3 ms·
It was also disputed on the other side for the same reasons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle : > He found
by jkingsbery 8y ago
It was also disputed on the other side for the same reasons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle :
> He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
Pope Pius XII at least had the excuse of trying to speak about a field in which he wasn't an expert.
- danielam 8y agoEinstein's initial reaction was the same before he changed his mind. However, there are two points worth making. First, that something supports or can be used to support religious claims does not undermine that something (evidence, argument, whatever). It would be tendentious to do so. Second, creation as understood in Catholicism is not the same as creation in time. The notion that the universe was created in time was given serious consideration IIRC in the 12th century, but theologians like Aquinas held that it was not metaphysically provable whether the universe was in fact created in time or not. Creation as understood by theologians is creation from nothing, the continuous creation or sustaining of things in existence. I.e., we cannot explain the existence of things at any moment by appealing to anything about these things themselves or to their efficient causes, and so we need to appeal to a cause distinct from them and one which transcends the order of things. While creation in time may appeal to certain sensibilities, it is not itself demanded by Catholic theology.