Star Factories of the Southern Cross
The "Dark Halo" -The Biggest Things in the Universe Keep Getting Bigger

Hijacking Science For God

Discovery_chan_id1_04a A Jesuit priest is hijacking astrophysics to prove the existence of a God who, despite being omnipotent and the master of world without end, amen, apparently needs people to poke their noses into wildly unsuitable fields and act as His PR.  Never mind how using the Big Bang to prove Catholicism is like using triple-chocolate-shakes as a diet.

Father Robert J. Spitzer, PhD, outlines a case which is very hard to argue with, but not for the reasons you'd like.  He describes modern big bang theories, shows that they all demand a singularity point, and obviously such singularity points require the existence of a Creator.  Well done if you spotted the break in the chain of reasoning there - it's on par with saying "two plus two is four, four plus four is eight, so therefore eight is a magical number of mystical power."  It's difficult to argue with the logic because the (extremely) arguable step has no logic at all.

It's a well known scamming technique whereby you provide ten tonnes of irrelevant proof.  Fr Spitzer's talk is actually well informed on modern cosmological theories, outlining various mathematical models and their predictions for how the universe must have begun, providing masses of scientific-sounding support for that first part and then tacking his invisible skybeard on at the end, hoping the audience will mistake the real work as a case for the imaginary addition.

For people with the Ultimate Might of the Alpha and the Omega on their side, some seem dementedly determined to inject God into everything in existence.  Which, according to their own press, He's already in anyway.  It's also horribly one-sided.  Any reasonable person couldn't possibly have a problem with another's religious beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone.  Religion is a great comfort to many and can act as an excellent externally applied set of morals (though they tend to get messed up in practice).  

The problems only arise when idiots enforce their own beliefs on everyone else in ways that spread plagues (by retarding the fight against AIDS), dumb down the next generation's education, and cost lives with their interference in vital medical research.  And this stupid invasion is strictly one way: no scientist has ever barged into a church with a mass spectrometer demanding to scan the bread after it becomes the Body of Christ.  

Even in this application of astrophysics to imaginary powers the underlying problem is apparent.  Fr Spitzer describes how Professor Roger Penrose “has provided a mathematical model in which the possibilities of a universe that would not be gobbled without the existence of a Creator are simply improvable, to a point of mathematical impossibility.”  Apart from demonstrating an amazingly poor grasp of grammar (where he's accidentally, if accurately, stating that his Creator-theories could very simply be improved), he's using science to say that he's 100% absolutely right with absolutely no possibility of error.  Despite the fact science never does that.  Science never rules out new evidence based on current theories, and that is in fact the entire difference between science and religion.

Luke McKinney

New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says


" Despite the fact science never does that. Science never rules out new evidence based on current theories, and that is in fact the entire difference between science and religion."

yeah.. I mean, if you ignore all the instances that science has ignored facts and new evidence.. gee.. they do it all time.. and will continue to do so.. because scientists are as stupid and greedy and egotistical as anyone else.. religious follower or not. A truly logical person would know this.

What you fail to acknowledge is that you are behaving in the same retarded way as the person you are criticizing. There is no difference between a follower of the religion of science and a follower of other religions.. both are based on blind faith on the suppositions of others.. the real difference is that religions admit this and the scientists don't.

In his book "A Short History of Time" Stephen Hawking drew the conclusion that "if" black holes exist the universe required God.

Go read it.

"In his book "A Short History of Time" Stephen Hawking drew the conclusion that "if" black holes exist the universe required God."

I assume you mean "A Brief History Of Time". Chapter 6 deals with black holes could you please point me to where he draws this conclusion.

Religions only way of survival at this point is to co opt scientific thinking and infect it.

"Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”

Luke, care to explain what is wrong with this deduction?

What is amazing to me is people who calim to have no faith whatsoever and then boldy proclaim scientific obervations. In the meantime, none of them can scientifically explain how their observations have anything at all to do with reality. They have faith in their own consciousness and cannot lift a finger to scientifically prove that they aren't dreaming.

Nice try though.

Luke, your writing style usually irks me to no end, but kudos for the line of the century "no scientist has ever barged into a church with a mass spectrometer demanding to scan the bread after it becomes the Body of Christ". If I were a scientist, or had a mass spectrometer, I know where I'd be this Sunday (before football of course).

Oh, and for the record, nothing in science definitively proves or disproves "God", at least in some form (biblical or non-defined by human religion). Steven Hawking is a brilliant man, but he doesn't know EVERYTHING. His statement about God being proven by something basically because it seemed too "out there" to just exist is no different than a brilliant astronomer 2000 years ago thinking that the planets were Gods in the sky simply because it made no sense that they moved differently from the stars. Human knowledge ends at some point, and that point moves. When one arrives at that point, and cant go any further, that's where God comes in. Fifty years from now, what Hawking thought proved God's existence may be basic simple science, but something else will be beyond human comprehension, and thus will be God's doing.
I am an Athiest, but even still nothing anyone has ever said has disproved such a being's existence in my opinion. All the amazing science in the world human's have discovered doesn't answer how it got that way, and so you can never definitively say that there isn't a God who just "decided" that this is how it would be. God used point particles, or strings, or membranes, or magic, to make the universe. It's impossible to prove or disprove, which is why this argument rages on through the history of advanced civilization. (Just my opinion of course).

"because scientists are as stupid and greedy and egotistical as anyone else.. religious follower or not"

he is right there Luke, they are pious, ignorant self righteous murderers and penetrators of children who have prevailed across centuries of human history without being brought to book, but they are NOT stupid, greedy or egotistical

some seem dementedly determined to inject God into everything in existence. "

Perhaps. But some seem dementedly dtermined to reject even the possibility of a creator force,and to tear to shreds anyone whom so much as even entertains the possibility in their minds.

"Apart from demonstrating an amazingly poor grasp of grammar"

Debatable. Maybe so however. So what? The author of of this article has filled it with ad hominem and strawmen and red herrings. How is he any better?

Atheists and Theists are both prone to logical fallacies in their attempts to debunk the other.

Luckily there are rational Agnosticcs, Agnostic-Deists, and Agnostic Atheists to put them in their hypocritical place.

“Fifty years from now, what Hawking thought proved God’s existence may be basic simple science, but something else will be beyond human comprehension, and thus will be God’s doing.”

Hence: Greek 'Myths'. Kudos to you Keith!

I, personally, am very entertained by discussions and debates on this topic because to me my life does not revolve around whether God's existence is real or not. It is an interesting thing and peaks my curiosity, but alas I would still be doing the same thing with my life if God's existence was either proved or disproved.

The more important question is not if there is a god or not. It is 'why' do we ask this question to begin with? Is it curiosity? But curiosity about 'what'? If this curiosity is driven by the pursuit of causality that ultimately and invariably leads us to the stalemate (god), then it is just another name for the limits of exploration and the tool of exploration-the human mind. For a true thinker this is the 'mystery' without which science and religion are both empty. Such a mystery can never be resolved because its got the quality of pi: goes on into infinity! Now consider this: All causes are consequences and all consequences are causes. There is no START or END program. The illusion of START and END programs is a result of our persistent observation that the lifetime of the exploration tool - the mind - has a START (birth) and END (death). It is natural that we assume everything has a START and END. But its not true. It just cannot be. It cannot be imagined - the ultimate START or the ultimate END. What is BEFORE the start? What is AFTER the end? The question itself reveals the paradox! An appreciation of this paradox eliminates the insanely unproductive endeavor of 'proving' or 'disproving' god. There is no value in that question. However, there is a tremendous value in asking WHY we are caught up in this question. Perhaps answering this 'why' may reveal a binary aspect of the human mind - a duality?

"an amazingly poor grasp of grammar"

If there's one thing this site should never, EVER do, it is criticize spelling and grammar.

No site I regularly visit has more language errors than this one, by far.

The pure lack of self-awareness leaves me exasperated.

I don't think he is "hijacking" astrophysics.

Science is not something that can be hijacked in this way.

If his idea is unsound from a scientific perspective, then people will simply ignore it. It's not a big deal really.

That's how the scientific process works. People propose theories, and the theories come and go, some gaining acceptance, some being proven wrong, some being ignored. Even those theories that are seen as "obviously" wrong sometimes have value in that they spark debates and lead to new directions of thinking.

No need to be a drama-queen and cry out that astrophysics has been "hijacked" just because someone proposes a theory that seems a bit "way out there".

Also, the idea that the universe is a "creation" of a super god-like species (compared to us) is nothing new, and is not completely "way out there".

It's the premise for the highly interesting movie, the Matrix, in which our universe is a "created" computer simulation.

In fact there is a serious well respected scientist (I forget his name) who argues that the odds indicate most likely we are indeed living within a "created" and "simulated" universe, running on some kind of "super-computer".

In his argument, you first consider a "real" universe. Within that "real" universe you next assume that there are likely millions of possible habited planets, with intelligent, technological species.

Next you consider that on each of those planets, the intelligent species would eventually create multiple simulated worlds and universes inside of their computers (just like we do with the "The Sims" game).

Thus because planet containing intelligent life, goes on to create multiple "simulated and created universes", there exist a greater number of simulated worlds, as compared to "real" worlds.

Therefore, the odds are, that we live in a "simulated" universe, as opposed to a "real" universe, because there are simply many more simulated universes.

And in conclusion, if you believe we live in a simulated universe, then by definition the computer programmer, or the creator of the simulated universe is in fact "god".

So I don't see much difference between this Jesuit priest's line of thinking, in which he is trying to consider if singularities might be evidence or artifacts of a "created" universe, as compared to other more "serious" theories about the nature of our universe.

I'm not sure I see a "big crime" and "hijacking" of science being committed by that Jesuit priest here...

I have to agree with Kirado's comments. There are as many fallacies in this article criticizing Father Spitzer as the Father has in his own conclusion and beliefs. Having studied science and the history of science as well as theology, I'm not going to defend either side. Both sides have their own belief systems and don't like to be confused by outliers that contradict their faith, be it science or religion.

Jesuits are renowned for making sweeping and sometimes illogical suppositions and pronouncements, but it might be as well to let him have his say because for every ton of hot air and guff, there is are proportional truisms which everntually enter the mainstream of thought. After all for every man there is a god, and god is what we make of him.

Both science and religion make unprovable assertions. The difference is that science makes no assertions that are not falsifiable by experiment or observation, and it rejects its own assertions if they turn out to conflict with evidence.

It's posts like these that turn those open-minded, 'looking for what's new in the universe', inquisitive people away. it's great fun to look forward to checking out this site every day to see what new discoveries there are, but it is also unfortunate to find posts of a close-minded, personal vendetta quality to them. It would be of great benefit to the future of this site and it's amazing posts to not include such one-sided views on things. An open discussion on what is being said about science and religion and posts showing the leading thoughts on these issues, with no biased writing, would be of benefit to anyone who may be interested in this 'debate'. If you could please stick to posts showing exciting, unbiased views on daily discoveries without interjecting your own personal boundaries to what those discoveries might be, you may keep more of your loyal daily followers.

Content aside, this article reeds like a hate crime. Does the author live in a fortified compound in a remote location? Yuck! I need to shower.

The most poorly written article ever, I've read better crafted blog messages by "anonymous".

For years many renowned and esteemed leaders in both "fields" have been looking at the possibility of Quantum Physics, M theory and Spiritual Studies starting to come to similar findings about "existence", tho perhaps stated with semantic differences. This article unfortunately an erroneously seems to assume that "Religion", and the concept of "God", (as an anthropomorphic entity), is the only possible description/explanation of God.

I normally like to post some articles that I find here on my facebook page, to share with similar (open) minded friends. However, I now will be taking a long critical look before doing so ever again.


r u only 14 years old? Your rant seems to so indicate.

This is my first and my last read of this site.

Listen up dude: I've got a couple of earned PhD's in Math and Physics and I got NO problem with recognizing a Superior, Eternally Existing Entity... GOD!

Get a life kid and when you grow-up maybe you'll acquire enough common sense to realize that your opinions ain't worth $h!t.

All the Best to you in your traverse of this particular plane of existence, and don't be too surprised at what may greet you on the 'other' side (cue "Twilight Zone" theme).

Most of the people that I know say that you come to God only by faith; most of the people that I know say that you maintain a good relationship with God through love; I think God likes it that way. Science's main reason for being seems to be as a distraction for those of us who like toys. We came to the point that we could give a hoot about science without the help of science; how did that happen? IMHO God has always taken care of the necessary things to get us where we are.

I don't have an opinion because there is no way for me to know for sure, but I do know that discounting the idea of a creator of the universe at the time of the big bang is equally as ignorant as assuming that there was none.

As of now, it's impossible to know for sure.

If I ever get into space I'm taking santa , the tooth fairy , yeti ,sasquatch ,trolls and little people with me .

poor Americans... Jews washed your brains very, very deep, maybe beyond the threshold of no return. Knowing a lot of science, and still believing the same thing that Roman Empire used to control people. My physic-head hurts me when I said this, but maybe the most important matter is true History, rather than Physics and Math, but History is corrupted now...

I'm with you, Nick. Even the comments, however erudite, can contain unbelievable grammatic lapses. ". . peaks your interest?" Try "piques."

TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)