Science and Religion: Albert Einstein Albert Einstein is regarded as one of the greatest scientific thinkers of our time, but his interests were not only in the empirical. Einstein’s worldview included the religious experience, which he regarded as the source of all science. His agnostic view of existence encouraged his interests in scientific study, and his beliefs resemble some of the religions studied in this course. In most religions, a key aspect is understanding something that makes us more complete or closer to understanding. When Einstein described his opinion of religion, he stated that “A human being is part of a whole… He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest-a kind of optical illusion …show more content…
Much like the beliefs of Spinozism, Einstein equates God with being a part of the existing universe, which implies disregard to any omnipotent figure which has been manufactured by man. Although this monism is very neutral, it is still there. Perhaps Einstein’s belief that free will does not exist lead him to regard a god being as just part of the greater whole, not standing out and taking interest in human emotions and affairs. This would make sense, as he has stated agreement with Schopenhauer’s belief that man cannot “will what he wills (Einstein-website.com). Many indigenous religions also share a neutral monistic approach, saying that all gods or higher powers are part of nature. Einstein was adamant on truth and social justice, and perhaps this neutrality allowed him to remain unbiased in his approaches to science. Einstein’s personal beliefs tread the line between philosophy and religion. Philosophy bases its beliefs off a system of logical decision making, whereas religion leaves unknowns to be a matter of faith. Faith is defined as trust or confidence, and Einstein was very much based in facts, rather than blind trust. However, his speculations on the unknown seek no answer other than the question of discovering the unknown, which imply trust in the fact that the unknown …show more content…
This can aid people in becoming more open to other people’s interpretations and emotions, but it can also create social barriers between different religions. Objectivity is when something holds truth outside of its perspective. Very few religions have an objective approach, and most that do are considered philosophies or ideals rather than a faith based organization. Einstein’s work required a very objective perspective, and his personal beliefs mirror this with its broad interpretation of god and religion. Something that hinders a lot of the science community and the religious community from getting along is remaining subjective. Much of science can be found in religion, and much philosophy and religious beliefs have stemmed from science. The desire to understand greater things is what motivates science and religion, and that is where the beauty of Einstein’s view really shows. Two things are part of a whole, the physical and the infinite, and Einstein saw this very
1). Copernicus came from Poland, a very Catholic nation, which explains his choice to dedicate his book to Pope Paul III. John Calvin, a theologian who founded the Calvinist sect of Protestantism, was very fond of astronomy, saying that it shows the wisdom of God (Doc. 2). Other religious figures condemned the work of scientists, like Giovanni Ciampoli, who in a letter to Galileo insisted that Galileo censure facts due to the disagreement of church doctrines to the findings of Galileo (Doc. 3). Other philosophers merged their ideas on the sciences to religious beliefs to please the church and their own traditional beliefs. In a book by Walter Charleton, an English doctor and philosopher, he states that the creation of atoms and arrangement of them could only be achieved by a higher power (Doc. 8). His occupation as a doctor may have led him to this conclusion as the human body is a very complex machine, and it seemed that only God would be capable of engineering such an organism. Another philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz, compares God to an engineer manipulating his machines, further affecting the work of scientists by meshing religious and scientific ideas (Doc. 12). Many scientists’ works were condemned by the church at this time for blasphemy, so many turned to deism, where God made the Universe like a clock and let it run on its own. Many scientists’ work during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was
In order to make his response more effective, Albert Einstein uses rhetoric in his response to Phyllis Wright. In his response, Einstein takes the question of prayer and applies it to his scientific knowledge. As a very credible scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Einstein was a wise choice for Phyllis to write to. Moreover, in the context of this letter, Einstein proves to be a good choice especially when compared to what other scientists were accomplishing in this time period. Although he is a scientist, Einstein knows his audience by not overlooking the aspect of religion. By analyzing his audience, Einstein's purpose comes through his letter by concluding that it is okay to think outside the box and that the topic is ambiguous.
The allusion present in, "And just as Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his
However, it is the human's job to produce “the happiness of the good and the punishment of the evil” (Document 12). This, promotes the fact that our minds are stronger than we think. John Calvin supported astronomy (Document 2). Calvin supported this because of its connections to Moses and the book of Genesis. However, he also went against the Catholic Church and supported astronomy probably because he was Protestant and just wanted to support what the Catholic Church disagreed with. The Church didn’t want to let Galileo spread his ideas about the moon because they knew that it discredited many of their beliefs (Document 3). The church didn’t want Galileo to prove them wrong so that others would stop going to Church. The Pope made Galileo recant what he had said. The church did this to make sure that more people didn’t stop going to church which was their source of money. Walter Charleton, an English Doctor and natural philosopher said that “It appears so impossible that atoms.... could fix themselves into so vast and symmetrical a structure as the World. The creation and arrangement can be connected to no other cause, but to an Infinite Wisdom and Power” (Document 8). In this document, Walter Charleton states how far science can go and only God could have made such an amazing object which is our
With Ethos and Pathos, Einstein had a fair amount written in his letter. As the brightest scientist in the 20th century, his trustworthy reputation was heard by people around the world. His intelligence as a person gave him reliability when he spoke or wrote anything. Albert gave a voice of reason about why scientists didn’t pray or believe in the abundant forms of faith, and that was the logic of it all. Adjusting faith by scientific research is something scientists did; therefore, it shouldn’t be
Most philosophers saw their work as contributing to a deeper knowledge of the divine; therefore, most scientific thinkers supported religious belief. Many people believed the most important thing about the scientific revolution was to tie it in with religion to understand nature more (Doc. 3). This effort of synthesizing both religion and science was a major fundamental factor in the spread of science and its widespread acceptance in Europe. Blaise Pascal was one of the most influential men who tried reconciling faith and the new science. For Pascal, religion was not the domain of reason and science. He saw two truths in the Christian religion, which were that God exists and human beings are unworthy of God because they are corrupt by nature. To Pascal, reason alone was not enough to resolve the problems of human nature. Pascal also believe he was not losing anything if God didn’t actually exist, but if God did exist he would gain
On the other hand, philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach contended that God was merely a projection of our own nature to explain phenomenon. Karl Marx declared that religion was "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances. It is the opium of the people." Moreover, science has provided for a scientific framework to explain questionable aspects of our lives; Copernicius discovered that the sun simply did not travel around the earth, Isaac Newton's reflection on gravity explained many mysteries of the universe, and Charles Darwin's evidence of evolution questioned the literal acceptance of the bible's creation story. Science has forced believers to focus on God's apparent absence in the world. Consequently, many theologians have moved away from religious presuppositions about God, shifting their
In summary, there are many benefits and drawback to the academic study of religion from the outsider’s point of view. Benefits can include factors such as gaining a new understanding of a religion or being able to gain an unbiased perspective. Drawbacks, however, include factors such as an ethnocentric point of view of an individual or simply missing minute details in a belief of religion. When everything has been said and done, I do believe that the outsider’s perspective on the study of religion is very important and something that should always be
When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called
Religion these days have become the center of our attention as we contemplate whats right and what is wrong. Figuring out what religious views fit best with what you believe can be difficult to grasp as sometime we begin to wonder if what we read or believe actually is true. It is only human nature to question the beliefs that are set before us. Religious views all over the world have many spiritual beliefs and traditions that are all different in some way. It is important to have the knowledge of different religions as not everyone in this world believes the way you might. Having the sensitivity towards their belief is important and having the understanding that you can't change the way that they think. Two world religious views that are
Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,
Albert Einstein once said “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details”. Einstein wanted an equation that would encapsulate all physical laws. To put the beauty and the power of the universe into a single equation was his life’s goal. Although Einstein’s name is now synonymous with genius, his professors would have never predicted him to be this successful as he would always cut class, and he could not get a single job after graduating. Einstein thought he was such loser that he wrote a letter to his family saying perhaps it would be better if he was never born. His father had to apply on behalf of Einstein for academic positions, but they all said there were no positions available. His father passed away thinking that Einstein was a total disgrace to the family. In 1902 Einstein moved to Switzerland, and began a career far from science. One of his friends got him a job to be a patent clerk in the Swiss patent office. He spent six days a week reviewing applications submitted by inventors to the Swiss government. He had to analyze the patents and strip them to their essence, which honed his skills as a physicist. Since it was not intellectually demanding it would give him ample time to contemplate the universe. Einstein’s daydreams would change the way the universe was understood.
I have come to know of religions other than my own, and each has different ways of worship. By taking the time to learn the different religions of the world has helped me with understanding what others believe. In learning of others beliefs will help me in recognizing the way they dress, act and respond. Religion runs deep in different cultures all over the world, and with many it is sacred, symbolic, and law. Religion brings people together in time of need such as deaths, destruction or pain, also in celebration of birth and marriage.
Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.