RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! (Pausing to look at the life of Steven Weinberg who was one of my favorite authors!) Part 169 N My 11/30/18 letter to Dr. Weinberg on his quote on the pointlessness of life quote!

The Incredible Steven Weinberg (1933-2021) – Sixty Symbols

On the Shoulders of Giants: Steven Weinberg and the Quest to Explain the…

Steven Weinberg Discussion (1/8) – Richard Dawkins


Whatever Happened To The Human Race? (2010) | Full Movie | Michael Hordern


Letter 11-30-18 Weinberg Meaningless quote


November 30, 2018

Steven Weinberg
The University of Texas at Austin
Department of Physics
2515 Speedway Stop C1600
Austin, TX 78712-1192

Dear Dr. Weinberg,

You may have noticed that I have taken time the 30th of each month the last few months to write you letters  asking your views or reacting to views of yours that I have read in your books. Today I want to tackle your most quoted statement.

I am just doing three things in this letter.

First, we look at Francis Schaeffer’s discussion of your famous quote concerning the pointless universe.

Second, we will look at some of your own discussion of it from your book DREAMS OF A FINAL THEORY.

Third, I am going to give you a perspective from a Christian’s point of view why the universe has meaning.

Francis Schaeffer noted:

The Meaningless of All Things

An  overwhelming number of modern thinkers agree that seeing the universe and man from a humanist base leads to meaninglessness, both for the universe and for man – not just mankind in general but for each of us as individuals. Professor Steven Weinberg of Harvard University and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has written a book entitled The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (1976). Here he explains, as clearly as probably anyone has ever done, the modern materialistic view of the universe and its origin.
But when his explanation is finished and he is looking down at the earth from an airplane, as Weinberg writes, “It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe … [which] has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”86
When Weinberg says that the universe seems more “comprehensible,” he is, of course, referring to our greater understanding of the physical universe through the advance of science. But it is an understanding, notice, within, a materialistic framework, which considers the universe solely in terms of physics and chemistry – simply machinery. Here lies the irony. It is comprehension of a sort, but it is like giving a blind person sight, only to remove anything seeable. As we heard Woody Allen saying earlier, such a view of reality is “absolutely stupefying in its terror, and it renders anyone’s accomplishments meaningless.”
So, to the person who wants to be left alone without explanations for the big questions, we must say very gently, “Look at what you are left alone with.” This is not merely rhetoric. As the decades of this century have slipped by, more and more have said the same thing as Steven Weinberg and Woody Allen. It has become an obvious thing to say. The tremendous optimism of the nineteenth century, which stemmed from the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, has gradually ebbed away.
If everything “faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat,” all things are meaningless. This is the first problem, the first form of pollution. The second is just as bad.


Rice Broocks in his book GOD’S NOT DEAD quoted the American philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig:

My claim is that if there is no God then meaning, value, and purpose are ultimately human illusions. They’re just in our heads. If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary,” (William Lane Craig, ON GUARD: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision [Colorodo Springs: David C. Cook, 2010], 30).

Other reactions to Weinberg’s quote:

“I don’t believe the earth was created for people. It was a planet created by natural processes, and, as part of the further continuation of those natural processes, life and intelligent life appeared. In exactly the same way, I think the universe was created out of some natural process, and our appearance in it was a totally natural result of physical laws in our particular portion of it. Implicit in the question, I think, is that there’s some motive power that has a purpose beyond human existence. I don’t believe in that. So, I guess ultimately I agree with Weinberg that it’s completely pointless from a human perspective.”
— Sandra Faber (c.1990) of Lick Observatory; cited by Michio Kaku (2006) [6]

Below in this article Goldstein discusses some further reactions to your quote and then gives a Christian perspective on the meaning of life.

A portion of the article “The meaning of life” by Clifford Goldstein

Clifford Goldstein, MA, is director of the Adult Bible Study Guide, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
“I feel everything that ever happened to me, and I memorize it, but it’s all in vain.”
Osip Mandelstam1
“We’ve been the Beatles, which was marvelous . . . but I think generally there was this feeling of ‘Yeah, well, it’s great to be famous, it’s great to be rich—but what’s it all for?’ ”
Paul McCartney 2
In an oft-quoted sentence from his book, The First Three Minutes, Nobel Prize–winning physicist, Steven Weinberg wrote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”3 Responding to the harsh blowback from the line, Weinberg, in another book, Dreams of a Final Theory,explained that his “rash” statement did not mean that science thought the universe was pointless but simply that “the universe itself suggests no point.”4
To begin with, others wondered what all the fuss was about. Harvard astronomer Margaret Geller, for instance, responded, “Why should it [the universe] have a point? What point? It’s just a physical system, what point is there? I’ve always been puzzled by that statement.”5
Enlightenment heirs
However uncomfortable Weinberg might have made people, he was simply taking the premises of an a priori materialism to their logical conclusion. We, in the West, are inheritors of the Enlightenment, which over time (with a strong dose of French influence) morphed into promoting a system that reduced all reality, all existence, to the natural world alone. As ministers, we must realize, too, that in this worldview, no place exists for any transcen­dence, much less a personal God like Yahweh. Though postmodern­ism, in its various incantations, has been a dialectical reaction to the cold harshness of a worldview that has turned everything into “just a physical system,” the twenty-first century West remains in the grip of the modernist mentality in which science and the scientific method remain, for many, the most reliable, if not the ultimate or even only, source of truth.
Cosmology, however, is not quite a zero-sum game—and whatever we have gained, or think we have gained through the modernist world, has been offset elsewhere, especially regarding what is most personal and important—the meaning of human life itself. Friederich Nietzsche, with his harsh atheism, because of his harsh atheism, could see what modernism would do to humanity’s sense of purpose and meaning. His famous (or infamous) “God is dead” quote was a warning about the void that the modern antimetaphysical worldview would leave inside the souls of humans. And that could easily include some of your own parishioners.
Eternity in our hearts
Contrast this, however, with Christianity, with the worldview it represents, which would have given Mitchell Heisman the meaning he so desperately sought but could not find in a godless cosmos filled with just “atoms and the void.”
Instead, Scripture posits the uni­verse as the purposeful creation of a loving God (John 1:1–3; Heb. 1:2; 11:3), and humanity as thoughtfully created in His image (Gen. 1:26, 27), a radically different approach than the mindless massacre of Darwinian evolution. According to the Bible, this God created us, sustains us (Dan. 5:23; Heb. 1:3; Acts 17:28), and, most importantly, redeemed us through His own self-sacrifice in the Person of Jesus on the cross (Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6).
Redemption is crucial because to be merely created by God, in and of itself, is not enough to give us mean­ing—not when we all face death, the insidious acid that eats away at every ultimate purpose. What can life mean when it—and everyone we know in it, everyone we have ever impacted, when every influence we ever had—will all vanish into oblivion, with no consciousness of any kind to remember that we ever existed?
Scripture says that God “set eternity in the man’s heart” (Eccles. 3:11); we, then, are not only capable of contemplating eternity but have been wired for it. Yet here is pre­cisely where we painfully, even infinitely, fall short.
That is why, central to the Christian worldview, the teaching that the Lord, the Creator of all that was made (John 1:3), died for us so that we could have the promise of the eternity that He had set in our hearts. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:54). “And I give unto them eternal life” (John 10:28). “Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting” (Luke 18:30). “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life ever­lasting” (1 Tim. 1:16).
The answer
What, then, could you, as a minister, say to Mitchell Heisman or anyone who asked, What is the purpose and meaning of life?
The purpose of our lives is to love God first and foremost, and then our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:37, 38), revealing to others and to the onlooking universe (1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 3:10) the power and grace of a God who loved us so much that He bore in Himself the penalty for our sins (John 3:16; Isa. 53:4–6; 1 John 2:2) so we do not have to bear it ourselves. Thus, our lives are dedicated to His glory (1 Pet. 4:16; Rom. 15:6), which is made manifest by our willingness to serve oth­ers (1 John 3:16; Matt. 25:31–40), knowing that no good deed will go unrewarded (Matt. 10:42; Luke 6:35), that this existence is a “vapor” (James 4:14), and that through what Jesus has done for us we will live forever (John 17:3; Rom. 6:22; Matt. 19:29) in a new heaven and a new earth, one without any of the things that make us miserable here (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1–4). And because we know the gospel as such good news (Isa. 52:7; Acts 20:24), the deepest purpose and meaning in life is found in bearing witness (Isa. 43:10; Heb. 12:1) to the infinite value of every human being, revealed in the infinite sacrifice made in their behalf (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 1:19); and, therefore, through our testimony of our lives others can come to know the hope and promise of eternal life offered every human being (John 3:16; Rom. 10:11–13) in Jesus Christ.
That is what you could tell Mitchell Heisman (or anyone who asks) about the meaning of life.
Or, instead, there is always Steven Weinberg’s option. Though he argued that the universe itself is pointless, we can still, he said, “invent a point for our lives, including trying to understand the universe.” If, though, the universe is pointless—what is to understand? Why bother trying? One might even humbly ask, too, Is not seeking to “invent” a point for our lives by studying a pointless universe the kind of self-contradictory and, ultimately, futile endeavor that is so often at the root of human meaning­lessness to begin with?
Pointedly so.

Thanks for your time.


Everette Hatcher,,, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221


Steven Weinberg (1977), in a book depicting the universe originating from a point (above left), aka big bang, argued, ironically, to the chagrin of many, that, according to the second law, the universe is “pointless”. [1]
In hmolscience, pointlessness, as contrasted with “pointfullness”, refers to the conjecture, originating predominately from Steven Weinberg (1977), that the universe, particularly from the atheism-based human view of things, is pointless or without points.

in 1977, American physicist Steven Weinberg, in his The First Three Minutes, firstly, dismissed the infinite oscillating model of the universe with recourse to heat death theory, then discussed in upgraded particle physics language, at the end of which he famously or infamously, depending on one’s point of view, concluded that the universe seems pointless: [1]

“Some cosmologists are philosophically attracted to the oscillating model of the, especially because, like the steady-state model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis. It does, however, face one severe theoretical difficulty. In each cycle the ratio of photons to nuclear particles (or, more precisely, the entropy per nuclear particle) is slightly increased by a kind of friction (known as ‘bulk viscosity’) as the universe expands and contracts. As far as we know, the universe would then start each new cycle with a new, slightly larger ratio of photons to nuclear particles. Right now this ratio is large, but not infinite, so it is hard to see how the universe could have previously experienced an infinite number of cycles.

However all these problems may be resolved, and whichever cosmological model proves correct, there is not much of comfort in any of this. It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, what human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning. As I write this I happen to be in an airplane at 30,000 feet, flying over Wyoming en route home from San Francisco to Boston. Below, the earth looks very soft and comfortable—fluffy clouds here and there, snow turning pink as the sun sets, roads stretching straight across the country from one town to another. It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelming hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar earlier condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

This last “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” statement quickly became Weinberg’s trademark philosophical credo statement, particularly among atheism and or science and religion publications. This view, to note, is reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s 1937 second law based “meaninglessness” atheism philosophy. [2]

In 1992, Weinberg, in his Dreams of a Final Theory, chapter: “What About God?”, continued to discuss the repercussions of this pointlessness quote as follows: [3]

“In my 1977 book, The First Three Minutes, I was rash enough to remark that ‘the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless’. I did not mean that science teaches us that the universe is pointless, but rather that the universe itself has no point. I hastened to add that there were ways that we ourselves could invent a point for our lives, including trying to understand the universe. But the damage was done: that phrase has dogged me ever since.

Here again, Weinberg not only asserts that the universe that originates from a point (big bang) has no point, but also that in human existences there are no points, seems to assert that, according to modern science, “there is no point to life”, but that we can be secular scientists and “invent” points, e.g. trying to understand things.

Lightmann-Brawer | Poll
In circa 1990, Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer polled twenty-seven cosmologists and physicists on Weinberg’s pointlessness conjecture; Weinberg discusses this as follows:
Weinberg continues:

“Recently Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer published interviews with twenty-seven cosmologists and physicists, most of whom had been asked at the end of their interview what they thought of that remark. With various qualifications, ten of the interviewees agreed with men and thirteen did not, but of those thirteen three disagreed because they did not see why anyone would expect the universe to have a point.”

Some of the responses are as follows:

“Why should it have a point? What point? It’s just a physical system, what point is there? I’ve always been puzzled by that statement.”
— Margaret Geller (c.1990), Harvard astronomer; cited by Weinberg (1992)

“I’m willing to believe that we are flotsam and jetsam.”
— Jim Peebles (c.1990), Princeton astrophysicist; cited by Weinberg (1992)

“I don’t believe the earth was created for people. It was a planet created by natural processes, and, as part of the further continuation of those natural processes, life and intelligent life appeared. In exactly the same way, I think the universe was created out of some natural process, and our appearance in it was a totally natural result of physical laws in our particular portion of it. Implicit in the question, I think, is that there’s some motive power that has a purpose beyond human existence. I don’t believe in that. So, I guess ultimately I agree with Weinberg that it’s completely pointless from a human perspective.”
— Sandra Faber (c.1990) of Lick Observatory; cited by Michio Kaku (2006) [6]

Weinberg (1992) went on to state that Princeton astrophysicist Edwin Turner agreed with him, that his University of Texas colleague, astronomer Gerard de Vaucouleurs thought the remark was “nostalgic”, and that he sees himself unique among physicists for carrying about these types of science replacing religions intersections. By 2000, Weinberg’s pointless universe statement, according to The New York Times (“Physicist Ponders God, Truth and a Final Theory”, James Glanz), had become a “much-quoted aphorism”. (?)

In 2001, Weinberg again re-stoked the fires of debate with the following statement about how he believes that “there is nothing in the universe that suggests any purpose for humanity” statement: [6]

“Though aware that there is nothing in the universe that suggests any purpose for humanity, one way that we can find a purpose is to study the universe by the methods of science, without consoling ourselves with fairy tales about its future, or about our own.”

This again prompted further debate and objection, which Weinberg discusses further in his 2010 book Lake Views. [4]

See also
? Meaninglessness
? Purposeless

The following are related quotes:

“Academic degree after degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe.”
— Ravi Zacharias (2008), The End of Reason [5]

“The science-religion controversy is rooted in talk of afterlife, soul, higher powers, muses, purpose, reason, objectivity, pointlessness, and randomness.”
— Robert Burton (2008), On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You’re Wrong

1. Weinberg, Steven. (1977). The First Three Minutes: a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (pointless, pg. 154). Basic Books.
2. Huxley, Aldous. (1937). Ends and Means: an Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals (meaninglessness, 4+ pgs; quote, pg. 270). Harper Collins.
3. Weinberg, Steven. (1992). Weinberg, Steven. (1992). Dreams of a Final Theory: the Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (Dostoyevsky, pgs. 52-53; pointless, pgs. 255-56). Random House.
4. Weinberg, Steven. (2010). Lake Views (pg. 45). Harvard University Press.
5. Zacharias, Ravi. (2008). The End of Reason (pg. 17). Zondervan.
6. Kaku, Michio. (2006). Parallel Worlds (pg. 355). Knopf Doubleday

Letter 10-30-18



The Bill Moyers Interview – Steven Weinberg

How Should We Then Live (1977) | Full Movie | Francis Schaeffer | Edith …

Steven Weinberg Discussion (2/8) – Richard Dawkins


Steven Weinberg – Dreams of a Final Theory

Steven Weinberg Discussion (3/8) – Richard Dawkins

Steven Weinberg, Author

How Should We Then Live | Season 1 | Episode 6 | The Scientific Age


Steven Weinberg Discussion (4/8) – Richard Dawkins

I am grieved to hear of the death of Dr. Steven Weinberg who I have been familiar with since reading about him in 1979 in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Dr. C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer. I have really enjoyed reading his books and DREAMS OF A FINAL REALITY and TO EXPLAIN THE WORLD were two of my favorite!

C. Everett Koop
C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg


Steven Weinberg Discussion (5/8) – Richard Dawkins

Francis Schaeffer : Reclaiming the World part 1, 2

The Atheism Tapes – Steven Weinberg [2/6]

The Story of Francis and Edith Schaeffer

Steven Weinberg, a noble revolutionary in physics, dies at 88

Science   2021-07-26 01:54:52

Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in revolutionary physics, dies at 88 His discoveries have deepened the understanding of forces fundamentals at play in the universe, and he brought the general public back to the dawn of his book “The First Three Minutes “. Steven Weinberg, a theoretical physicist who discovered that two of the forces in the universe are really the same, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, and who contributed to lay the foundations for the development of the stand modelard, a theory that classifies all known elementary particles in the universe, making it one of the most important breakthroughs in physics in the 20th century, died in a hospital in Austin, Texas on Friday. He was 88 years old. His daughter, Dr Elizabeth Weinberg, confirmed the death but did not specify a cause. Dr. Weinberg “s stature in physics would be hard to overestimate. In 2015, Dr. Brian Greene, theoretical physicist at Columbia University, invited Dr. Weinberg to be the first speaker at a new lecture series at the university called “On the Shoulders of Giants”. Introducing his guest, Dr Greene recounted how in the early 1980s he was working at IBM when he was invited to lecture at the University of Texas at Austin, where Dr Weinberg was a teacher. When he told his boss,John Cocke, a computer pioneer, that Dr Weinberg would be attending the conference, Dr Cocke warned him: “You must know that there are Nobel laureates and then there are Nobel Prize winners. ” Dr Weinberg was in the second category. Although he had the respect, almost awe of his colleagues for his scientific abilities and knowledge, he also possesses a rare ability among scientists to communicate and explain obscure scientific ideas to the public. He was a sought-after speaker and wrote several popular science books, including “The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe” (1977). The work for which Dr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize had a transformative impact on physics, especially on the development of quan mechanics.tick, which tries to understand and explain what is happening in the subatomic world. There are four known forces in the universe: gravity ; electromagnetism; the strong force, which binds the nuclei of atoms together; and the weak force, which causes radioactive decay. The first two forces have been known for centuries, but the other two were only discovered during the first two decades of the 20th century. Over the following decades, physicists struggled to find a theory that would account for all forces, or what Einstein called a theory of everything. Although there have been some important discoveries, especially new particles with exotic names like quarks (the components of protons and neutrons in the nucleus) and leptons (which include electrons but also more esoteric particles called muons and taus), a teaorie or a unified model has remained elusive. . Image Dr. Weinberg in October 1979 at Harvard after learning he would receive the Nobel Prize in Physics. Credit … Associated press photo In 1967, Dr. Weinberg began to use what is called gauge theory to study interactions in weak forces, which had not yet been successfully explained. The gauge theory was developed in the 19th century by James Clerk Maxwell, a physicist British, in his founding work to explain electromagnetism. In the 1950s it was used by Robert Mills and Chen Ning Yang , a Chinese-American physicist, who later won the Nobel Prize, for understanding strong-force interactions. But the Dr. Weinberg”s application of the gauge theory to the weak force quickly ran into a problem. Electromagnetism is a force that acts at great distances, but the weak force acts only at very short distances – smaller than the nucleus of an atom. In electromagnetism, when two particles – say, electrons – collide, they exchange a neutral massless particle called a photon, also known as a gauge boson. If two particles collide due to the weak force, gauge theory requires – due to the short distances of the interaction – that the gauge bosons qui are exchanged to be massive and possibly electrically charged. Fortunately, several ars earlier, physicists had devised a way to generate the mass of the bosons of gauge called the Higgs mechanism. It was named in honor of Peter Higgs, a British physicist, and he predicted the existence of a previously unknown particle which is responsible for giving mass to other particles. The particle was named the Higgs boson, and its discovery in 2012 led Dr. Higgs and his colleague François Englert the 2013 Nobel Prize . Towards a unified theory Using this new idea, Dr Weinberg was able to create a model in which weak interactionsproduced massive boson particles, at least by atomic standards, in caliber. He called them W and Z bosons. His theory also predicted that in certain collisions – for example, between two electrically neutral particles like a neutron and a neutrino – a neutral current, as opposed to a charged current, would be created, indicating that there had been an exchange of a Z boson. Dr . Weinberg theorized that there was a connection between the photon and the W and Z bosons, suggesting that they were created by the same force. The conclusion was that at very high energy levels the electromagnetic and weak forces were the same. It was a step on the road to unified theory that physicists were looking for. Dr. Weinstein published his findings in 1967 in a groundbreaking article, “A Model of Leptons,” in the journal Physical Review Letters. The article is one of the most cited research papers in history. Working separately, Dr Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theorist l physicist, came to the same conclusions as Dr. Weinberg. Their model became known as the Weinberg-Salam theory. It was revolutionary, not only to propose the unification of electromagnetic and weak forces, but also to create a system of classification of masses and charges for all fundamental particles, thus forming the basis of the Standard Model, which includes all forces except gravity. The existence of the neutral current was confirmed experimentally in 1973, when it took another decade for the W and Z bosons to be verified , by Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer at the CERN supercollider in Switzerland near Geneva. This work has earned Dr Rubbia and Dr van der Meer the 1984 Nobel Prize . Image Dr. Weinberg, left, with Dr Sheldon Lee Glashow, spoke to reporters after learning they would share the 1979 Nobel Prize. Working separately, Dr Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theoretical physicist, also shared the prize. Credit … Associated press photo Dr. Weinberg, Dr Salam and Dr Sheldon Lee Glashow, a former classmate of Dr Weinberg who had solved a critical problem with the Weinberg-Salam model, were jointly awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles. ” After learning that Dr. Weinberg had passed, John Carlos Baez, physicist theorist at the University of California, Riverside, wrote on Twitter: “For all the talk about unification, there are few examples. Newton unified terrestrial and celestial gravity – apples and planets. Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism. Weinberg, Glashow and Salam unified electromagnetism and weak force. ” Dr. Weinberg”s prodigious output went well beyond his contributions to the Standard Model. In the mid-1960s, after the discovery of cosmic background radiation, the thermal signature left by the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe, Dr. Weinberg began to study cosmology, leading to his book “Gravitation and Cosmologie “in 1972. Shortly after, he was invited to lecture on the subject at Harvard”s Undergraduate Science Center. During the talk, Dr Weinberg described how the universe evolved in the first three minutes after the Big Bang, when things had cooled down enough for atomic nuclei to bind together. He then commented : “After that, nothing interesting would happen in the history of the universe. ” Image Dr. Weinberg reached a wide readership with this 1977 book explaining the explosive evolution of the universe in its first three minutes. Comment it all started, explained The joke led to an ediauthor of books to hire Dr Weinberg to write “The First Three Minutes,” which gained wide readership and made cosmology a respectable field for physicists. In the book, he described the earth as “a tiny part of an extremely hostile universe ” and famously and grimly concluded: “The more comprehensible the universe seems, the more it also seems useless. ” He has written many other books, including one on the history of science, “To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science ” ( 2015), and three volumes totaling 1,500 pages, on quantum field theory, which merges classical physics, special relativity and quantum mechanics. The series is widely regarded as the definitive text on the subject. Dr. Willy Fischler, a theoretical physicist whom Dr. Weinberg recruited for the faculty of the University of Texas, Austin, in 1982,stated that perhaps Dr. Weinberg”s greatest work has been in the development of an efficient field theory, which provides a mathematical method for use in relatively low-energy experiments to detect the effects of higher particles. energy that cannot be seen or measured directly. Dr. Fischler called him the father of efficient field theory. Steven Weinberg was born in New York City on May 3, 1933, the only child by Frederick and Eva (Israel) Weinberg. His father was a court reporter, his mother a housewife. As he told the Nobel Institute in an interview in 2001, he first became interested in science when a cousin of the one who had received a chemistry kit passed it on to him. The cousin had decided to take up boxing instead. “Maybe he should have stayed in science, ” sa id Dr Weinberg. He went to Bronx High School of Science, where Sheldon Lee Glashow was among his classmates and friends. After graduating from Cornell University in 1954, he spent a year at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen, which was later renamed Niels Bohr Institute, after the Nobel laureate. Dr Weinberg returned to the United States in 1955 to prepare for his doctorate. at the University of Princeton under Sam Treiman, a renowned theoretical physicist. Dr. Weinberg worked at Columbia University until 1959 and then at Columbia University. “University of California at Berkeley, until 1966, when he became a lecturer at Harvard and visiting professor at MIT until 1969. MIT then hired him, but he returned to Harvard in 1973 to become the Higgins professor of physics, succeeding Julian Schwinger, who had won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his contributions to theunderstanding of particle physics. Dr Weinberg has also been appointed Principal Scientist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, which is also located in Cambridge, Mass., Along with Harvard and M.I.T. Dr. Weinberg married Louise Goldwasser in 1954; they had met while they were students at Cornell. In 1980, Ms. Weinberg joined the University of Texas, Austin, as a professor of law. Over the next two years, she and Dr Weinberg commuted between Cambridge and Dr Weinberg. p his work at Harvard. He joined his wife in Texas in 1982, becoming a professor of physics and astronomy, as he had been at Harvard. As part Upon his move, Dr. Weinberg was authorized to establish a high-level theoretical physics research group at the University of Texas and to recruit professors for it. He grew to include eight prof tenured professors and five assistant professors and is considered one of the leading physics research centers in the United States. Dr. Fischler, who continues to work with the theory group, sa id of Dr Weinberg: “He had a knack for looking at issues that matter, but not just what was important, but what got resolved. ” “There is no cosmic plane ” Dr. Weinberg, who never retired, continued to teach until the spring of this year. He has received numerous awards and honors in addition to the Nobel, including the National Medal of Science in 1991 and the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in Science in 2004. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Royal Society in Great Brittany. Last year ila received a $ 3 million prize for his contributions to fundamental physics from the Breakthrough Prize Foundation, founded by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sergey Brin of Google, and Jack Ma of Alibaba, among others. Besides his daughter, a doctor, he is survived by his wife and a granddaughter. Dr . Weinberg opposed religion, believing it undermined efforts to seek and uncover the truth. In “The First Three Minutes” he wrote: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion must be done and may ultimately be our greatest contribution to civilization.” In his interview with the Nobel Institute, h He was asked about his oft-quoted phrase near the end of “The First Three Minutes “- ” The more comprehensible the universe, the more it also seemst useless. ” ” What I meant by this statement is that there is no point to discover in nature itself; there is no cosmic plan for us, “he sa id. “We are not the actors in a drama that was written with us in the lead role. There are laws – we are discovering these laws – but they are impersonal, they are cold. ” He added: ” It is not an entirely happy view of human life. I think this is a tragic point of view, but it is nothing new to physicists. A tragic outlook on life has been expressed by so many poets – that we are here aimlessly, trying to identify something close to our hearts. ”

Steven Weinberg – What Makes the Universe Fascinating?

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto


Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:


I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Patricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart EhrmanIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldAlan Guth, Jonathan HaidtHermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman JonesShelly KaganStuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, Elizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaDouglas Osheroff,   Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Robert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver SacksMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,


In  the 1st video below in the 50th clip in this series are his words. 

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)


Steven Weinberg: To Explain the World

I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.

Steven Weinberg


Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 53 THE BEATLES (Part E, Stg. Pepper’s and John Lennon’s search in 1967 for truth was through drugs, money, laughter, etc & similar to King Solomon’s, LOTS OF PICTURES OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA) (Feature on artist Yoko Ono)

The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives  just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: