Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith

[buffalo]

Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith

Charles Darwin may have smiled last week. Why? Because last week in the Vatican’s flagship Gregorian University, scientists, philosophers, and theologians of international renown — both believers and non-believers in a divine Creator — gathered to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. An outside observer might have called it a contemporary inquisition, where men and women of distinct academic fields seek understanding from each other on how and why current life forms have come to be.
Participants of this congress seemed well aware that we are living in peculiar times where rapid scientific discovery is curiously accompanied by increasing bickering over what this information means to queries about the origin of the world and our place in it. I say curiously, because it would seem logical that more empirical evidence about biological evolution would translate into greater unity of thought. Not so. In America we can’t even agree on ***if ***and how theories of evolution should be taught in our schools.
The Vatican’s middle-of-the-road approach hasn’t been met with cheers from everyone. Staunch Darwinists claim the Vatican is hijacking and perverting Darwin’s teachings by leaving room in evolutionary theory for belief in God. Creationists, on the other hand, are scandalized by the Vatican’s general acceptance of biological evolution as scientific fact.

more…

 

[JDaniel]

Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith

Charles Darwin may have smiled last week. Why? Because last week in the Vatican’s flagship Gregorian University, scientists, philosophers, and theologians of international renown — both believers and non-believers in a divine Creator — gathered to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. An outside observer might have called it a contemporary inquisition, where men and women of distinct academic fields seek understanding from each other on how and why current life forms have come to be.
Participants of this congress seemed well aware that we are living in peculiar times where rapid scientific discovery is curiously accompanied by increasing bickering over what this information means to queries about the origin of the world and our place in it. I say curiously, because it would seem logical that more empirical evidence about biological evolution would translate into greater unity of thought. Not so. In America we can’t even agree on ***if ***and how theories of evolution should be taught in our schools.
The Vatican’s middle-of-the-road approach hasn’t been met with cheers from everyone. Staunch Darwinists claim the Vatican is hijacking and perverting Darwin’s teachings by leaving room in evolutionary theory for belief in God. Creationists, on the other hand, are scandalized by the Vatican’s general acceptance of biological evolution as scientific fact.

more…

Buffalo:

I am on your side, on this matter, with one caveat. I would like science to be taught without the exclusion of religiously based possibilities for things and without the uttered presumptuousness that the idea of God has no place in classrooms for rigorous thought. The teacher of science, which I was, should not pontificate that there is no God, that all of what we see and know is pure matter, that life marches on and selects that which goes on before it by itself, that religion is primitive ignorance.

There are science teachers that imbue their classrooms with this stuff. The science teacher should have the professionalism - no matter what his or her beliefs might be - to allow the student, with (name removed by moderator)ut from his/her parents, mentors, pastors, other teachers, writers of great books, etc., to be presented those scenarios, in the appropriate venues.

jd

.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo:

I am on your side, on this matter, with one caveat. I would like science to be taught without the exclusion of religiously based possibilities for things and without the uttered presumptuousness that the idea of God has no place in classrooms for rigorous thought. The teacher of science, which I was, should not pontificate that there is no God, that all of what we see and know is pure matter, that life marches on and selects that which goes on before it by itself, that religion is primitive ignorance.

There are science teachers that imbue their classrooms with this stuff. The science teacher should have the professionalism - no matter what his or her beliefs might be - to allow the student, with (name removed by moderator)ut from his/her parents, mentors, pastors, other teachers, writers of great books, etc., to be presented those scenarios, in the appropriate venues.

jd

.

Agreed.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

Buffalo:

I am on your side, on this matter, with one caveat. I would like science to be taught without the exclusion of religiously based possibilities for things and without the uttered presumptuousness that the idea of God has no place in classrooms for rigorous thought. The teacher of science, which I was, should not pontificate that there is no God, that all of what we see and know is pure matter, that life marches on and selects that which goes on before it by itself, that religion is primitive ignorance.

There are science teachers that imbue their classrooms with this stuff. The science teacher should have the professionalism - no matter what his or her beliefs might be - to allow the student, with (name removed by moderator)ut from his/her parents, mentors, pastors, other teachers, writers of great books, etc., to be presented those scenarios, in the appropriate venues.

jd

.

Here you will never find argument from me. Science makes no claims about the existence or non existence of a divine artificer. It makes claims only about the subject that is studies. It may make claims based on evidence that may shake the religious (like evolution) the claim itself says nothing about “god”. That being said, there is no room for the mention of god in a science class. It muddles the issue and turns the class away fromthe evidence. If they want to talk about religion and the claims that it makes then the place for that would be a religion class. The confusion comes from the fact that religion does make claims about science and the physical world in its presumption of god, but science only makes comments on the world around us and its workings with no statement as to the existence of a god. In order to keep science, well, science we need to keep it from being confused by other subjects that have no bearing on it.

Well said JDaniel

Peace

 

[Donald45]

Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith.

I couldn’t agree more…
"By faith we understand that the world was created…" (Heb. 11:4).

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[JDaniel]

Here you will never find argument from me. Science makes no claims about the existence or non existence of a divine artificer. It makes claims only about the subject that is studies. It may make claims based on evidence that may shake the religious (like evolution) the claim itself says nothing about “god”. That being said, there is no room for the mention of god in a science class. It muddles the issue and turns the class away from the evidence. If they want to talk about religion and the claims that it makes then the place for that would be a religion class. The confusion comes from the fact that religion does make claims about science and the physical world in its presumption of god, but science only makes comments on the world around us and its workings with no statement as to the existence of a god. In order to keep science, well, science we need to keep it from being confused by other subjects that have no bearing on it.

Well said JDaniel

Peace

Thank you, Evolved:

However, I have to slightly disagree. Having taught biology, botany, zoology, and general science on the high school level with other science teachers, I have heard the remarks straight from the mouths of the horses. Also, every so often there will appear, in these forums, web links to modern articles written by scientists who aim their whole article as an attack against the existence of God or the verity of any kind of religious thought. Unfortunately, I suppose it works both ways. Although, most of what I’ve seen from the religious opposition arrives with charitableness, i.e., not disparaging science, or scientists, but rather simply trying to lay a track along side some discovery or conclusion.

I must say that is seems scientists have thrown out the concept of charitability.

jd

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Vatican’s middle-of-the-road approach hasn’t been met with cheers from everyone. Staunch Darwinists claim the Vatican is hijacking and perverting Darwin’s teachings by leaving room in evolutionary theory for belief in God. Creationists, on the other hand, are scandalized by the Vatican’s general acceptance of biological evolution as scientific fact.

“Staunch Darwinists” like Stephen Gould (a self described “orthodox Darwinist”) have commended the Church for not confusing scientific theory with religion. No scientist of any worth wants science recruited to assess the supernatural. The Pope is quite right; it has no business in religion. One can no more fit God into science than you can fit an automobile into a matchbox.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

Thank you, Evolved:

However, I have to slightly disagree. Having taught biology, botany, zoology, and general science on the high school level with other science teachers, I have heard the remarks straight from the mouths of the horses. Also, every so often there will appear, in these forums, web links to modern articles written by scientists who aim their whole article as an attack against the existence of God or the verity of any kind of religious thought. Unfortunately, I suppose it works both ways. Although, most of what I’ve seen from the religious opposition arrives with charitableness, i.e., not disparaging science, or scientists, but rather simply trying to lay a track along side some discovery or conclusion.

I must say that is seems scientists have thrown out the concept of charitability.

jd

I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins and he makes commentary on religion quite frequently but that doesn’t mean that the subject of science makes any comment on it. Science does not make any claims about religion. ScientTISTS make responses to religion (note how NOW they are talking about religion) USING scientific evidence but that is a religious discussion. NO science teacher should ever comment on religion in science class. That is terrible!
Religion DOES make claims though that directly trespass on scientific understanding, so it can’t be helped that when talking about religious claims that science comes into play. The difference as I pointed out is that at no time does religion need to be mentioned when making scientific claims.
What I mean is this.

If we are talking about uniformitarianism we never need to reference a god in order to prove or disprove this area of discourse. IF however we are talking about the the global flood as a religious claim, we may USE uniformitarianism as evidence against it. Using knowledge that counters claims as evidence does not mean that said knowledge makes any claim in and of itself about that claim. It only shows that the claim does not relfect our best understanding of how the world works.

You are right though, IF there are religious scientists out there speaking about religion while they teach (positively OR negatively) they need to take a good long hard look at their professional ethos and determine why they are doing it and if it is intellectually honest to link science and religion. (clearly it is not)

Well said JDaniel!

peace

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You are right though, IF there are religious scientists out there speaking about religion while they teach (positively OR negatively) they need to take a good long hard look at their professional ethos and determine why they are doing it and if it is intellectually honest to link science and religion. (clearly it is not)

So you think the following were intellectually dishonest?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” Louis Pasteur

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” Werner Heisenberg

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

You are right though, IF there are religious scientists out there speaking about religion while they teach (positively OR negatively) they need to take a good long hard look at their professional ethos and determine why they are doing it and if it is intellectually honest to link science and religion. (clearly it is not)

So you think the following were intellectually dishonest?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” Louis Pasteur

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” Werner Heisenberg

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein

To be honest the only dishonesty (although I would suspect it comes from a lack of education in the subject) comes from your use of Darwin and Einsteins quotes. They were both atheists, and Einstein was a strong atheist commenting on it many times.

The comments were made by scientists and not a commentary of science. You seem to have missed the point. The type of comment that you are using to illustrate your point is one where a well known scientist seemingly says that there is a god, but even if that were true it doesn’t mean that science itself refers to a god. And if they say it does, then yes, no matter who it is it is intellectually dishonest.

Albert Einstein was an atheist- "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "

• Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

Darwin was an agnostic atheist- “Science has nothing to do with Christ For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation”

Heisenberg was an atheist too.

Not that it matters, just because they were atheists, doesn’t mean that they are right. Neither does other scientists being theists mean that they are right.

See my point?

peace

 

[Namesake]

Thank you, Evolved:

However, I have to slightly disagree. Having taught biology, botany, zoology, and general science on the high school level with other science teachers, I have heard the remarks straight from the mouths of the horses. Also, every so often there will appear, in these forums, web links to modern articles written by scientists who aim their whole article as an attack against the existence of God or the verity of any kind of religious thought. Unfortunately, I suppose it works both ways. Although, most of what I’ve seen from the religious opposition arrives with charitableness, i.e., not disparaging science, or scientists, but rather simply trying to lay a track along side some discovery or conclusion.

I must say that is seems scientists have thrown out the concept of charitability.

jd

Just to add a little balance, I can offer a comment from the other side. I have taught comparative anatomy and histology and embryology at the university level. Not once did I mention religion and I never knew of any other faculty members who included comments about religion in their lectures. There isn’t any need to do that because the subject at hand is science, and the science stands on it’s own.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

To be honest the only dishonesty (although I would suspect it comes from a lack of education in the subject) comes from your use of Darwin and Einsteins quotes. They were both atheists, and Einstein was a strong atheist commenting on it many times.

This is absurd … You obviously know nothing of Einstein’s oft stated contempt for atheists:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

The comments were made by scientists and not a commentary of science. You seem to have missed the point. The type of comment that you are using to illustrate your point is one where a well known scientist seemingly says that there is a god, but even if that were true it doesn’t mean that science itself refers to a god. And if they say it does, then yes, no matter who it is it is intellectually dishonest.

Whew! (You’ll see what I mean by “Whew!” in the next post.)

*Albert Einstein was an atheist- "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "

• Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945*

See previous quote from Einstein, which is how he regarded himself, not how the Jesuits regarded him.

*Darwin was an agnostic atheist- “Science has nothing to do with Christ For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation”
*
So again you deny that Darwin referred to himself as a theist in his own autobiography.

Heisenberg was an atheist too.

Please provide a quote to that effect. Otherwise, you have no case.

Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

then yes, no matter who it is it is intellectually dishonest

So all these men were intellectually dishonest?

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.” Letter to Ezra Stiles 3/9/1790

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory, Catholic Priest

“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Was Heisenberg an atheist?

adherents.com/people/ph/Werner_Heisenberg.html

*When he was fifty-five, Heisenberg gave the Gifford lectures at St. Andrews on “Physics and Philosophy.” He himself was religious, a member of the Evangelische Kirche (Lutheran and Calvinistic mixture), which his family had traditionally attended. As he once wrote me, he obviously did not subscribe to all the tenets of his grandparents. Nevertheless, he and his wife educated their children “definitely along the lines of the Christian religion.” He was once asked by Pauli if he believed in a personal God. This was his reply: “Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term ‘soul’ quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes.” *

 

[aussie_jaz]

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” - Pope John Paul II

faith is faith and science is science but they can have a good symbiotic relationship.they can work together very well…if we let them.

 

[CoG]

The observations of evolution are not in conflict with creation. It has been shown and understood that biological evolution is a fact. Today we can change the physical aspects by changing the DNA. The change of the DNA is the same thing that happens in evolution.

The ignorance or dishonesty of evolutionist is in not knowing or admitting that there is no proof that any of the attributes of man is in anyway connected with evolution. The attributes of man came into being about 10,000 years ago. There is no indication that the attributes of man evolved and no biological process of evolution can be shown to occur as rapid as man’s change from an instinctive animal to a being of intelligence.

The evolution historical evidence indicates that intelligent man came about by outside of evolution. It is clear that God gave an instinctive biological form man, attributes in the image and likeness of God and Adam came into being.

If true science was taught the difference between biological instinctive man and man with the attributes of the image and likeness of God man must be stated. Honest science must teach that difference even if that difference is not attributed to the action of God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The ignorance or dishonesty of evolutionist is in not knowing or admitting that there is no proof that any of the attributes of man is in anyway connected with evolution. The attributes of man came into being about 10,000 years ago. There is no indication that the attributes of man evolved and no biological process of evolution can be shown to occur as rapid as man’s change from an instinctive animal to a being of intelligence.

The evolution historical evidence indicates that intelligent man came about by outside of evolution. It is clear that God gave an instinctive biological form man, attributes in the image and likeness of God and Adam came into being.

If true science was taught the difference between biological instinctive man and man with the attributes of the image and likeness of God man must be stated. Honest science must teach that difference even if that difference is not attributed to the action of God.

Why would it be offensive to you, if God gave us some of our attributes by evolution?

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

then yes, no matter who it is it is intellectually dishonest

So all these men were intellectually dishonest?

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.” Letter to Ezra Stiles 3/9/1790

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory, Catholic Priest

“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Not sure why people continue to completely miss the point. SCIENCE does not comment on reilgion or the existence of a god. Certain scientISTS may have OPINIONS on that subject but that is not drawn from any scientific evidence nor statement that the subject of science has concluded.

I wouldn’t be so foolish as to say that people who happen to be scientists might have an opinion on the existence or non existence of a divine being, but that opinion is not the arena of the subject of science and should not be taught as such. Science itself is not interested in anything but fact, evidence, testable propositions.

So we go back again to the subject title.

let science be science, and religion be religion.

Peace

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

This is absurd … You obviously know nothing of Einstein’s oft stated contempt for atheists:

He had no use for evangelical atheists (the same can be said for Darwin, although it was born from the belief that it didn’t serve any purpose.)

I actually have a very good understanding of Einsteins religious views. He was NOT religious in any way. Your first quote from him was an incomplete picture of his statement on atheism.
He was oft stated to not have the fervour of the “evangelical” atheist.

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”

• Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

• Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”

• Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”

• Albert Einstein, letter of February 5, 1921

“Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me”

• Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp

“For me the Jewish religion, **like all others **,is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

He called himself an agnostic in many writings and decried belief as superstition (suggesting atheism of course) but NEVER identified with theists. Not sure even why it is an issue because what Einstein believes has no bearing on the truth of the question of the existence of god.

To carry on the useless debate as to anothers beliefs (useless because it has no bearing on the truth of the matter of the divines existence) I DO deny that Darwin identified as a theist.

He actually identified as an agnostic out of respect for his wife and out of a desire not to upset people
“I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.”
(Charles Darwin)

“I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for his existence. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.”
(Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 612)

“But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice.”
(Charles Darwin, source unknown)

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic”
Charles Darwin

He clearly espoused many atheistic beliefs, but who knows, and honestly who cares if he was. I was merely nipping the call to scientific authority in stating that those people were theists when in truth it doesn’t matter.

The point of the post is that science itself makes no claims about the existence of god, it makes claims on observable reality and how it works. Science class should not be infilitrated by a subject that has nothing to say on the subject. Neither should literature be taught as science. I only made the side point that some things that some religions teach are clearly infringements ofn scientific knowledge. (denial of evolution, native indians as isrealites, espousal of the existence of evidence for flood geology, etc…) That being the case science can be called upon to confirm or deny certain scientific claims MADE by religion but nowhere does science actually make a claim on faith or the existence of the divine.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear

peace

 

[Leela]

Not sure why people continue to completely miss the point. SCIENCE does not comment on reilgion or the existence of a god.

Okay, but as soon as one makes claims about what God is like we have scientific questions about whether our experiences are consustent or inconsistent with those claims.