IMPORTANT CHANGE: the article was not written by Marc Siegel, but by someone named Michael Guillén. I was fooled by the fact that it is topped by a large photo and video of Siegel touting his new book about modern day medical miracles. Now that I’ve read that, I feel like I should also spend some time criticizing Siegel’s idiotic bullshit about miracles, but for this article, redirect your contempt at Guillén.
Dr Marc Siegel (he really is a doctor, a medical doctor) writes an article for Fox News that makes me question his competence. He is the Fox News Senior Medical Analyst, so keep that in mind when assessing future medical info from Fox News.
When our son was 4 years old, he asked my wife and me: “Can you drive to heaven?” Out of the mouth of babes, right?
It’s a question only a child would ask, but it raises a very adult question: Where exactly is the heaven described in the Bible?
As a scientist,
Stop right there. I dislike that phrase — it’s usually a prelude to an argument for authority. We don’t need to see an MD or a PhD to address an argument by a four year old, so why bring it up?
Probably because he’s conscious that he’s about to make an incredibly stupid argument. It’s actually the second worse As a scientist
argument I’ve ever heard.* But this one is pretty bad.
Also, as an adult, I will say that “where is heaven” is not a particularly adult question.
I understand the importance of definitions. According to the Bible, the lowest level of heaven is Earth’s atmosphere. The mid-level heaven is outer space. The highest-level heaven is what we’re talking about: It’s where God dwells.
Yikes. The Bible is not a scientific source; he may have some ideas about definitions, but he knows nothing about the importance of sources. But OK, according to the Bible
, where does the Bible talk about the atmosphere? Where does it even mention outer space? The ancient authors of the books that would be incorporated into the Bible thought we lived in a bubble of air encapsulated in a solid firmament, embedded in a universe that was full of water. It’s a bad idea to reference the Bible when trying to describe the cosmic geography.
The best you can get from the Bible is a vague notion that God is above us.
As for heaven’s location, the Bible contains many verses that describe us as looking “up” at God in heaven, and God as looking “down” at us on Earth.
Stop there. That’s good enough for a child; God is somewhere in the sky, so no you can’t drive there. Done. Unless you want to get into a serious discussion about whether Heaven even exists as a physical space, or whether a god even exists. That would be a bit challenging for most 4-year-olds.
It’s way above what your average Fox News reader can comprehend.
But no! Siegel starts talking about pop physics.
Imagine boarding a nuclear-powered rocket and traveling straight “up” into deep space. Will you ever reach a point far enough “up” into space that you finally reach heaven?
Before you laugh off the idea, consider this.
In 1929, American attorney-turned-amateur astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are rushing away from one another like so much shrapnel from a bomb. Hubble also discovered there’s a definite pattern to how galaxies are rushing away from each other, namely: The farther “up” in space a galaxy is located — the farther away it is from Earth — the faster it’s moving away from Earth and everything else. It’s called Hubble’s Law.
What does this have to do with the existence of, the nature of, or the location of heaven?
But, here’s where it gets really interesting.
Spoiler: no, it doesn’t.
Theoretically, a galaxy that’s 273 billion trillion (273,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) miles away from Earth would move at 186,000 miles per second, which is the speed of light. That distance, way “up” there in space, is called the Cosmic Horizon.
That means you and I can never reach the Cosmic Horizon — not even aboard the most souped-up, nuclear-powered rocket imaginable — because, as Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, only light and certain other non-material phenomena can travel at the speed of light.
The cosmic horizon is the maximum distance from which light from particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe, which I think (not being a physicist myself) is about 16 billion light years away. Galaxies at the horizon are not moving at the speed of light. We cannot reach it because it is constantly receding, but…
Hey, what does this have to do with the location of heaven? Does the Bible also incorporate general relativity?
So, then, where is heaven located, exactly? It’s entirely possible heaven is located on the other side of the Cosmic Horizon. Here’s why.
Oh god. He’s not going to shut up.
One: According to modern cosmology, an entire universe exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon. But it’s permanently hidden from us because we can never reach, let alone cross over, the Cosmic Horizon.
Two: Our best astronomical observations — and Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — indicate that time stops at the Cosmic Horizon. At that special distance, way “up” there in deep, deep, deep space, there is no past, present or future. There’s only timelessness.
Three: Unlike time, however, space does exist at and beyond the Cosmic Horizon. Which means the hidden universe beyond the Cosmic Horizon is habitable, albeit only by light and light-like entities.
Four: According to modern cosmology, the Cosmic Horizon is lined with the very oldest celestial objects in the observable universe. That means whatever exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon predates these oldest objects… predates the so-called big bang… predates the beginning of the observable universe.
One: none of that is in the Bible; two: physics would tell us that we don’t know what’s going on beyond the cosmic horizon, or that our time and space dependent notions of “what’s going on” even apply; three: but Siegel thinks physics claims that there is a habitable universe beyond it; four: what amazing bullshit.
I pity that small child getting this lecture.
Finally, Siegel sums it all up, and brings the Bible back into the discussion.
1. Heaven is, indeed, located “up” there — way above our heads and way beyond the visible, starlit universe — just as the Bible indicates.
2. Heaven is inaccessible to us mortals while we’re alive, just as the Bible indicates.
3. Heaven is inhabited by nonmaterial, timeless beings, just as the Bible indicates.
4. Heaven is the dwelling place of the One who predates the universe — the One who created the universe — just as the Bible indicates.
The Bible doesn’t say any of that.
Is this the sophisticated theology believers are always telling me about?
* The worst As a scientist
claim I’ve ever heard was from Lawrence Krauss defending Jeffrey Epstein, As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people
. That remains the champion among bad As a scientist
claims, now and possibly forever, and it even includes two As a scientist
phrases in one sentence.
Just more shovels full of irrational xtian superstitious CRAP. They couldn’t reason their way out of an open paper bag if their life depended on it.
I try to stay away from these blithering, murderous aholes. But, Martha and the Vandellas haunts me: ‘nowhere to run to baby, nowhere to hide’.
When he searches for the ‘windows for winds’ maybe he will fall off the edge and be eaten by one of the turtles the earth is supported by.
The only times I ever use “as a mathematician” are as a joke – “We have four options” (lists them), “As a mathematician, I can tell you those were actually five options”.
This doesn’t seem right to me.
.1. Time might stop from our viewpoint at the Cosmic Horizon, when everything is receding at the speed of light.
But if you are at the Cosmic Horizon, time would seem to be perfectly normal.
.2. If you are at the Cosmic Horizon, looking at us, time would be normal for you. You would think where we on earth are, is where time has stopped.
IIRC, in General Relativity, there are no preferred reference frames.
When my son was 4 or so he asked me about god. I gave him my perspective on it, something like “people believe this idea but there’s really no evidence of it.” In any case, as far as I know he’s a contented non-believer.
My idiot’s understanding is that the “cosmic horizon” is an artifact of the expansion of space-time. The galaxies at the cosmic horizon or beyond are not moving at or greater than the speed of light, of course, but moving away from us at that speed because space-time is changing. Space-time is not constrained by the speed of light.
Since up and down are relative, perhaps heaven is “down”…any apologists ever speak to that.
I’ve recently seen a couple of videos of Richard Feynman…and these may be AI generated…talking about quantum physics and that we should get used to the idea that we are all made of the same stuff as the “empty” space around us: waves of quantum probabilities. If that’s the case, “where is heaven” is really nonsensical question. The “other side” of the wave function?
As PZ notes, the bible doesn’t say this.
Guy is just repeating mindless xian god babble.
.1. The gods and angels of the bible are very much material beings. The devil Satan walks around and talks to people. The angels do the same thing.
“They bring important news (like Gabriel to Mary), deliver people from danger (like Daniel in the lions’ den), provide strength, and engage in spiritual battles. ”
Angels walk around, talk to people, pick things up, go on dates with humans and have sex with them to breed the Nephilim. Everything people can do and a lot more.
Same things with the xian gods. They can do everything people do and a lot more.
.2. Timeless beings is a meaningless phrase.
The heavenly beings are subject to time the same as we are.
Even the jesus guy gets born, grows up, dies, and then starts a new career as an invisible spirit who does nothing.
He failed to address the Norse creation story! He is a charlatan, may Odin punish him.
“Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, only light and certain other non-material phenomena can travel at the speed of light.”
Funny, I don’t recall Einstein saying anything about “non-material phenomena”.
If Zod lives in a place that predates the universe, it must be a parallel pocket universe.
This reminds me of Christians who think the entities who abduct people are demons masquerading as aliens. And instead of travelling through space they travel through other dimensions, presumably by using a zipper in the space-time fabric. (God Awful Movies had a hilarious episode about it)
Einstein (apocryphally) said: “There are two things that I know are infinite: The Universe, and human dumbf. And I’m not sure about The Universe.”
This christianist moron is just another data point for that hypothesis.
Hate to nit-pick since what Siegel talks about is stupid from top to bottom, but he can’t even get Relativity right. We can see galaxies moving away from us faster than light- there is no speed limit because space has no restriction on how fast it can expand. C may be the limit for receiving information moving through spacetime, but it’s not a limit when space is accelerating and taking galaxies with it. So seeing a galaxy moving away at the speed of light is unremarkable.
So nobody goes to heaven.
The Stonemaker Argument comic – Sam the Photon
Hey, I saw that article! It got served up in my Google homepage ‘things you might be interested in’ list, because Google knows I’m interested in science and somehow was under the impression that this is science.
I’m very impressed at your perseverance; my attention span survived about two paragraphs of this nonsense.
1) Meh, it’s standard “Bible science” nonsense: play a word-association game between the Bible and some random bits of physics or biology or whatever, and presto! science supports the Bible. Believers can go away feeling Very Enlightened.
2) Another case of a practitioner of a science-adjacent craft giving themselves airs.
3) In charity: I believe the idea that God is in some way “outside of time” has long been a standard element of Christian thought. There may even be plausible proof-texts to support it.
The idea that Heaven is “up” is not really attested to in the Bible, at least not consistently. And there’s a few strong counterexamples – Satan is said to rule “the principality of the air” and although it’s not in the Bible, early Jewish mystics reported out-of-body experiences where they descended into the realm of the angels to behold the throne of Yahweh and various other cosmic horrors.
There’s some intriguing speculation that Paul might have been among the practitioners of this kind of mystical travel. Specifically 2 Corinthians chapter 12-13 has some echoes of this tradition, although if true it would actually be our very earliest surviving account of it.
Returning to my point, most translations have Paul claiming he was snatched or taken “up” to the innermost Heaven but a more literal translation of the text would read “away”.
The image is incomplete.
It does not show any of the four elephants, nor does it show A’tuin the Turtle.
As St John of Denver teaches us, heaven is located somewheres near West Virginia, and yes, Timmy, you can drive there.
@5 Robro: “I’ve recently seen a couple of videos of Richard Feynman…and these may be AI generated…”
There are a lot of Feynman videos around. If they’re in black and white, he looks like your standard 1950’s white dude who thinks he’s really cool, he has a blackboard behind him and a lot of 1950’s looking students (including women) in front of him, and he explains really well, then it’s probably the real deal. Why fake something that is real?
Kudos for sifting through that nonsense.
It is startling to think that a majority of people really do believe a percentage of that fairytale, and in fact, people who don’t are still being persecuted (myself sort-of being an example).
How, exactly, did Krauss know that none of the young females hanging out with Epstein were at least 19? Did he check their ID (seems unlikely…), or was it a conclusion based on a strong desire to excuse himself from blame? To me, his statement is an admission of complicity, at least, and quite possibly of active participation. F*** him.
Re:#7 lapar’
“Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, only light and certain other non-material phenomena can travel at the speed of light.”
Funny, I don’t recall Einstein saying anything about “non-material phenomena”.
These are results for non-material phenomena einstein
AI Overview
Albert Einstein’s work fundamentally shifted physics from a strictly mechanistic, material-based view to one incorporating non-material, relational, and field-based phenomena. While Einstein was a realist who believed in an objective reality, his theories introduced concepts that behave in non-local or immaterial ways.
Key non-material phenomena associated with Einstein include:
Spacetime Curvature (Gravity): Einstein replaced the Newtonian idea of gravity as an invisible force (non-material action) with the concept of spacetime curvature. Gravity is not a material object, but a geometric property of the universe that dictates the motion of matter.
Electromagnetic Fields: Einstein viewed electric and magnetic fields as having a non-material, relational aspect, which depends on the coordinate system (stationary or moving frame) of the observer.
Quantum Entanglement (“Spooky Action at a Distance”): Though Einstein famously critiqued this phenomenon, he identified that if quantum mechanics were correct, separated particles could share a state or condition instantaneously over distances. He viewed this non-local connection as “spooky” because it violated the idea that all interactions must propagate through space.
Relativity of Simultaneity: Special relativity introduced the concept that time and space are not absolute, but relative to the observer’s frame of reference. Simultaneity is not a fixed, material fact, but a relational, non-material construct.
Wave Functions: In quantum mechanics, particles are described by wave functions—mathematical, non-material probability distributions—which only take on definite, localized properties when observed.
Einstein’s Perspective on Material vs. Non-Material
Nature’s Nature: Einstein noted that nature is “neither solely material nor entirely spiritual,” suggesting a blend where non-material factors (like geometry and fields) are crucial.
Conceptual Models: He believed that physical concepts are “free creations of the human mind” rather than just direct reflections of the material world.
Rejected Aether: He rejected the existence of a physical, material “luminiferous aether” in favor of relativity, which does not require a medium to propagate.
#7 he also fails to address the Kuba/Bushongo creation story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbombo
chesapeake@21–
It should go without saying but that AI slop neither understands nor represents Einstein’s work or the word “immaterial”.
Slop because the query is sloppy — obs Einstein was not wooish, and Einstein used “spiritual” to mean the rational, law‑governed order of the universe, e.g. “God does not play dice.”
(
non-material phenomena einsteinis babble, so babble came back)We think the universe is 13.8B years old because that’s where things get basically opaque (plus some expansion rate models). We can’t see light from any further away because it took a while for the big Bang to spread things out enough to be transparent. Also the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating (attributed to hypothesized dark energy), and it’s theorized that space can expand faster than the speed of light, so the cosmic horizon may some day (or won) be limited by that rather than the cosmic microwave background. There’s some cool ideas around this “era” of cosmic evolution being unique for supporting astronomy where billions of years ago things would have been too dense (I don’t remember why) and billions of years from now things will be too spread out for astronomers to draw conclusions we have about cosmic evolution. It’s cool stuff, none of which contradicts the points you’re making about the xtian claptrap.
@9) “And instead of travelling through space they travel through other dimensions, presumably by using a zipper in the space-time fabric.”
Is that a JoJo’s reference (Golden Wind)? :)
.
@17: St. John teaches that WVa is “almost heaven.” Unfortunately he never clarified if heaven was then in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, or Virginia, though personally I have serious doubts about Ohio.
My gospel:
Ooh, baby, do you know what that’s worth?
Ooh, Heaven is a place on Earth
They say in Heaven, love comes first
We’ll make Heaven a place on Earth
Ooh, Heaven is a place on Earth
This reminds me of seeing someone babbling about one of the early civilisations supposedly having a list of kings that each ruled for thousands of years. And this person took the list seriously.
My favourite part of that diagram is the “window for winds.”
that diagram has one thing right: The Great Deep is where Cthulhu hangs out.
If I’m reading this correctly, we are also hidden forever from anything beyond the Cosmic Horizon. So there.
Pretty sure that the “proper Christian” response to that is “No, no, no. We can never reach the Cosmic Horizon with our physical bodies. But our souls are not limited by the constraints of the physical!”
I have no idea if they’ve thought out whether souls teleport to heaven, or can fold space, or whatever, but they imagine the spiritual world as not being subject to the limits of the physical world.
(“Does that mean that souls can go back in time?” “Uh . . . maybe?” “So my soul can go back in time to Adam and Eve, and tell them it’s a bad idea to eat the fruit?” “Uh —
+++DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER ERROR / SYSTEM OVERFLOW+++“)