to a fantasy object... namely: a 'real universe'.
Hawkins should start theorising about the origin of what can be observed... namely: the origin of the sensations which yield the impression of a universe.

Give the pope my number or tell him to stop worrying about fiction writers for the reasons I detail. Hawkings knows Jack about 'reality'.

[Jeff Wagg]

The pope needs to have a word with me, or read my thread. Hawking's views about the origins of the universe relate to a fantasy object... namely: a 'real universe'.
Hawkins should start theorising about the origin of what can be observed... namely: the origin of the sensations which yield the impression of a universe.

Give the pope my number or tell him to stop worrying about fiction writers for the reasons I detail. Hawkings knows Jack about 'reality'.

By that logic, every writer is a fiction writer. Why are you talking to yourself anyway?

[lifegazer]

By that logic, every writer is a fiction writer.
There are fiction writers... and there are scientists who claim to know facts about 'reality' - such as Hawking.
Hawking knows nothing of a 'real world', since he cannot observe such a world. He observes the sensation of a world, which is an experience of a world. Therefore, his theories pertaining to how such a [real] world came into existence by itself are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. He needs to start thinking about how experience came into existence and deal with what is factual (i.e. experience), rather than smugly discuss realities that nobody can observe.

THE POPE IS SAFE. Unfortunately, he's as ignorant to this as is Hawking. As is everyone else, evidently.
Does anyone here know the pope's number?

[This Guy]

Are you suggesting that the quoted passage is materially inaccurate? If so, in precisely which respects?

I'm suggesting the quoted passage is one of the best examples of -

hypocrisy

The false expression of beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not actually possess.

and is IMHO -

ridiculous

Deserving of ridicule; foolish.
Absurd.


Hypocrisy in that while they offer no proof to back up their myths, they felt they could stop others from expressing their beliefs when the church felt there was no proof to back those beliefs up.

Ridiculous that the people allowed the church to have enough power to enforce such hypocrisy, and that a group supposedly representing the teachings of Christ would assume such power.

As for the accuracy, I can't speak on that. Not having been around or involved in the actual thought processes involved in the decision making. However, considering the source, I must say I have doubts on the accuracy of the statement.

I will say, in light of the reported statement of John Paul II in the OP, I think it's easier to assume the motives were more to safeguard religion than to protect the truth. But that's just an opinion.

[RandFan]

Which "resistance to many scientific inquiry"?

Which "extreme measures taken"?Are you serious? You don't think the trial and imprisonment of Galileo wasn't a resistance to scientific inquiry? You don't think that imprisonement for stating the truth isn't extreme? Don't you think that the action of the church had a chilling effect on scientific inquiry?

Your position seems naive at best.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

Myth: There is no war between science and Christianity.

Fact: The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.

Summary

The Church has never been on the cutting edge of science -- on the contrary, it has been the one persecuting scientists. The list of those who earned the wrath of the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. The Church has also been on the wrong side of the social sciences for over 1,500 years, actively promoting slavery, anti-Semitism, the torture and murder of women as witches, sexual repression, censorship and the Inquisition, Crusades and other aggressive wars, and capital punishment for misdemeanors. This has given rise to a Christian field called apologetics, which attempts to defend the Church's errors, even claiming that science and Christianity are compatible friends, not enemies. But the atrocities and scientific errors were too profound, and stretched on for too many millennia, to be defended in any reasonable manner.

... Argument, examples and endnotes follow.

[RandFan]

Hawking knows nothing of a 'real world', since he cannot observe such a world. He observes the sensation of a world, which is an experience of a world. One more time. Whether there is or is not a "real world" is of no relevance. Assuming that there is no "real world" changes nothing. We must still eat. We still must find shelter from the elements. We must still use a computer or something similar to it to post to a forum on the Internet. None of the technology that you use in everyday life would be any different if we were to assume that there is no "real world". You will still get sick. You will still need to do all of the mundane things that this non-real world imposes on you.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there."

[ceo_esq]

Are you serious? You don't think the trial and imprisonment of Galileo wasn't a resistance to scientific inquiry?

Since you referred to "the trial of Galileo and the resistance to many scientific inquiry" (boldface mine), when I asked for examples of the latter I assumed it was clear that I meant besides Galileo.

As for whether it's really fair or accurate to characterize the Galileo affair as a deliberate "resistance to scientific inquiry", that's a matter of debate. To whatever extent the Galileo affair was "resistance to scientific inquiry", it constitutes something of a historical aberration as far as the Church was concerned. I addressed this question here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=201982#post201982).


You don't think that imprisonement for stating the truth isn't extreme?

For the sake of accuracy, Galileo was not imprisoned. He spent 6 months' house arrest as a guest at the Tuscan ambassador's residence and was then allowed to retire to a villa near Florence. An undeserved fate, but as punisments go it was more Martha Stewart than Nelson Mandela.


Don't you think that the action of the church had a chilling effect on scientific inquiry?

I think it did, inadvertently, yet thankfully not to a great degree nor for very long. Some reasons why are discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1177214#post1177214).


Your position seems naive at best.

....

Argument, examples and endnotes follow.


The webpage you linked gets so many things wrong - most of which, as far as science is concerned, have already been debunked in the same thread I've been linking above - that it's hard to do anything else but shake one's head. The major inspiration for the "facts" presented there is Andrew White's A History of the Warfare Of Science With Theology in Christendom, an ahistorical screed against Catholicism that is disdained by serious historians of science nowadays (as discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1175128#post1175128), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1162481#post1162481), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1153207#post1153207), among other places).

[ceo_esq]

I'm suggesting the quoted passage is one of the best examples of -

hypocrisy

The false expression of beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not actually possess.

...

Hypocrisy in that while they offer no proof to back up their myths, they felt they could stop others from expressing their beliefs when the church felt there was no proof to back those beliefs up.

Referring back to the definition you gave, what are the "beliefs, feelings, or virtues" being expressed by the Church in that passage but which the Church does not actually believe, feel, or possess?


I will say, in light of the reported statement of John Paul II in the OP, I think it's easier to assume the motives were more to safeguard religion than to protect the truth.

You do realize, don't you, that the statement reported in the OP was never made by the pope, and that the statement he actually made says something substantially different?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm afraid that the source I cited was right on this point: "There is a monumental difference between saying that there are certain questions that science cannot answer - which is what the pope said - and authoritarian pronouncements warning scientists to back off."


That is theistic claptrap.

Strictly speaking, one cannot say are questions science cannot answer. It is more correct to say, "There are questions cience has not yet answered, and may not be able to answer." How would we know unless we tried? Only a great fool would assume something cannot be done before it is tried.

[RandFan]

Since you referred to "the trial of Galileo and the resistance to many scientific inquiry" (boldface mine), when I asked for examples of the latter I assumed it was clear that I meant besides Galileo. No, it wasn't.

As for whether it's really fair or accurate to characterize the Galileo affair as a deliberate "resistance to scientific inquiry", that's a matter of debate. To whatever extent the Galileo affair was "resistance to scientific inquiry", it constitutes something of a historical aberration as far as the Church was concerned. I addressed this question here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=201982#post201982). Your link doesn't work. I don't think it is an abertion and have posted evidence that it was not.

For the sake of accuracy, Galileo was not imprisoned. He spent 6 months' house arrest as a guest at the Tuscan ambassador's residence and was then allowed to retire to a villa near Florence. An undeserved fate, but as punisments go it was more Martha Stewart than Nelson Mandela. {shrug}

The webpage you linked gets so many things wrong - most of which, as far as science is concerned, have already been debunked in the same thread I've been linking above - that it's hard to do anything else but shake one's head. The major inspiration for the "facts" presented there is Andrew White's A History of the Warfare Of Science With Theology in Christendom, an ahistorical screed against Catholicism that is disdained by serious historians of science nowadays (as discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1175128#post1175128), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1162481#post1162481), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1153207#post1153207), among other places). None of your links work. In any event, I never cared for arguing by link. Could you please make an argument here. If you want copy and paste what you think is relevant. And BTW, I don't think that the webpage "gets so many things wrong".

[AWPrime]

I
The pope appears to have been pointing out that scientific theories regarding the origins and early history of the universe do not address certain metaphysical questions regarding its beginnings (such as, one presumes, the existence of metaphysical efficient, formal and final causes, among other things).
Yes, proper Science has a hard time producing BS.

[ceo_esq]

Your link doesn't work. I don't think it is an abertion and have posted evidence that it was not.

Strange, the link works for me.

None of your links work. In any event, I never cared for arguing by link. Could you please make an argument here. If you want copy and paste what you think is relevant.

Again, the links work for me, so I don't know where the technical problem lies. I'm not linking offsite, either; I'm citing to directly relevant posts of mine, all in the same thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763

I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, since there's already a long thread devoted primarily to aspects of the historical relationship between Christianity and science, and which represents a couple hundred hours' old-fashioned library research just for me over several years. When I've already presented arguments at great length, with extensive citations to scholarly authority, in one thread, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to reproduce it all here. That's what the linking function is for, and I'm at a loss to explain why it's not working for you in this case.

[ceo_esq]

That is theistic claptrap.

Strictly speaking, one cannot say are questions science cannot answer. It is more correct to say, "There are questions cience has not yet answered, and may not be able to answer." How would we know unless we tried? Only a great fool would assume something cannot be done before it is tried.

When you're talking about things that are definitionally, logically, impossible rather than simply practically impossible, that's not true. An a priori impossibility does not have to be tried to be demonstrated; that's why it's a priori. The pope was not saying that there are any scientific questions that science can't answer. That the scientific method is designed to uncover answers to all questions of a physical, empirical nature, but only those questions, is so fundamentally obvious that it's surprising anyone needed reminding.

[RandFan]

Strange, the link works for me.



Again, the links work for me, so I don't know where the technical problem lies. I'm not linking offsite, either; I'm citing to directly relevant posts of mine, all in the same thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763 I'm not making it up. The links don't work. When I click on the link it just times out. When I copy and paste to a browser it just times out.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel here... Then don't do anything. You've made a claim and you don't wish to follow it up. You post bogus links as though that is proof of something.

Edit: BTW, the format of your link is clearly wrong. It should look like this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1711510#post1711510

Odd, when I edit I see the entire link. when I submit it trucates it.

forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1711510#post1711510 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1711510#post1711510)

[RandFan]

That's what the linking function is for, and I'm at a loss to explain why it's not working for you in this case. I've tried it on my laptop and a seperate desktop and it doesn't work on those computers either. Could soemone else try the links to see if they work?

[JamesDillon]

I've tried it on my laptop and a seperate desktop and it doesn't work on those computers either. Could soemone else try the links to see if they work?
It worked for me; it took a bit longer than usual to load, but it did. What kind of connection are you using? I'm on wireless broadband.

[RandFan]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

Myth: There is no war between science and Christianity.

Fact: The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.

Summary

The Church has never been on the cutting edge of science -- on the contrary, it has been the one persecuting scientists. The list of those who earned the wrath of the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. The Church has also been on the wrong side of the social sciences for over 1,500 years, actively promoting slavery, anti-Semitism, the torture and murder of women as witches, sexual repression, censorship and the Inquisition, Crusades and other aggressive wars, and capital punishment for misdemeanors. This has given rise to a Christian field called apologetics, which attempts to defend the Church's errors, even claiming that science and Christianity are compatible friends, not enemies. But the atrocities and scientific errors were too profound, and stretched on for too many millennia, to be defended in any reasonable manner. I think the site speaks for itself.

[AWPrime]

After some further Googling, here is what Pope John Paul II apparently said on the occasion in question:

"Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question…." [The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying,] "We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma."

(source (http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%202/060616_Hawking.htm))
This can be viewed in several ways:

1. You can't get any meaningful answers so don't even try.
2. Whatever you come up with, I will fill the blanks up with religious BS. And that is why you need me.
3. I imagined a problem you can't solve, no matter what you do; it will not solve my imaginary problem.


If I was Hawking, then I wouldn’t find it at all helpful.

[RandFan]

I was able to get it to work.

CEO, 16 Pages? I'm supposed to wade through 16 pages of argument and rebutal? Are you kidding?

Sorry,

If you have a relevant post I will look at it. Your links BTW just take me to the top of the page. It doesn't take me to any posts. Could you at least give me the # of the relevant posts?

[RandFan]

It worked for me; it took a bit longer than usual to load, but it did. What kind of connection are you using? I'm on wireless broadband.James, do the links take you to specific posts or just to the thread?

[ceo_esq]

I was able to get it to work.

CEO, 16 Pages? I'm supposed to wade through 16 pages of argument and rebutal? Are you kidding?

Sorry,

If you have a relevant post I will look at it. Your links BTW just take me to the top of the page. It doesn't take me to any posts. Could you at least give me the # of the relevant posts?

Sorry, I did link to specific posts - I mean c'mon, I wouldn't ask you to wade through 16 pages - but I guess that's not working either. Anyway, here are the post numbers with specific links.

On Galileo's trial, whether it really was a challenge to scientific inquiry, and whether it was at all typical:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=201982#post201982


On how the Galileo affair had only a limited chilling effect on scientific inquiry:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1177214#post1177214


On Andrew White's discredited book that was the chief source for the history-of-science claims on the website you linked:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1175128#post1175128
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1162481#post1162481
and the last part of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1153207#post1153207


An essay (not mine) about specific errors in White's book (a number of which are repeated or alluded to in the site you linked) can be found here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm

[RandFan]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=201982#post 201982 It doesn't work. There are 615 posts in the thread. Could you give me the # of the post and I will find it?


On how the Galileo affair had only a limited chilling effect on scientific inquiry:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1177214#post1177214 This takes me to post # 503 and I don't see the relevance.

On Andrew White's discredited book that was the chief source for the history-of-science claims on the website you linked:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1175128#post1175128

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1162481#post1162481
and the last part of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1153207#post1153207 None of these are working for me. I don't have a clue what is going on. I can make links and follow them. I can't follow yours.


An essay (not mine) about specific errors in White's book (a number of which are repeated or alluded to in the site you linked) can be found here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm I'm not impressed. In fact I'm disappointed. An example: See the second bulleted point.

Cecco d’Ascoli was burnt at the stake. His crime? Well, according to the essay, heresy. You see he was an astrologer and not an astronomer. He said that Jesus was subject to the stars.

First bulleted point.

Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoliheresyrecognize imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.” So, attack Bacon for not being a true scotsman... I mean scientist. This is really pathetic.

Roger Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon) (c. 1214 – 1294), also known as Doctor Mirabilis (Latin: "astounding teacher"), was one of the most famous Franciscan friars of his time. He was an English philosopher who placed considerable emphasis on empiricism, and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method in the West; though later studies have emphasized his reliance on occult and alchemical traditions. He was intimately acquainted with the philosophical and scientific insights of the Arab world, one of the most advanced civilizations at the time.
Good, real good, attack Bacon.

Are you really comfortable with these appologetic tactics?

[ImaginalDisc]

When you're talking about things that are definitionally, logically, impossible rather than simply practically impossible, that's not true. An a priori impossibility does not have to be tried to be demonstrated; that's why it's a priori. The pope was not saying that there are any scientific questions that science can't answer. That the scientific method is designed to uncover answers to all questions of a physical, empirical nature, but only those questions, is so fundamentally obvious that it's surprising anyone needed reminding.
What are you talking about? What about the begining of the universe is not amenable to scientific inquiry?

[ceo_esq]

It doesn't work. There are 615 posts in the thread. Could you give me the # of the post and I will find it?


This takes me to post # 503 and I don't see the relevance.

None of these are working for me. I don't have a clue what is going on. I can make links and follow them. I can't follow yours.

It's weird alright. The post numbers within the thread are:

73
503 (relevant as "as a correction to the view, found even in the best modern historians, that the Church's action in the matter of Galileo made 'Copernican astronomy a forbidden topic among faithful Catholics for ... two centuries'"; this goes to the mitigation of any chilling effect)
490
382
317 (end)


I'm not impressed. In fact I'm disappointed. An example: See the second bulleted point.

Cecco d’Ascoli was burnt at the stake. His crime? Well, according to the essay, heresy. You see he was an astrologer and not an astronomer. He said that Jesus was subject to the stars.

What's your point? After all, he was convicted of heresy, but not as a result of any scientific proposition.


So, attack Bacon for not being a true scotsman... I mean scientist. This is really pathetic.

I don't endorse the assessment that Bacon was not a scientist, although that's subject to reasonable dispute, but it's hardly the chief point of that paragraph. The chief point remains that Bacon, as far as reputable historians (such as Lindberg) can determine, was not punished for any reason having to do with science. In typical fashion, White got this one wrong. That's the only point worth retaining here.

Now that you seem to be able to read the other links, just consult the authorities (Lindberg, Russell, Gould and others) I quote in the other thread regarding White's myth-making, and you'll see why any author citing White favorably is almost certain to have a wrong understanding of history and an anti-Catholic streak.

[ceo_esq]

What are you talking about? What about the begining of the universe is not amenable to scientific inquiry?

Just for example, was it caused for a purpose?

[RandFan]

What's your point? After all, he was convicted of heresy, but not as a result of any scientific proposition. Let's be certain that we understand what is going on here. We will take this slow. You agree that the man was found guilty of heresy and was burnt at the stake, right? Those are the salient facts.

her·e·sy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heresy)


An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member So, having an opinion or believing in a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs could get you burned alive, right? Please feel free to offer a different definition or explanation if you feel that is necessary.

[This Guy]

Referring back to the definition you gave, what are the "beliefs, feelings, or virtues" being expressed by the Church in that passage but which the Church does not actually believe, feel, or possess?

Thought I explained my feelings there. But I'll try again. The church claimed Galileo had no proof to back his claim, and that was the reason they suppressed his views. Yet, they offer no proof to back up their claims/myths, which they not only express freely, but even forced on the people at times.


You do realize, don't you, that the statement reported in the OP was never made by the pope, and that the statement he actually made says something substantially different?

So, we have the Catholic's defending the church. I'd love to know what was left out at the point of the ... in the Catholic League's quote of the pope.

By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’ The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying

They go on to say -
“In 1988, John Paul said that ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’

Are there examples of religion purifying science from idolatry and false absolutes? I guess there must be, since I'm not aware of any scientific idols, or false absolutes derived from true science.

Regardless, the fact is the infallible pope(s) from Galileo's days was/were involved in the suppression of true scientific fact. You can offer all the excuses you want, but the fact is your great church HAS suppressed science.

If/when science is able to fully explain our beginning (creation if you will) there will be little mystery left for the church to provide an answer for. That it would be in the best interest of the church if science ignored that question is beyond doubt. IMHO :)

[ImaginalDisc]

Just for example, was it caused for a purpose?

Even if we codifed every bit of possible informarion about the formation of the universe, there's still room for people to make up an imaginary friend who cannot be detected to take the credit for doing it.

[ceo_esq]

Let's be certain that we understand what is going on here. We will take this slow. You agree that the man was found guilty of heresy and was burnt at the stake, right? Those are the salient facts.

It certainly appears to be the case that he was found guilty of heresy by ecclesiastical authorities and as a result was burned at the stake. I assume that the capital sentence was imposed and carried out at the discretion of civil authorities (ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, and heresy was of course a secular offense - analyzed on the model of treason - as well as an ecclesiastical one). I wish I had more information, but I haven't had the opportunity to research the details of Cecco's sentence very far.


So, having an opinion or believing in a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs could get you burned alive, right? Please feel free to offer a different definition or explanation if you feel that is necessary.

In this context, I suppose the stricter sense is the appropriate one. As I understand it (and this seems more or less consistent with the latter part of the definition you gave), heresy is the obstinate denial, by a baptized Catholic, of a religious doctrine the truth of which the Catholic faith requires Catholics to believe. It is true, as you point out, that a convicted relapsed heretic could end up being burned alive during the era in question.

[ceo_esq]

Even if we codifed every bit of possible informarion about the formation of the universe, there's still room for people to make up an imaginary friend who cannot be detected to take the credit for doing it.

You've got a problem with your formulation there: information about whether the universe was created for a purpose is possible information about the formation of the universe; it just isn't scientific information. Still, you're right - there is still room for the sort of thing you describe, but that has nothing to do with religion specifically. It's just a corollary of the fact that science does not deal in final causes, whether they are divine or human and whether they are imaginary or real.

[ned flandas]

Is it possible to get spoken word versions of Stephen Hawkins books?

If so are they read in a human voice or that one he has?

[ceo_esq]

Is it possible to get spoken word versions of Stephen Hawkins books?

If so are they read in a human voice or that one he has?

Yes, you can get them, and they are read by voice actors. Generally English actors I believe, as Hawking is an Englishman - although people tend to overlook that because they're used to his American-accented voice synthesizer.

[Kiwiwriter]

Yeah, I see the fear on the part of religious leaders but is it really grounded in reality? It was believed midway in the last century that advances in science would bring about the decline of religion. Yet here we are, we've synthesized carbon molecules (the providence of god), cloned sheep (ditto), mapped the human genome, sent space ships to the far reaches of our galaxy (we climbed MT Olympus and found no gods there) and split the atom and yet there has been a shift toward religiosity and not away from it.

Yeah, that's the incredible irony...the more science shows how things were done, and that it wasn't a bloody miracle, but a reasonably clear scientific process, the greater the growth of fundamentalist religion and religiosity. In the Middle East, radical Islamists. In the West, Jimmy Bakker, Pat Robertson, et al. In Asia, Aum Shin Rikyo and my favorite, Reverend Sun Myung Moon (I call him Sun Set Loony).

But any time you have someone in power, and there's a threat to that power, they react sharply and harshly. Off with his head!

[ImaginalDisc]

You've got a problem with your formulation there: information about whether the universe was created for a purpose is possible information about the formation of the universe; it just isn't scientific information. Still, you're right - there is still room for the sort of thing you describe, but that has nothing to do with religion specifically. It's just a corollary of the fact that science does not deal in final causes, whether they are divine or human and whether they are imaginary or real.
"Science does not deal in final causes" What are you talking about? It's prefectly possible that the universe has a single, simple cause.

[JamesDillon]

"Science does not deal in final causes" What are you talking about? It's prefectly possible that the universe has a single, simple cause.
If I'm reading this correctly, I think what ceo is getting at is the fact that there are true propositions that can't be proved scientifically, because science operates only within the bounds of its empiricist methodology and some propositions can't be tested empirically. I think the proposition "God exists" is one of these-- as you noted, it's always possible to describe an invisible man in the sky whose existence can't be empirically falsified.

[ImaginalDisc]

If I'm reading this correctly, I think what ceo is getting at is the fact that there are true propositions that can't be proved scientifically, because science operates only within the bounds of its empiricist methodology and some propositions can't be tested empirically. I think the proposition "God exists" is one of these-- as you noted, it's always possible to describe an invisible man in the sky whose existence can't be empirically falsified.
Yes, but how does that translate into a reason not to study the origins of the universe?

[ceo_esq]

"Science does not deal in final causes" What are you talking about? It's prefectly possible that the universe has a single, simple cause.

Kind of. The universe could conceivably have a single efficient cause (though it would presumably still also have other causes in the classical sense, e.g. a material cause). But science cannot tell us whether the beginning of the universe had a final cause (a purpose, or an intention on the part of an agent for the sake of which it was produced). In fact, science never assures us whether we have actually identified all physical efficient causes of an event, and that's to say nothing of the possibility of non-physical efficient causes - which, just as with final causes, science simply doesn't get into by definition.

[ImaginalDisc]

Kind of. The universe could conceivably have a single efficient cause (though it would presumably still also have other causes in the classical sense, e.g. a material cause). But science cannot tell us whether the beginning of the universe had a final cause (a purpose, or an intention on the part of an agent for the sake of which it was produced). In fact, science never assures us whether we have actually identified all physical efficient causes of an event, and that's to say nothing of the possibility of non-physical efficient causes - which, just as with final causes, science simply doesn't get into by definition.
Even assuming any of that has any meaning or value, why do you think the Pope told Hawkings not to study the begining of the universe?

[ceo_esq]

Yes, but how does that translate into a reason not to study the origins of the universe?

It doesn't, if by "studying the origins of the universe" one means using the scientific method in an attempt to ascertain the truth of empirically falsifiable propositions about the origins of the universe.

The pope wasn't giving a reason not to study the origins of the universe scientifically in the foregoing sense; that appears to have been Hawking's rather curious misinterpretation or misrecollection.

[ceo_esq]

Even assuming any of that has any meaning or value, why do you think the Pope told Hawkings not to study the begining of the universe?

To repeat, I don't think the pope ever told Hawking any such thing, unless there's a part of the record we're missing.

[This Guy]

To repeat, I don't think the pope ever told Hawking any such thing, unless there's a part of the record we're missing.

Is there a complete record of what the pope said?

The link you provided earlier appears to have left something out. Without a complete record of what the pope said, I see no reason to doubt Hawking's interpretation, since he was there, and we were not.

I can see no reason for Hawking to lie about it. But I can see why the pope would want to discourage the study of the beginning of the universe.

[chriswl]

It doesn't, if by "studying the origins of the universe" one means using the scientific method in an attempt to ascertain the truth of empirically falsifiable propositions about the origins of the universe.
But the boundaries between the type of theoretical physics that Hawking does and philosophy are very blurred. And cosmology is often criticised for its lack of falsifiability. The whole point of Hawking's remarks were that he had a theory that he believed described a universe that was finite in time but self-contained and not requiring an act of creation - his no-boundary condition. I don't understand the theory myself. But I do suspect that physicists understand notions like time and causality better than philosophers. Some philosophical concepts just make more sense when you approach then via the language of mathematics.

[JamesDillon]

But the boundaries between the type of theoretical physics that Hawking does and philosophy are very blurred. And cosmology is often criticised for its lack of falsifiability.
Popper argued that the distinction between science and metaphysics should be the criterion of falsifiability-- outside the realm of falsifiable statements, one can't be said to be doing science any longer. I don't know enough about cosmology to have an informed opinion about which side of Popper's dividing line it falls, but I think the principle makes sense. Beyond the realm of falsifiability, we're engaging in pure speculation. That's not a reason not to do it, but it is, I think, a qualitiative difference.

But I do suspect that physicists understand notions like time and causality better than philosophers. Some philosophical concepts just make more sense when you approach then via the language of mathematics.
I think I agree to an extent, but on the other hand I think that physicists and philosophers are asking different questions. Physicists generally want to know how something works; philosophers ask what it means. The two views are complementary and I think it could be said that physicists don't understand these issues better, but differently. But I could be wrong about that. I don't see why, in any case, physicists would have a deeper insight into the nature of causality than philosophers, though.

[ceo_esq]

Is there a complete record of what the pope said?

Yes, here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1981/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19811003_accademia-scienze_fr.html), but unfortunately the full text is solely available in French and Italian. I am only fluent in the first, but I offer the following translation of what appear to me to be the most relevant parts of the speech:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin and makeup of the universe, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but to articulate the proper relationship of humankind to God and to the universe. Holy Scripture simply means to state that the world was created by God, and to teach this truth it expresses itself in the cosmological terms customary in the time of the writer. The Holy Book is intended also to instruct mankind that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as other cosmogonies and other cosmologies have taught, but that it was created in the service of man and for the glory of God. Any other teaching on the origin and makeup of the universe is foreign to the intentions of the Bible, which is not meant to teach how the heavens were made, but how to go to heaven.

Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves open the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question: that human knowledge which transcends physics and astrophysics, and which we call metaphysics, is needed; and especially the knowledge that comes from God's revelation. Thirty years ago, on November 22, 1951, my predecessor Pope Pius XII, referring to the problem of the origins of the universe during a conference on microquakes organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said, "We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma."

The translation on the other site was pretty accurate for the parts it quoted.


Without a complete record of what the pope said, I see no reason to doubt Hawking's interpretation, since he was there, and we were not.

Well, even before we found the complete record, there was good cause reason to suspect Hawking misunderstood or misremembered, because his version is completely out of character for the pope and the Catholic Church generally.


I can see no reason for Hawking to lie about it.

No one would suggest he was lying about it. He almost certainly believes that's what the pope's message was.


But I can see why the pope would want to discourage the study of the beginning of the universe.

I can't, frankly. It wouldn't make sense. That's one reason I immediately suspected Hawking's account of the occasion was inaccurate.

[This Guy]

Yes, here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1981/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19811003_accademia-scienze_fr.html), but unfortunately the full text is solely available in French and Italian. I am only fluent in the first, but I offer the following translation of what appear to me to be the most relevant parts of the speech:



The translation on the other site was pretty accurate for the parts it quoted.




Well, even before we found the complete record, there was good cause reason to suspect Hawking misunderstood or misremembered, because his version is completely out of character for the pope and the Catholic Church generally.




No one would suggest he was lying about it. He almost certainly believes that's what the pope's message was.




I can't, frankly. It wouldn't make sense. That's one reason I immediately suspected Hawking's account of the occasion was inaccurate.


Thanks for the info! On the way to work right now, but look forward to considering this in the AM :)

[RandFan]

It certainly appears to be the case that he was found guilty of heresy by ecclesiastical authorities and as a result was burned at the stake. I assume that the capital sentence was imposed and carried out at the discretion of civil authorities (ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, and heresy was of course a secular offense - analyzed on the model of treason - as well as an ecclesiastical one). I wish I had more information, but I haven't had the opportunity to research the details of Cecco's sentence very far. "Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?" --Henry II

Didn't god bother to tell the Pope that it is not nice to burn people to death or did the Pope forget to communicate God's commandment to the civil authorities? I'm curious, just how often did the church protest these kinds of sentences? Exactly whose dirty work was it? Was henry innocent of Becket's death because he did not order the execution directly? Do you sincerely believe that there is any significance to attributing these sentences to the civil authorities?

You would agree that burning someone at the stake is extreme, right?

In this context, I suppose the stricter sense is the appropriate one. As I understand it (and this seems more or less consistent with the latter part of the definition you gave), heresy is the obstinate denial, by a baptized Catholic, of a religious doctrine the truth of which the Catholic faith requires Catholics to believe. It is true, as you point out, that a convicted relapsed heretic could end up being burned alive during the era in question. So any Catholic, say a scientist, who discovered something that he or she believed was true but was counter to catholic dogma could be put to death? Don't you honestly think that this would put a crimp on scientific inquiry?

[This Guy]

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin and makeup of the universe, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but to articulate the proper relationship of humankind to God and to the universe. Holy Scripture simply means to state that the world was created by God, and to teach this truth it expresses itself in the cosmological terms customary in the time of the writer. The Holy Book is intended also to instruct mankind that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as other cosmogonies and other cosmologies have taught, but that it was created in the service of man and for the glory of God. Any other teaching on the origin and makeup of the universe is foreign to the intentions of the Bible, which is not meant to teach how the heavens were made, but how to go to heaven.

Very sensible statement IMHO. In effect it says only read the parts about getting to heaven, the rest is crap (ok, I'll admit to being a bit biased on this, but it's close;-)

Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves open the problem concerning the beginning of the universe.

I think to date, this is more or less correct. Even the theory that the universe continuously expands and contracts, going from a small marble size, to whatever size our universe expands to before (IF) it starts collapsing, leaves the question of where the stuff came from to start the show without an answer.

By itself science cannot resolve such a question: that human knowledge which transcends physics and astrophysics, and which we call metaphysics, is needed; and especially the knowledge that comes from God's revelation.

Here's where I would beg to differ. but first, if this is an accurate translation, I would have to agree that there is no request to not investigate the beginning of the universe, or to not try and answer the question of where it came from.

My gripe, if you will, is that I think, by and large, this part of JP II's statement is opinion stated as fact. I would not hazard a guess at what the science of the next few years, let alone the next few centuries, will be able to answer.

And I would argue that all of the great breakthroughs in science have had no influence from "the knowledge that comes from God's revelation". I can understand a pope feeling that to be the case, but it is at best an opinion, at worse, it's BS. But again, he was the pope. Wouldn't do for him to say that "maybe" god had something to do with it ;)

Well, that's my opinion anyway :)

I would say that IF at some time the collapsing/expanding universe is proved, it would leave little room for the involvement of a god. But of course, one can always be assigned.

I tend to agree, so far as I understand it, with the continuously expanding/collapsing universe idea. And I'm of the opinion that if it is true, depending on which number cycle we are in now, there could have been, and may yet be, hundreds or thousands of "Earths" whatever the planets were/will be called, that have had/will have people just like us, go through the same discussions about the same ideas of gods and creation. I also feel that there may well be other planets out there now that have, or will go through the same stages we have. But, that's all a digression from the OP's topic, and again, just an opinion of mine.

As for the (now) 50 year old quote of another pope, based on the science of 50 years ago, I'd say that is irrelevant, and won't get into that.

Thanks again for the info. I do good to speak/read English, so I'd never be able to figure out the original text of what JP II said. :)

[ceo_esq]

"Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?" --Henry II

...

Was henry innocent of Becket's death because he did not order the execution directly?

Who knows what actually happened, but Henry II was probably innocent of Becket's murder, yes. According to Wikipedia, "Most historians agree that Henry didn't actually intend for Becket to be murdered, despite his harsh words."


I'm curious, just how often did the church protest these kinds of sentences?

Good question. I don't have any information offhand.


Exactly whose dirty work was it? ... Do you sincerely believe that there is any significance to attributing these sentences to the civil authorities?

It is surely not devoid of significance - few aspects (even technical ones) of judicial process are - but I daresay the extent of the actual significance varies according to the time and place in question, and possibly even across individual cases.


You would agree that burning someone at the stake is extreme, right?

It's extreme in a general way, at least by modern standards, but that's not strictly the question at hand. We're considering specifically whether it was, in your phrase, an "extreme measure" taken in opposition to science, and I think the answer is no. A "measure" is an action taken as a means to an end, and the "ends" served by the ecclesiastical and secular prohibitions on heresy did not include the repression of science.


So any Catholic, say a scientist, who discovered something that he or she believed was true but was counter to catholic dogma could be put to death?

If by "discovered", you mean discovered scientifically, then I don't think so. In one of the posts I linked before, I cited an important point underscored by Professors Numbers and Lindberg: We have no record of any scientist ever losing his life because of his scientific views. Considering that we have no shortage of examples of people losing their lives for their views and activities in other areas (politics; theology; etc.), science was practically a "safe harbor". A likely reason for this is that it's not really possible to discover scientifically anything that is counter to Catholic dogma, which consists almost entirely of empirically unfalsifiable propositions.


Don't you honestly think that this would put a crimp on scientific inquiry?

You're asking me if it would? Don't you mean to ask if it actually did? The answer is, the record does not show that heresy executions ever put a noticeable crimp on scientific inquiry. Even in Galileo's unique case, any "crimp" was, as I have shown, limited (in other words, even in the specific area of Copernican astronomy and even within the Church itself, inquiry did not slack off much or for long).

This makes good sense, moreover: why would people have drawn a connection between heresy and science, since Catholicism is made up in such a way as to all-but-preclude that kind of conflict? Science must have been considered one of the least risky fields of inquiry a Catholic intellectual could get into, as far as stake-burnings and such are concerned.

[RandFan]

Who knows what actually happened, but Henry II was probably innocent of Becket's murder, yes. According to Wikipedia, "Most historians agree that Henry didn't actually intend for Becket to be murdered, despite his harsh words." 1.) Cool, now, if Henry had used those words again against another adversary could it then be said that Henry II was guilty of murder?

Forgive my focus but this is important.

2.) From a secular point of view, who stood to benefit from heresy laws?
3.) Do heresy laws serve any secular purposes?
4.) Did the Catholic church take an official stand for or against heresy laws?
5.) What was the Catholic church's stance on capital punishment?
6.) Do you believe that the Catholic church was powerless to intercede on behalf of those found guilty of heresy and spare their lives?

[ceo_esq]

1.) Cool, now, if Henry had used those words again against another adversary could it then be said that Henry II was guilty of murder?

Not by itself. There are a number of specific factual considerations that go into establishing guilt of murder. Henry's actual state of mind would remain an essential one.


2.) From a secular point of view, who stood to benefit from heresy laws?
3.) Do heresy laws serve any secular purposes?

I'll consider these questions together. Medieval European secular law had inherited from the Romans a legal tradition that treated heresy as a form of treason. One reason for this seems to have been that, although the Church itself never endorsed the notion of civil rulership by "divine right" (and eventually came to take a rather dim view of it), secular rulers considered a challenge to religious orthodoxy to contain an implicit challenge to the authority of kings and emperors. Heretics also were perceived, in some cases justifiably, as fomentors of rebellion and social upheaval. I think another relevant factor was the perception that a kingdom that permitted heresy to prosper might well incur some form of divine punishment at the expense of rulers and ruled alike. So I think that the entire polity was presumed to benefit from secular laws against heresy, regardless of what stance the Church took in particular cases (there are a number of recorded instances of angry mobs breaking accused heretics out of Church custody in order to execute them). Some of the benefits of secular laws on heresy were imaginary, others were arguably real; of the real ones, we would now judge many to be outweighed, obviously, by the negative repercussions of imposing such laws.


4.) Did the Catholic church take an official stand for or against heresy laws?

I don't know.

By the way, is investigating the answers to all of these questions on my homework list, or are you going to take any of them?


5.) What was the Catholic church's stance on capital punishment?

That's a fairly complicated historical question. Capital punishment for what? At what time period? In the late 12th century, Petrus Cantor (the influential canon of Notre Dame) could write of the Cathars, "Although the Apostle said, 'A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,' he certainly did not say, 'Kill him'. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death."


6.) Do you believe that the Catholic church was powerless to intercede on behalf of those found guilty of heresy and spare their lives?

How much power it had to do so obviously depended on the specific time and geographical location, and many other contextual factors. Rome tried in vain to intercede, for example, on behalf of the victims of the Inquisition carried out by the Spanish crown. As another example, I think most would agree that the Church could not have done much to suspend Joan of Arc's civil sentence.

[RandFan]

Not by itself. There are a number of specific factual considerations that go into establishing guilt of murder. Henry's actual state of mind would remain an essential one. I think at the very least it would be reckless endangerment. Clearly Henry would understand that such actions carry grave consequences. He couldn't plead ignorance since he had such a great object lesson. That being said, I was trying to make a point and I'm afraid it is lost. My fault.

I'll consider these questions together. Medieval European secular law had inherited from the Romans a legal tradition that treated heresy as a form of treason. One reason for this seems to have been that, although the Church itself never endorsed the notion of civil rulership by "divine right" (and eventually came to take a rather dim view of it), secular rulers considered a challenge to religious orthodoxy to contain an implicit challenge to the authority of kings and emperors. Heretics also were perceived, in some cases justifiably, as fomentors of rebellion and social upheaval. I think another relevant factor was the perception that a kingdom that permitted heresy to prosper might well incur some form of divine punishment at the expense of rulers and ruled alike. So I think that the entire polity was presumed to benefit from secular laws against heresy, regardless of what stance the Church took in particular cases (there are a number of recorded instances of angry mobs breaking accused heretics out of Church custody in order to execute them). Some of the benefits of secular laws on heresy were imaginary, others were arguably real; of the real ones, we would now judge many to be outweighed, obviously, by the negative repercussions of imposing such laws.

I don't know.

That's a fairly complicated historical question. Capital punishment for what? At what time period? In the late 12th century, Petrus Cantor (the influential canon of Notre Dame) could write of the Cathars, "Although the Apostle said, 'A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,' he certainly did not say, 'Kill him'. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death."

How much power it had to do so obviously depended on the specific time and geographical location, and many other contextual factors. Rome tried in vain to intercede, for example, on behalf of the victims of the Inquisition carried out by the Spanish crown. As another example, I think most would agree that the Church could not have done much to suspend Joan of Arc's civil sentence.Good post.

By the way, is investigating the answers to all of these questions on my homework list, or are you going to take any of them?
No, I'll cease asking questions for the moment. You have answered most of my questions admirably. My thanks. I will reconsider my position and argument, read the links that you have provided and re-read my source.

I'll provisionally concede the discussion to you.

RandFan

[thaiboxerken]

What does the Vatican need science advisors for? Shouldn't God fill them in on this?

It's one of those "know thine enemy" types of deals.

[c4ts]

It's one of those "know thine enemy" types of deals.

I wouldn't say the Vatican is completely the enemy of science it once was. Now they spend most of the time conservatively catching up to what everyone else is doing as long as they can fit it somewhere into their orthodoxy.

[ceo_esq]

I think at the very least it would be reckless endangerment. Clearly Henry would understand that such actions carry grave consequences. He couldn't plead ignorance since he had such a great object lesson. That being said, I was trying to make a point and I'm afraid it is lost. My fault.

No, I think I see the point of the example. Surely there were instances where the ecclesiastical authorities were morally culpable by virtue of releasing convicted heretics into the the hands of the state for likely capital punishment. Which instances those were, and how numerous, is hard to say. I suppose one also has to bear in mind also that in most cases we're speaking of eras where imposing the death penalty for petty theft was viewed as taking a good civic stand on law and order.


2.) From a secular point of view, who stood to benefit from heresy laws?

I know I already tried to tackle this question. But there's a more cynical answer as well.

We might well ask Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain this question. Recall that from a secular legal perspective, heresy was viewed as akin to treason - and traitors in many jurisdictions traditionally lost their private property rights to the king. This also became common practice with heretics in many jurisdictions, which must have swelled the coffers of the state regardless of the sentence imposed.


It's one of those "know thine enemy" types of deals.
I wouldn't say the Vatican is completely the enemy of science it once was.

Why persist in characterizing the Roman Catholic Church as the historical enemy of science at all? This thesis is rejected, so far as I can tell, by all the major contemporary historians of early and early-modern science who've addressed the issue, and we've covered the reasons why many times in R&P.

[D]espite the implication of a "fundamental conflict" found in the Galileo affair, post-Galilean episodes fail to reveal evidence of a uniform, deliberate, and sustained attack [by the Catholic Church] on the methods of modern science. And, finally, an unqualified conflict thesis is difficult to reconcile with the long tradition of support of scientific activity within the Church itself. ... The relationship between Roman Catholicism and science ... is scarcely the unrelieved high drama of confrontation implied by the conflict thesis. Rather it is a story characterized by long periods of support for certain branches of science and indifference toward others, punctuated by occasional instances of controversy[.]

Source: Steven J. Harris, "Roman Catholicism Since Trent", in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (2000).