Atheists--Did you know that Einstein was outdueled by a Catholic Priest?
Father George Lemaître was the first to propose the the expansion of the universe. He called his theory "the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation". It was later referred to as "The Big Bang Theory"
"Einstein at first dismissed Lemaître, out of hand, saying that not all mathematics lead to correct theories. At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable" ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.") After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition"
In January 1933, Lemaître and Einstein, who had met on several occasions—in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay Conference, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton—traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.
Now you know the true history of how the Catholic priest outdueled Einstein."
Now you really know what happened. Einstein was outdueled by a Catholic Priest
You all seem to miss the several times the word "creation" was mentioned along with Big Bang. I guess critical reading skills aren't that important these days. Lematire called the Big Bang Theory "The Cosmic egg of CREATION". Einstein also referred to Lemaitre;s theory as creation. Are you guys dense or just obtuse?
They MEAN THAT GOD CAUSED THE BIG BANG
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
This is a great example of how religion and science go hand-in-hand (whether or not the scientific explanation is correct or not)! Many people complain that believers only use explanations based on faith, but when science enters the picture, they discard it right away regardless of the meaning it conveys. I know of many more cases where science can explain the reasons why religious people believe in God.
God bless xx
- Ambi valentLv 77 years ago
Let's start at the end: no-one is obtuse or dense for simply understanding the word 'creation' in its general, universal, non-religious way. That's the way Einstein was using it.
It also seems quite bizarre to talk about Einstein being 'outdueled' by Lemaitre. You don't seem to understand the scientific method. Einstein in fact, as recounted in the Wikipedia article you link to, was supportive of Lemaitre researching his theory: "Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it's clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past." When Lemaitre did the work, Einstein accepted it. That's how science works. It happens all the time, not concerning Catholics!!!
- Anonymous7 years ago
well I can understand why Einstein was apprehensive about accepting the mathematics...there are too many assumptions implied from it. At first glance, the expanding universe would seem to imply a singularity in the distant past by mathematical necessity...simply add inertia. But this is application of the behavior of stuff from a small, local scale in human experiments to a very grand scale...and this should be an uncomfortable thing to do...because its natural to guess that perhaps physical laws we observe in this small local scale might change towards the origin of all things, and stuff no longer behaves as we expect...inertia itself might not be a grand independent property but may be a product of some more fundamental property that we lack any ability to understand because of our small, confined space of experience. For reasons like this, I actually still feel dubious about the big bang model. But naturally, you should applaud good work and good ideas...and Lemaitre was quite good at physics
(his incidental label as a catholic priest was totally irrelevant to that)
calling it creation is nothing more than a linguistic idiosyncrasy. There was no evidence that it was per se a 'creation' and in fact physics contains no clear definition for the word to even entertain the idea of one opinion vs another. Within the methodology of physics you cant even ask the question.
- 7 years ago
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strength, from the article you cite:
From Simon Singh (2010). Big Bang. HarperCollins UK. p. 362: "Lemaître was determined to discourage the Pope from making proclamations about cosmology, partly to halt the embarrassment that was being caused to supporters of the Big Bang, but also to avoid any potential difficulties for the Church. ...Lemaître contacted Daniel O'Connell, director of the Vatican Observatory and the Pope's science advisor, and suggested that together they try to persuade the Pope to keep quiet on cosmology. The Pope was surprisingly compliant and agreed to the request - the Big Bang would no longer be a matter suitable for Papal addresses."
"It was Lemaître's firm belief that scientific endeavour should stand isolated from the religious realm. With specific regard to his Big Bang theory, he commented: 'As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.' Lemaître had always been careful to keep his parallel careers in cosmology and theology on separate tracks, in the belief that one led him to a clearer comprehension of the material world, while the other led to a greater understanding of the spiritual realm... ...Not surprisingly, he was frustrated and annoyed by the Pope's deliberate mixing of theology and cosmology. One student who saw Lemaître upon his return from hearing the Pope's address to the Academy recalled him 'storming into class...his usual jocularity entirely missing'."
He was first and foremost a man with a scientific mind who had a socially transmitted disease called religion.
This part that you used: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." is a source less citation in the wiki article and therefore shouldn't even be mentioned.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- NousLv 77 years ago
What about the way the Church did everything it could to prevent the truth coming out then?!
Galileo presented a theory of heliocentrism The theory that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. This is credited by science as the first theory of relativity!!
Einstein's theories were: The Special theory of relativity and The General theory of relativity
The church force Galileo to recant his heliocentrism and placed under house arrest for life to die a prisoner!
George Lemaître only had a theory wich although genrally in the right area lacked the science and the church was against what he was saying!
Many scientists of the time were hiding behind being Christian because of the persecution! Many Chrsitians try to claim that Isaac Newton was a Chrsitian but he like many others was hiding his true beleifs for fear of persecution from the church!
Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith – which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian. In an age notable for its religious intolerance there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was offered to him.
- John S. MccueLv 57 years ago
Yeah, I'm down with Joshua here. Science is not a duel. Many scientists have also been monks and priests, ministers, rabbis, mullahs---because early education was dispensed like vitamins by those in holy orders-the only place a scholar could be sure of two squares a day and a roof and a blanket.
Einstein was a humble man. He never let his achievements in science make him vain. When he was hired by the University of Chicago, the hiring group put a piece of paper in front of him with the proposed salary figure. He said, "That's too much!"
- TolstoyevskyLv 77 years ago
Father Petty - out-dueled Cale Yarborough to win at Daytona.
Fr. Maverick - lost to Iceman but still beat the Russkies.
Father Butch - yes, he did use enough dynamite
Father Bart - rode a blazing saddle; wore a shining star.
Father Hope - in an unexplained but probably wholesome relationship with Sister L'Amour and Father Crosby.
Father Ralph - Bang. Zoom. To the moon.
Father Edgar Alan - Nevermore.
Father Balboa - also got old and tired after the 7th remake
- carlLv 77 years ago
Godless: " Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist."
No. I'm quite certain the concept of nothing exists. Are you saying it doesn't exist as in non - being. So what you are really saying is that nothing is nothing. Lol. Perhaps it's time to learn some actual philosophy.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Lemaitre just applied his (Einstein's) theories, Im not discrediting the guy but Einstein was the better scientist in my opinion.
It doesn't matter anyways, they both contributed to science. Beliefs don't matter as long as you contribute.
- Anonymous7 years ago
So what does the mans profession prove he never admitted to getting the information from a higher power