It's not science OR religion. Each, if viewed a certain way, complements the other. Many truly creative and celebrated physicists have been religious, but in their own ways. Of course, if you insist on the most dogmatic and immature approach you'll get conflict. It seems to me that courageous people, whether atheists or theists, evolve toward common ground. Others remain stuck either in materialist or religious dogma, frozen by fear.
Werner Karl Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."
“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Niels Bohr:
"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."
Sir Arthur Eddington:
"The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff."
"We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness."
"The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs."
Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Albert Einstein:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
James Clerk Maxwell:
“It has been asserted that metaphysical speculation is a thing of the past, and that physical science has extirpated it. The discussion of the categories of existence, however, does not appear to be in danger of coming to an end in our time, and the exercise of speculation continues as fascinating to every fresh mind as it was in the days of Thales.”
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
14 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think we all need to have the freedom to find our own way through.
crazycurlz
Level 7
June 24, 2018
1
Those men were scientists but they were also used to thinking in terms of the presence of God, and were sympathetic to the religious point of view. Thats why I'd almost say they were looking for excuses to find God in their work.
If I look at my own impulses, my thinking is that the idea of a creator God is nonsense, but that other conceptions of God may exist, for example Spinoza's God, or a divine source of illumination which empowers life. For that reason I'm a little cautious saying God does not exist.
Denker
Level 7
June 23, 2018
2
Citing statements made by learned individuals is argument from authority. Take it for what it is.
jlynn37
Level 8
June 23, 2018
1
My only argument is that there’s no conflict between science and the crux of religion, and to support that argument I am giving examples. The opinions quoted are just opinions, not authoritative assertions of fact.
@WilliamFleming "Opinions" from a few learned and knowledgeable individuals does not unify science and religion, although it might for you.. You more than likely will find many more "opinions" from learned and knowledgeable individuals that refute your argument. IMHO
Awww! I lost what I had just written. To summarize it:
In "Where the Conflict Really Lies" (Oxford University Press, 2011) Alvin Plantinga argues that there is a superfician conflict between science and religion but a deep concord between them, and that there is a superficial concord between science and naturalism but a deep conflict between them. He takes the Westminster Confession as the religion he is talking about.
Plantinga has been a very prominent figure in American philosophy for decades. He was president of the Society of Christian Philosophers (in America) and the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association. Also he was twice chosen to give the Gifford Lectures.
Wallace
Level 7
June 23, 2018
1
Thanks. I’m going to look up the Westminster Confession right now!
Speculation will always exist for those who want to make things up without proof. They do this because they have to know everything, and this in itself is impossible. For Evangelicals they have a book that has everything in it. Well, not really, but they think it does. Ask them and they will explain it all and even tell you that science is bad. Of course, many things are passed off to the deeper things of god. Everyone is afraid to die so a "soul" is invented that puts mankind instantly in one state or another.
DenoPenno
Level 9
June 23, 2018
1
Except if you're a gay person and you find the Westboro Baptist Church picketing outside your front door.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
June 23, 2018
0
Are there really cases of that happening? I’ve never heard of such a blatant act by a church. In any event, I am talking here about a very different sort of religion.
They picket funerals of gay people apparently.
Heisenberg's words are very, very nicely put, but he's really just going to the "I don't understand it so God did it" place. Personally, I can't get with that. We humans may not understand a lot of things, but so far every single glass we have drunk to the bottom of has never had any gods in there.
Applying a law of mediocrity, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the rest of 'em are similarly deity-free.
And as for Max Planck with his "we must assume".... Must we, Max?
I don't know... Am I closed off to some deeper, mind-blowing mystery behind the Universe? Maybe.
I just... Don't have a need for one.
DaveMania
Level 6
June 23, 2018
1
The comments above are "God of the Gaps" statements - namely that which science can't explain must be explained by god. They aren't calling on god to explain what is known, only that which is unknown at the time such statements were made.
Yet when science explains the edges of the gaps and diminishes them, god now occupies smaller and smaller gaps, becoming less and less significant in the process. Ptolemy considered retrograde motion of the planets to be the result of the hand of god because his geocentric solar system couldn't explain them otherwise. When the heliocentric solar system came to be understood, the hand of god was no longer needed to explain the retrograde motion. Then it was the perihelion of Mercury's orbit that wasn't understood. Newton's equations couldn't explain them until modified by relativistic effects by Einstein.
I do have a sense of awe, appreciate, gratitude of many things. But I don't find the need to invoke a god to enjoy them.
An interesting read that expands upon these ideas by Neil Degrasse Tyson [haydenplanetarium.org]
As for your comment that the assertions of deeply religious people can't be proven by rational means, that reminds me a bit of Russell's teapot. If I were to claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars (I warn you, it is tiny though, so our most powerful telescopes can't see it), you would not be able to disprove that assertion. However, the inability to disprove such a statement does not automatically give the statement credence.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your hypothesis as you have said very little beyond a series of quotes to suggest your point of view. I would like to get a better understanding of the "certain way" that science and religion must be understood to make them compatible.
RPardoe
Level 7
June 23, 2018
2
One day someone absolutely is going to blast a teapot into orbit, just for the giggles. There's already a friggin' cabriolet going around up there — you just know the teapot's coming sooner or later. ?
As I see it, the deeply religious person is busy EXPERIENCING. She is meditating, contemplating, and living each moment in the utmost sense of awe and gratitude. Such a person is too busy to argue about the existence of God. “God” is just a word that no one can define or understand, and those who want to argue just don’t get it—they lack awareness.
I really don’t think the “”God of the Gaps” idea applies to those scientists that I quoted. They well understood the limits of rationality in understanding reality. Richard Feynman, in the introduction to “QED”, the layman’s book which explains the probabilities of various paths of photons, says that we should not ask “why”. He wrote that no one knows why, and may never know. The subject is beyond science. If students ask “why” they are told to shut up and compute.
My purpose in posting those quotes is not to argue for the existence of God, rather just to show that there are ways of being deeply reverent on a personal level that are not in conflict with science. I am calling that reverence “religion”, but if you want to define religion as just dogma presented by authoritarian or fundamentalist churches, then I will have to find another word. But that would mean that Buddhists, for example would not be religious. Hmm...
@WilliamFleming What's wrong with calling it contemplative? Meditative? I can understand the "awe", for I too am fascinated and intrigued by what science has demonstrated while being curious and intrigued by what is not known and anticipating efforts to continue to push back the boundaries of ignorance.
But I don't consider that religious because it is a shift in the typical definition of what is usually meant by religious: belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.
Your definition of religion reminds me very much of Jordan Peterson's definition and is one of the problems I have with some of his thoughts. He uses a unique definition of religion which allows him to all everyone religious as a result.
Speaking of Feynman, in his book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out also wrote:
*It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.
That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.*
So what you call contemplative, meditative, I would call curiosity and considering of the ignorance in our knowledge that drives (for some) to explore and seek out better and better answers. I would not call it religious.
@RPardoe Maybe “religious” is the wrong word, however Einstein described himself as religious, and also an atheist. Hmm...
Thanks for that information about Feynman. I deeply admired Feynman.
@WilliamFleming You just need to be very clear when stating your thesis what you mean when you say religion or use a word that is more widely understood with less reliance on being defined upfront.
When looking at Einstein, he did describe himself as an agnostic or religious nonbeliever. He did not believe in a god concerned with the fates and actions of individuals. If anything, more of a pantheist - believing that the universe itself was identical to the divine.
Thank you for responding and explaining your thoughts in response to my questions.
Didn't Heisenberg make the best cristal meth. lol.
TristanNuvo
Level 8
June 23, 2018
0
It is not religion if it is "in their own way"...Religion is dogmatic rituals, one size fits all thinking. They can be spiritual and believe in a creator but they cannot go their own way AND be religious.
CreativelyMe
Level 7
June 23, 2018
0
Are you saying that Unitarians are not religious? Buddhists? Quakers? None of those require dogmatic beliefs.
@WilliamFleming I guess that we would have to disagree on that one since all of those examples do have teachings they consider to be facts for all people and dictate a lifestyle for the people that choose to practice them.
Dogma:
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
@CreativelyMe Maybe “dictate” is too strong a word in some cases. New thought churches for example do have teachings, but so does psychology, physical education, atheism, etc., etc. No one has to believe anything.
Maybe I am wrong to call the opinions of those quoted “religion”, however Einstein described himself as religious. He was a religious atheist. 
@WilliamFleming Okay so I looked up the term religious and there is one definition included that would fit that description but otherwise religion is directly related to dogmatic beliefs so I guess it could be used but it seems like a contradiction in terms to me.
Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If the "religion" is only backed by assertion and offers no validity toward its claims, then they are exclusive by definition.
Religions offer only consolation for those not aware or fear reality.
Science only explains reality.
Hutch
Level 7
June 23, 2018
0
I don’t think the kind of assertions made by deeply religious people can be proven in a rational way. It is about awareness, awe, appreciation, gratitude. Each person has to experience those things alone.
Science tries to explain reality, but the explanations are superficial—very beautiful and valuable but not answering the deep questions of existence.
@WilliamFleming I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your first paragraph. It appears to be metaphysically related...?... I don't know.
Second paragraph...what can be superficial about proof? Evidence?Fact?
There are no deep questions of existence. That would be vain and ignorant man thinking there really is something beyond what is real.
I hate texting...sometimes I sound confrontational, but am not trying to be.
The word religion gets misused. Religion is a dogmatic belief system and all the rituals and groupthink that go along with it. Metaphysical speculation, mythological archetypes, spirituality, these are related and overlapping phenomenon but different from religion.
OrangeJuice
Level 6
June 22, 2018
1
Perhaps so, but some religious organizations are not all that dogmatic. New Thought churches are generally not dogmatic and require no belief. Unitarianism requires no belief and many atheists are members. The Society of Friends fosters only peace, love, and awareness, and it requires no belief. Buddhism does not speak of God at all, so an atheist would feel at home there I suppose.
Best not to stereotype.
@WilliamFleming more of a question of definition then anything to do with stereotyping.
With all due respect. I disagree. They are two very separate and distinct paradigms. In many ways diametrically opposed to one another. For a practicing believer to also be a practicing scientist, a compromise has to be reached. In doing so, in my opinion, you lesson the value of both paradigms. Instead of doing one well, you end up doing both mediocrely. You have to make too many sacrifices to make the two compatible. I do not care how many well known scientist claimed both. I would be willing to bet that they were making severe compromises in one or the other. Social convention and social pressure is often too hard for some pepole to go against no matter how brilliant they may be.
t1nick
Level 8
June 22, 2018
2
I suspect that most of those notable scientists were very rebellious toward the dogma of organized religion, which I agree is a separate paradigm, and would be hard or impossible to integrate with the spirit of science.
In my opinion there is a deeper and more meaningful kind of religion which might be described as awareness, awe, appreciation, gratitude, etc. The Christian emphasis on belief or faith is a deep flaw IMO, but in general I see religion as a human behavior pattern rather than a body of claimed knowledge. For myself, I have tried to throw out the chaff and keep the valuable kernels.
@WilliamFleming I think those notable scientists were studying their field of interest, and building a foundation for us...todays society, to rationally and reasonably construct models to show there is no need for a dirty. Those scientists definitely didn't have the combined knowledge we share today, and with church pressure to NOT be anti-bible upon risk of excommunication , or worse, death, most of those scientists were either using hyperbole, or mistook it for hyperbole...example, its common knowledge of Einstein's religiosity, or lack thereof...
@Hutch We are not talking about ancient history here. Except for Maxwell the lives of those quoted have overlapped my own. I remember when some of them died. Churches had no more authority fifty or a hundred years ago than they have today. There were many, many atheists then, just as today, and the topic of religion was often discussed.
Scientific knowledge has advanced to some degree but physics has basically been in a quandary for a long time, with a rift between quantum physics and relativity. String theory has not caught on, but theories of quantum gravity seem promising. It makes no difference—the findings of science, while beautiful and valuable, are at heart superficial. There are very deep mysteries about reality that science does not even address, let alone explain.
To look in awe upon those mysteries—for me that is the root and essence of religion.
@WilliamFleming ... I'm sorry. I don't share your.....?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.