Taken from the
I quote ‘World renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said
Thursday that the late Pope John Paul11 once told scientists they should not
study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. Hawking,
author of the best seller A Brief History of Time,
said John Paul made the comments at a cosmology conference at the
Hawking quoted the Pope as saying “It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God”.
The scientist then joked that he was glad (Pope) John Paul did not realize that he (Hawking) 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”, Hawking said during a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
The Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus’ discovery that the earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed earth at the centre of the universe. But in 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church’s denunciation of Galileo was an error. He insisted that faith and science could coexist’.
This article must have been picked up by other papers around the world.
With interference such as this we have further proof that faith and science cannot coexist. Faith must be kept within bounds and must not be allowed to interfere in matters of science. God gave us brains to think and discover so why shouldn’t we. Enough of faith’s childishness already. We’ve already proven that so much of religious teaching was wrong; the world was not created in six days, light did not appear before the existence of the sun, the earth is ‘slightly’ older than 6000 years, the earth is not flat, the moon is not a planet, the sun does not orbit the earth, and Eve was part of the fairy tale unless her name was really Lucy. Now we are told not to inquire into the beginning of the universe. Why are we breaking our heads over calendar reform so that we can accommodate the various religions without seeking any concessions from them? Reform of the calendar is not going to come about tomorrow so we have time until saner minds prevail. Think if we only had the duo of Pope Gregory X111and John XX111 today, or if God had only given us a tropical year of exactly 360 or 364 days instead of 365.2424, or had created the universe in 10 days instead of seven.
Phil De Rosa – Linking Nature and Commonsense.
This piece seem interesting, but the idea that evidence available supports the separation of faith (or religion) from science may not be correct. It is not that religious teachings of present age disproved previous beliefs but the humanity in general is growing in understanding of the world and its creator. In science too, we read in the years past that atoms were the smallest indivisible particles and many became professors based on this, but today, that no longer make any sense. Both religion and science are growing.
The relationship between religion and science can be likened to that of the human mind and body. The mind is internal like religion and the body is external like science but the activities of the body is guided by the mind. In this way, religion (faith) which bases its activities on revelation still guides all the observations in sciences. There are more conflicting views even in science today than there are in religious teachings. Separating faith (or religion) from science will be like separating our mind from our body, and the obvious implication is that such a body become a dead body. Science grows on faith and without faith, science will not make any progress again. For example, we have been made to believe that NaCl represents Sodium Chloride. This is mere faith.
I submit that we should work more toward the harmonious co-existence of religion and science to enable both thoughts grow to advance human well being. On the issue of calendar reform, we have no option than to continue the search and research for the ultimate perfect and eternal calendar that is based on a harmonized religious belief and scientific observation. Furthermore, when that is discovered, we have to educate the world's people to believe in the reformed calendar for all people.
Philip DeRosa <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
This thread is getting off-topic, but
since I did not start it,
I will venture my 2 cents worth:
Science and religion are disjoint.
Science is about discovery.
Religion is about faith and unless some diety
should reveal herself/himself/itself,
religion has no foundation in reality.
Science and religion both have many branches.
Science branches are touchable (chemistry,
biology, archeology, et cetera) while others
are explorable (quantum mechanics, cosmology)
often only as mind experiments until technology
catches up with practical experimental tools.
Branches of science tend to confirm each other.
Religious branches are disjoint and often
incompatible ... e.g.: Christianity, Judism,
Islam, Hinduism, et cetera. Branches of
religion tend to deny one another's tenets.
Science is dynamic and forward moving,
religion is mostly static. To science
the world was once flat, to religion,
metaphorically, the world is always flat.
Raphael, no evidence is necessary to support the separation
of faith (or religion) from science. Their distinct natures
are self sufficient. Other than that some scientists are
religious and others are not, there is no true connection
between science and religion.
Ultimately, given enough time, science has the potential
to disprove the existence of a creator in an anthropomorphic sense.
Were there a creator or creators, they too might
have had their own creator or creators, recursively
back to infinity ... next to impossible imo.
It is more likely that creation has been the result
of the intersection of random events on chaos.
Unfathomable to our tiny minds is the connection between
somethingness and ultimate nothingness. Put
another way, either everything has always existed
in some form, or there once was an ultimate
nothingness that somehow became transformed into
somethingness. My personal assumption is the
latter although one might only speculate on
the unstability of ultimate nothingness and
its subsequent transformation into somethingness.
Raphael, you are incorrect that we have been made
to believe that NaCl represents Sodium Chloride.
NaCl is simply a shorthand notation for the
compound commonly known as table salt. I can
touch and taste and see NaCl no matter what
name I call it ... no faith at all is necessary
in this regard.
Science can flourish without religion.
Humanity can too. I contend, as a devout atheist,
that religion has done more harm than good.
I endorse replacing religion with ethics.
More than once, religion has set back science.
Examples, not all provable, include the rumoured
destruction of the (possibly mythical) library
of Alexandria, as well as Copernicus and Galileo.
"A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom"
by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University
By D. Appleton and Company.
gerry lowry 905.825.9582
1421 Derby County Crescent
Oakville Ontario Canada L6M 4N8
In reply to this post by Phil De Rosa
This is not news. It occurred in 1981. Hawking (no s) wrote about it in his book, A Brief History of Time. I don't know why AP is reporting it now. Slow news day, I guess.
2006 June 18.055 UT
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|