Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm

by vinutheraj • 16 years ago

82 45 16 years ago

calteches.library.caltech.edu

tokenadult• 16 years ago

"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."

Yes, it is possible to have both those points of view at the same time.

anateus2• 16 years ago

"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."

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.

JunkDNA2• 16 years ago

"Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model."

I would be careful with such a sweeping statement. My personal experience as a Catholic is that through some pretty intense questioning, I have come to a better understanding of why I believe what I believe. I look at this questioning as a lifelong pursuit that is never finished. I'm constantly checking myself: "Do I believe this still? Why do I believe this to be true. Is that consistent with other things I believe. If not, why?" My personal religious experience would be quite shallow if I wasn't doing that.

ThomPete8• 16 years ago

Yet isn't it also true that your parent's where Catholic?

anateus2• 16 years ago

I think I didn't so much mean that the full metaphysical model must be accepted without question. Rather there are certain core facets that are necessitated. If certain aspects of your Catholic belief went away your belief in that particular religion would change (e.g. if you couldn't believe in the Trinity, you wouldn't quite be able to consider yourself a Catholic, I think). As I should have qualified my original statements more, I'll qualify I don't think any religion is a monolithic set of beliefs, I'm quite aware it's rather fluid and flexible as you describe.

I'm also not discounting someone discovering new tenets via that same type of self-investigation.

I'd be quite interested to learn more about such self-questioning, as well as what limitations if any you impose on yourself.

DanielBMarkham• 16 years ago

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.

One of the interesting points that one of the professors made is that faith is not knowing for certain. 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.

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.

At the end of the day, instead of science and religion, the much more interesting questions might be about the practice 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.

So as much as I hate to critique Feynman, I believe he was off-base a bit in this case.

kirse5• 16 years ago

So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very certain.

Except this is not the case, at all. It's a false sense of certainty drawn from the solid roots of empirical science, especially for the existential (or unempirical) topics of disagreement between science and religion.

On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are equally uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of faith-based assumptions about things we cannot EVER determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.

I love robg around here not only because he finds great articles, but because he's a damn smart neuroscientist and backs me up entirely on this:

The problem of course is that naturalism has it's own limit or else it too becomes dogmaticism. There's stuff we just can't know from empirical observation. Indeed, I'd argue the question "why" has a genesis just beyond rational thought. Empiricism might help to explain away those urges but I don't see how it will ever address their origin. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215

To sum up, both Science and Religion will never answer the question "Why?" with ANY logical degree of certainty greater than the other. It's not empirical and never will be, period. In that case, I choose to embrace only solid, logically grounded empirical science yet address the intuitive questions with a faith in God that never fails me.

barrkel• 16 years ago

The best critique I know of the existentialist position you put forward is the Turing Test. If we had a machine, built by human hands, which appeared by its operation to be no different to a human, what reason would you have to believe that it has no "soul" or sensation of internal existence? It seems self-evident to me that all life are also physical machines, and as such may one day be constructed, or emulated in software, etc.

This is a position which is directly accessible to science, too. For if there were something special about the human experience, or the conscious experience, it must either exist somewhere in the physical laws, or else it must also be true for man-made contraptions and there is nothing particularly special about people (in this respect).

btilly4• 16 years ago

I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought us, but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as if they're somehow "more certain" about that which they cannot empirically experience, nor empirically reproduce, then that's when I call BS. On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are equally uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of faith-based assumptions about things we cannot EVER determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.

By your argument you should personally be equally uncertain about whether gravity works on the surface of Pluto and whether I am a giant octopus. After all you are unable to travel to Pluto, and you are unable to track me down and verify that it was not a giant octopus who wrote these words. In your words, both are claims about things that you "cannot empirically experience nor empirically reproduce."

Yet despite your inability to empirically experience or empirically reproduce either gravity on Pluto or any data pertaining to my octopus-hood, I confidently assert that you do not find your uncertainty on those two issues to be even remotely equivalent.

Why not? Because you have established mental models of how the universe work that make it difficult to believe that gravity doesn't work on Pluto and make it difficult to believe that there are giant octopuses posting on HN. Yet this is exactly the type of certainty that you say you'd call BS on in others. And if you met someone who strongly believed that I am a giant octopus, and expected you to accept it, I'm sure you'd be rather flabbergasted.

Science is nothing less or more than the distillation of the successes of several centuries of work on producing and testing better mental models of how parts of the universe exist. Mental models exactly like the ones you used to tackle the data points I gave you. (In fact every part of the mental model you'd use on the Pluto question, including belief in the existence of Pluto, came out of that scientific process.)

Please think about this example carefully. Then try to apply modern mental models of the universe to questions such as whether people get possessed by demons, water can turn into wine, and people can come back from the dead. You should find that those questions all look far more like the giant octopus claim than gravity on Pluto.

Whether or not this list of dubious factual claims in the Bible changes your belief system any, I think it is sufficient to make concrete why it is not just BS for people with a strong science background to look at a concrete religious tradition (Christianity in this case) and dispute specific claims that religion makes. Even though it involves reasoning about events that you "cannot empirically experience nor empirically reproduce".

And once someone has disputed the basic facts of the central story, what grounds are left to accept the other beliefs of the religion?

ThomPete8• 16 years ago

As if claims made in science about quantum physics is exactly the same as claims made in sunday church school.

As if religious belief is based on years and years and years of research, experimentation and the creation of predicable models.

If religion and science where the same then by definition we would still have large parts of the world believing in copernicus as the one and only true scientist, or Aristotle, or Newton or Einstein. Why?

Because most religious people end up having exactly the same faith as their parents had and never do anything close to investigating their beliefs.

You are assuming that there is a "Why" to answer and that is exactly why your argument is invalid.

Just because there isn't any meaning WITH life does not meant there isn't any meaning IN life.

J3L2404• 16 years ago

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.

kirse5• 16 years ago

due to the fact that the decision is made without the coercion of a punishment by God

Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear.

religion as a deferment of curiosity

Religion, in fact, holds science to a higher degree of authenticity, because it demands logical, empirically validated reproducible processes for someone to believe it. The entire basis of quality science is empiricism.

At least religion calls certainty in the unempirical "faith".

In science, that f-word is a big no-no. It would be heresy to admit that science has no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than religion.

jamesbritt2• 16 years ago

"Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear."

Isn't true at all? Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I was doing many things out fear of a particularly nasty and vengeful super-being. And I know I was not alone in this among my fellow believers.

Anecdotal to be sure, but it's interesting how often the pain and punishment awaiting those who step astray gets mentioned in some religious texts.

Seems pretty clear that the authors themselves did not expect love of the almighty to be sufficient to keep the flocks in line.

'At least religion calls our certainty in the unempirical "faith". In science, that f-word is a big no-no, it would be heresy to admit they have no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than does religion.'

Again, YMMV, but my experience with the Catholic Church is that very few members spoke about god, hell, limbo, miracles, etc. as if they were interesting conjectures, speculations born from an absence of empirical evidence.

No, these things were put forth as being no less factual than the presence of the sun and the rain and the snow; you were to accept them as fact; this was your act of faith.

The most striking difference I've seen between science and religion is the degree to which people readily admit that what they are saying could very well be wrong, and the extent to which doubt and skepticism is actively encouraged.

jcromartie• 16 years ago

> I personally see religion as a deferment of curiosity

I can only speak for certain branches of Christianity here, but this "God of the gaps" notion of God's role in the universe can't really even be called "antiquated." It is a fairly recent invention. Early Christian philosophy (the "church fathers") and much of Orthodoxy espouses a constantly unfolding creation.

I really hope that this notion, that theists just use God to explain what they don't understand, can be dispelled in the next few years. Unfortunately we have plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the spotlight here in America and they only seem to be getting louder and getting more attention.

flipper• 16 years ago

I tend to agree with you about the value of ethical behavior, but I would assert that many people who claim to be religious act as though they are not coerced by their God to do anything. Therefore, ethical behavior is quite valuable, from wheresoever it comes.

It's true, there are some highly ethical religious people, and some highly dogmatic and unthinking atheists.

olalonde• 16 years ago

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

vinutheraj• 16 years ago

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 !

ilitirit• 16 years ago

I think there is far more to it than that. Take for example the question of creation. It could be possible that our Universe was created, but not designed (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/08/5027.ars). Under those conditions, the creator would not be able to intervene in our actions (unless he/she/they destroy the Universe), so they couldn't really be classified as evil or immoral. Which also leads to some interesting questions: If this Universe was created by beings in a laboratory, and they somehow managed to convey this information to us and threatened to destroy the Universe unless we worshipped them, how many people would actually do it? Etc etc.

Either way, as far as "God" goes, colour me apathetically agnostic. Nothing meaningful can be said about the existence (or lack thereof) of undetectable entities, so I don't concern myself with them. But unlike many atheists, I don't care enough about the topic to proclaim this view.

btilly4• 16 years ago

A couple of minor notes on Feynman's claims.

First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be more 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.)

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 elite scientists were atheists. Which supports the thesis that the more seriously you take science, the harder it is to subscribe to traditional religion.

But this has shifted over time. While looking for that old survey I ran across http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?... 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.

So it seems that, in yet another way, Feynman was a man ahead of his time...

amichail• 16 years ago

First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be more 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.)

What about if you compare atheists and religious people of similar intelligence? I suspect atheists tend to be more ethical simply because they tend to be more intelligent.

btilly4• 16 years ago

The correlation between education and atheism is one of the sociological reasons I was referring to. Unfortunately I do not have access to any research that tries to control for this obviously correlated factor.

wheels2• 16 years ago

Bertrand Russell's writings on the topic are classics on the dealings of science and religion. This essay reminded me a bit of A Free Man's Worship:

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans...

I read this collection of his essays on religion about a decade ago and would recommend it to folks interested in the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-Writings/d...

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?"

mbubb2• 16 years ago

Nice link - thanks for that. (the link to the article is broken but easy to find)

Another interesting question is to look at the relationship of atheism and belief. Actually science does not approach real atheism - it never exceeds agnosticism (one of Feynman's points).

Real atheism is very close to deep religious belief. Look at the great mystics - St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Kabbalists - they reach a point of blackness, emptyness where there is nothing but a completely baseless faith to sustain them.

William Blake in the 4 Zoas discusses 'experience'. I won't quote it here as it is too long - but it is here: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-four-zoas-excerpt/

a remarkable passage that begins:

What is the price of Experience do men buy it for a song Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No it is bought with the price Of all that a man hath his house his wife his children...

What I personally have always wondered (and I ask this as a half-assed, weak, too lazy to get up on Sundays, lapsed catholic) is if there is really a god, an omnipotent all-knowing, all powerful entity. Then how could we possibly know anyhting about this entity.

Somewhere is the Hebrew scriptures (part of the Moses story) is the phrase "no one who looks upon my face lives". If one really believes in such a god (and I am in no way looking down on this) - how far is that from atheism?

ThomPete8• 16 years ago

Atheism means without god

How that is close to deep religious belief?

As an atheist I live without god in my life. That's it. I don't think about god, I don't reason based on any bible, I don't extrapolate my morals or ethics from god or any religious scripture.

How on earth are you by any metrics going to claim that that is deep religious belief?

ohashi• 16 years ago

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Man%... :) thanks

camccann• 16 years ago

There's a popular misconception that science answers questions like "Why?" or "How?"

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?".

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 hasn't yet happened, then throwing out 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!

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.

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.

So, what's left? What is it that science isn't? 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.

Herring• 16 years ago

Well there's nothing really special about the "next" part. It's just that you can't check the accuracy ("truth" is a dirty word, apparently) of your model against the data you used to construct it. It's why there's stuff like cross validation in machine learning.

Anyway a model is not really useful either when there's only a finite amount of data. I hear astronomy's starting to hit against this problem.

mbubb2• 16 years ago

"After all, the earth moves around the sun – isn't it best to torn [sic] the other cheek? "

It is never a disappointment to read Feynman - an interesting piece from the opening claim:

"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..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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")

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.

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.

What a wonderful man, beautiful soul he was.

btilly4• 16 years ago

The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions...

FYI Feynman was an atheist in his later years. Also his hostility to philosophy and metaphysical questions has become legendary.

I don't know what his status on either trait was in the early 50s.

ThomPete8• 16 years ago

It's important to understand what Feynman means.

He is not saying that religion actually answers questions that science can't answer.

He is saying that as long as there are things we can't answer human nature will be to create a deity for the gaps.

That is two very different positions. It's not that science can't answer certain questions it's that science can't fulfill human needs for answers.

Mind the difference.

tmsh• 16 years ago

Quite interesting (would've been VERY interesting in the 50's).

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.

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.

(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.)

haha, someone posted this just now in another forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

cwilson• 16 years ago

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:

"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.

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?

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.

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."

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?

In my opinion religion and certain belief in deities is simply arrogance and a great crime by humanity as a whole.

Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion

Related Stories