It was kind of strange to reconcile the two diametrically opposite views presented to me since childhood and I believe most of the readers will also agree with this. First, presented by our modern education system that the existence of God is accepted by those classes of people who are primitive and science doesn’t trust the existence of god an inch.
And on the other hand, we have theologians/religionists/spiritualists who lock horns with them says - claim of scientists can never be perfect as they rely on their imperfect senses ( humans have a limited range to perceive things for example we can't see x rays, can't hear the sound waves beyond 20-20 kHz etc ). To which scientists counter we will invent perfect instruments that will help us to perceive things beyond our scope like building microscopes and telescope .
Theologist retaliates “ how can with the imperfect senses you manufacture a perfect instrument and let us assume even if you are successful to do so, one needs to use the same imperfect sense to use that perfect instrument which would give an imperfect output ”. Like to see through a telescope one has to see through eyes.
And the arguments can go on for eternity, but we would like to stick to the topic.
I thought of doing my own research on this instead of accepting the secondary preposition “ the word of mouth” and wish to present the same in this blog. Believe me, you would be flabbergasted by the end of the blog to know how certain class who doesn’t have a holistic understanding of science, who are a self-declared proponent of science but are nothing other than upshot of scientism (an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation) misleading everyone.
Okay, let me now take the bull by the horns and jump right into the topic.
Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist, and Templeton Prize winner, in his interview with Scientific American, says
“It is impossible for science to obtain a true theory of everything. And the reason for that is epistemological. Basically, the way we acquire information about the world is through measurement. It’s through instruments, right? And because of that, our measurements and instruments are always going to tell us a lot of stuff, but they are going to leave stuff out”
honest sorry " brutally honest " here.
Further in the interview, he
makes another wonderful statement “The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence,”
This means if there is no
evidence available for the existence of God that doesn’t necessarily means he doesn’t exist
.
Let us see what Einstein, Newton & Darwin has to say about this.
Charles Darwin
Sir J.Fordyce (who was collecting comments for his book ''Aspects of Skepticism.'') wrote asking if Darwin believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible.
To which Charles Darwin replied as follows.
'It seems to me absurd, to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God '' he wrote on May 7, 1879.
Here is the link to the letter. And the same was also printed in The New York Times on Dec. 27, 1981.
Issac Newton
In his book Philosophiæ
Naturalis Principia Mathematica, also referred to as Principia published in 1687, he writes as follows
“This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord overall. . . . The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect . . . and from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.”
Albert Einstein
Max Jammer was a friend of Einstein and Professor of Physics at the University of Israel. In his book, Einstein and Religion published by Princenton University Press is a comprehensive survey of Einstein’s unbiased writing, conversations, and speeches on God and religion.
In his book,
Jammer wrote, “Einstein
was neither an atheist nor an agnostic”
According to Jammer, “Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist.”
(Max Jammer, Einstein, and Religion (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.150.)
Well, I can go on quoting different eminent scientists believing in the existence of God but yes, what they were against was certain cultural or the philosophical aspect of religion however that doesn’t give atheists the right to crow that belief in God or religion is something unscientific.
“There is no quicker way for a
scientist to bring discredit upon himself and on his profession, than roundly to
declare — particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for — that
science knows or soon will know the answers to all questions worth asking, and
that the questions that do not admit a scientific answer are in some way
non-questions or pseudo-questions that only simpletons ask and only the
gullible profess to be able to answer.”
I kept this blog limited to the documented views of various eminent scientists but factually the list is quite long. It was quite surprising to know the majority of scientists do believe in the existence of God.
I hope this blog will help readers to go from pseudoscience and scientism to real science.