Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion

A couple of minor notes on Feynman's claims.<p>First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be <i>more</i> ethical than religious people as a whole. This shows up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates, etc. (There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the statistics.)<p>Secondly surveys that I saw a long time ago suggest that Feynman was wrong about most scientists in his day. At that time most scientists were religious. (Still at lower rates than the general public.) However most <i>elite</i> scientists were atheists. Which supports the thesis that the more seriously you take science, the harder it is to subscribe to traditional religion.<p>But this has shifted over time. While looking for that old survey I ran across <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?...</a> which says that today about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God that they pray to, etc. But if you look at members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite group of scientists), about 10% believe in God.<p>So it seems that, in yet another way, Feynman was a man ahead of his time...

Bertrand Russell's writings on the topic are classics on the dealings of science and religion. This essay reminded me a bit of <i>A Free Man's Worship</i>:<p><a href="http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans%20Worship.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans...</a><p>I read this collection of his essays on religion about a decade ago and would recommend it to folks interested in the topic:<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-Writings/dp/0415180929" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-Writings/d...</a><p>I feel like Feynman (and Russell) are asking a much more interesting question than the typical interwebs atheists and jesus-ists debate that this is already turning into: not, "Is religion right?" But, "What is the future of religious experience, thought and practice in a scientific world?"

Here's why I am an agnostic - because you can never absolutely certain of the existence/or lack thereof of God ! But the main problem is, IF there is a god, and if he created us and left us all here to kill each other and try to survive by not getting oneself killed, that is a very cruel, sadistic and uncreative god, by the modern moral yardstick! So even if there is a god, I don't think I would respect him by my present morality !

As a sidebar to this speech, over the past few years I've been listening to various lectures about the existence of God, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion. What can I say? I find it interesting.<p>One of the interesting points that one of the professors made is that faith <i>is not knowing for certain</i>. So, in this guy's view, even religious people never "know", because if you really knew, really knew without a doubt, then there would be no faith involved. On the other hand, some scientists "know" what the results of their inquiries are going to bring. (I won't name names, but I hope we can agree on this simple point). So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very certain.<p>This leads me to believe that there isn't necessarily a great gulf between religion and science. Some folks just have to know for sure, and some are comfortable with sliding scales of certainty. This seems to be true in both science and religion, although it may be that there are more of one type in each.<p>At the end of the day, instead of science and religion, the much more interesting questions might be about the <i>practice</i> of science and religion. Referring to these things as some sort of Platonic ideals that either mesh or compete with each other probably does a great disservice to the actual practices by individuals.<p>So as much as I hate to critique Feynman, I believe he was off-base a bit in this case.

Quite interesting (would've been VERY interesting in the 50's).<p>Splitting the way of looking at the world into two sides -- religion and science -- is itself a 'perspective', if you will. But establishing that dichotomy is somewhat useful.<p>I find in coding that I need to be humble and 'doubting' in the scientific sense. But I also find that I need to have faith during e.g. long refactorings. I'm not even joking. It may seem trite to apply it directly to programming, but considering the difference of the world of 2010 and the world of 1956 -- it's nice to see some of his insights are quite relevant.<p>(The naive part in his understanding, imho, which anything written in the 50's would be a part of -- is that a lot of history, which wasn't exactly in the history books back then, has many examples of people screwing over other people in the name of 'religion'. So it's not all a box of roses this Christian 'ethics' that he's putting forth. Though I suppose he had to respect the YMCA audience where he spoke and the times were quite different then. I'm sure he himself, the son of Jewish immigrants, was quite aware of it. But there's a bit of the typical Feynman arrogance -- like his dismissal of the social sciences in some youtube video. Should've been a little more scientific. But, like always, he is somewhat original and sometimes connects the important dots that we overlook.)<p>haha, someone posted this just now in another forum.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk</a>

"There seems to be a kind of independence in these ideas. In the end, it is possible to doubt the divinity of Christ, and yet to believe firmly that it is a good thing to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you. It is possible to have both these views at the same time; and I would say that I hope you will find that my atheistic scientific colleagues often carry themselves well in society."<p>Yes, it is possible to have both those points of view at the same time.

There's a popular misconception that science answers questions like "Why?" or "How?"<p>But that's not the heart of it. Strip away the math and jargon and theories--all the messy details that make the engine of science turn--and it all comes down to answering "What next?".<p>Making up silly stories about why something happened is perhaps humanity's second-oldest pass-time. Science is the unprecedented art of making up silly stories about what <i>hasn't</i> yet happened, then <i>throwing out</i> stories that didn't come true. The astonishing part is that many times, when people started extending those stories to things they hadn't known of when the story was invented, or that they couldn't easily see happening--the stories kept working!<p>It may be the case that these flights of fancy, increasingly accurate in their predictions, describe reality, or answer questions like "Why" and "How"--but if they don't, it doesn't really matter.<p>So when you tell yourself a story about things that happen, and use that to form expectations of what will happen next, and most importantly get rid of stories that led you astray--that's Doing Science. And if you tell your friends about that story, and it helps them form expectations that work--that's where scientific knowledge comes from. It's not about truth, or certainty, or very formal and proper double-blind experiments, or answering Great Questions, or any of that stuff. It's about "What's next?", nothing more, nothing less.<p>So, what's left? What is it that science <i>isn't</i>? I suppose--stories that aren't expected to predict anything, perhaps; ideas without implication, freed from the burden to inform today your anticipations for tomorrow, to guide your actions with the knowledge of expected consequence. So the question is: What is the purpose of an idea that impacts not at all what one thinks will happen in the future? Answer that, and you have found what science will never touch.

This part in particular really stuck out for me as it's a point I've been making (in lesser words) for quite some time when it comes to why I am an atheist:<p>"For instance, the size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies.<p>Again, there is the close relation of biological man to the animals, and of one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving drama; can the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation?<p>Yet again, there are the atoms of which all appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive – like man himself.<p>It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe beyond man, to think of what it means without man – as it was for the great part of its long history, and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems to be inadequate."<p>What he doesn't say is the point I attempt to make after explaining my version of Feynman's quoted text: If we are such a small speck in the vastness of the universe, what right do we have as human beings to claim we KNOW what created us and everything else? Why do we assume the universe is merely something for us to look at in the sky?<p>In my opinion religion and certain belief in deities is simply arrogance and a great crime by humanity as a whole.

"I don't know the answer to this central problem -- the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects."<p>I feel that's the core of the conflict. Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model, whether a minimalist one such as in Deism or one as expansive and involved as in Animism. This is the aspect that is antithetical to science, not just in science's conclusions (it's hard to falsify a deistic model, unlikely that will occur any time soon) but fundamentally in its approach.

"After all, the earth moves around the sun – isn't it best to torn [sic] the other cheek? "<p>It is never a disappointment to read Feynman - an interesting piece from the opening claim:<p>"In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another...When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times..."<p>He then goes on to excuse himself from the debate as he is not an expert on religion but sets up an interesting hypothetical of a young scientist who becomes disenchanted with 'his father's god' - which is a wonderful way to setup the discussion because as it follows he doesnt really pit religion vs science. He discusses a crisis of faith which is really at the heart of any faith based system.<p>Discomfort with one's father's god - Cronos and Uranus, Abraham and Issac, God-the-Father and Jesus - there is something corrosive, some conflict which moves religion forward in an analogous way to how great discoveries unseat accepted truths in science. In a very elegant way Feynman touches on this and moves to a discusson of how science and religion are on different tracks.<p>I find it noteworthy here that he does not equate scientists with atheists but says that scientists if they believe in god do so differently. This is Issac coming down from the mountain, Jesus' last words, Buddha's fire sermon - a deep realization that we are alone in the cosmos. The scientist may worship the same god as before - but it is not longer his father's god.<p>The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions - which is consistent with the Kantian tradition of separating reason into realms (pure, instrumental, speculative). Science is pure or instrumental - but not speculative.<p>(As an aside there are good examples of why science should not attempt to be speculative in recent news - Dr in UK who falsified data to support the mercury-autism link; the recent climate science scandals. And even better examples of the perversion of religion in science: "intellegent design")<p>This piece is great - it is not meant as a Bertrand Russell type of exegesis but is a luncheon talk intended to spur debate. As such just churns up questions and seeks productive argument.<p>Most throw up their hands at this debate - pick one side or another and the discussion stops. He sets the problem up beautifully - I wonder if the following discussion was saved.<p>What a wonderful man, beautiful soul he was.

I feel that conducting yourself in an ethical manner if you are not religious has more value than similar behavior by believers, due to the fact that the decision is made without the coercion of a punishment by God. That said some of the best people I know are quite religious. I personally see religion as a deferment of curiosity, but I don't look down on people that use computers but don't want to know how they work.

I asked a question along those lines to HN a few days ago. <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108912" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108912</a>