Quotes about Science vs. Religion
This page features Science and Religion related quotes attributable to:-
There have been many conflicts and differences between Science and Religion across the centuries - some of them - Copernicus "Revolutionary" theory on "the Celstial Spheres", Galileo's scientific, telescopic, backing for Copernicus some centuries later, and Darwin and Wallace's Evolutionary Theory being some of the more momentous of those conflicts and differences.
The three persons pictured above - scientist, holy man, and Richard Dawkins, (formerly a professor and respected scientific author but following his retirement something of a professional skeptic), can be well imagined to hold divergent views somewhat reflective of those conflicts and differences.
The quotes about to be presented reveal Richard Dawkins' deep "Science over Religion" skepticism and Albert Einstein's preparedness to actually support an essential role for Religion in providing directional guideposts for Science but also include two quotes from Swami Vivekandra which may point to Where, How, and Why Science and Religion could both ~ honourably ~ agree to disagree.
Richard Dawkins
On Thursday, 31 January, 2013 Richard Dawkins participated in a debate on the motion - This house believes that Religion has no place in the 21st Century - held at the Cambridge Union Society; a famous 200-year-old debating club associated with Cambridge University in England.As the debate began it was stressed that it was the place of organised religion that was being considered rather than individual religious endeavours or searches for meaning.
During his turn to speak, (immediately after the contribution of a recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury), Richard Dawkins, favored of the motion.
He opened by saying that he saw himself "as speaking as a scientist passionate about scientific truth" and stressed that his central concern was simply "whether religion is true", and, after suggesting that religious belief was made less possible by Darwinian science said that:-
"to a scientist, however, what's really objectionable about religion is that we should be satisfied with a non-explanation to a difficult question instead of working hard to provide a real explanation".
Richard Dawkins, in bringing his ten-minute long presentation to an close, summed up his Science vs. Religion argument in a few high-flown sentences, describing religion as:-
"a cop-out: a betrayal of the intellect, a betrayal of all that's best about what makes us human,
a phony substitute for an explanation, which seems to answer the question until you examine it and realise that it
does no such thing.
Religion in science is not just redundant and irrelevant, its an active and pernicious charlatan. It peddles false explanations, or at least pseudo-explanations, where real explanations could have been offered, and will be offered. Pseudo-explanations that get in the way of the enterprise of discovering real explanations.
As the centuries go by religion has less and less room to exist and perform its obscurantist interference with the search for truth.
In the 21st century its high time, finally, to send it packing".
Religion in science is not just redundant and irrelevant, its an active and pernicious charlatan. It peddles false explanations, or at least pseudo-explanations, where real explanations could have been offered, and will be offered. Pseudo-explanations that get in the way of the enterprise of discovering real explanations.
As the centuries go by religion has less and less room to exist and perform its obscurantist interference with the search for truth.
In the 21st century its high time, finally, to send it packing".
Albert Einstein
When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason.
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes
in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and
equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible
for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be
based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an article which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an article which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4.
... the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective
belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of
man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and
most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge
provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939.
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of
systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the
posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily.
And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring
together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
This quotes source:-
Albert Einstein - from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939.
Swami Vivekananda
Experience is the only source of knowledge. In the world, religion is the only science where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of
experience. This should not be. There is always, however, a small group of men who teach religion from experience. They are called mystics, and these
mystics in every religion speak the same tongue and teach the same truth. This is the real science of religion. As mathematics in every part of the world
does not differ, so the mystics do not differ. They are all similarly constituted and similarly situated. Their experience is the same; and this becomes law.
In the church, religionists first learn a religion, then begin to practice it; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the mystic starts out in search of truth, experiences it first, and then formulates his creed. The church takes the experience of others; the mystic has his own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out.
Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the book of nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sage is often ignorant of physical science, because he reads the wrong book - the book within; and the scientist is too often ignorant of religion, because he too reads the wrong book - the book without.
This quotes source:-
Swami Vivekananda - Science and Religion
In the church, religionists first learn a religion, then begin to practice it; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the mystic starts out in search of truth, experiences it first, and then formulates his creed. The church takes the experience of others; the mystic has his own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out.
Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the book of nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sage is often ignorant of physical science, because he reads the wrong book - the book within; and the scientist is too often ignorant of religion, because he too reads the wrong book - the book without.
This quotes source:-
Swami Vivekananda - Science and Religion
In Swami Vivekenanda's philosophy on such matters Spirituality and Religion may well coexist but not necessarily as equals!
Microcosm and Microcosm
There are two worlds, the microcosm, and the macrocosm, the internal and the external. We get truth from both of these by means of experience. The truth
gathered from internal experience is psychology, metaphysics, and religion; from external experience, the physical sciences. Now a perfect truth should
be in harmony with experiences in both these worlds. The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm, and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical
truth must have its counterpart in the internal world, and the internal world must have its verification outside. Yet, as a rule, we find that many of
these truths are in conflict. At one period of the world's history, the internals become supreme, and they begin to fight the externals. At the present
time the externals, the physicists, have become supreme, and they have put down many claims of psychologists and metaphysicians.
This quotes source:-
Swami Vivekananda - Cosmology
This quotes source:-
Swami Vivekananda - Cosmology
Inspiration can ~ occasionally ~ trounce Reason!!!
Has Science found what it would itself consider to be adequate ways of accounting for Humanity's Sense of the
Divine?A Sense of the Divine that has raised countless Cathedrals, Churches, Mosques, Shrines, Synagogues and Temples across the millenia. A Sense of the Divine which has often resulted in the spontaneous establishment of faith-related civilisations, or the conversion-to-faith of existing civilisations, such that it would not be too much of an exaggeration to depict Human Beings, across recorded history, as frequently living out their lives within faith-based cultural atmospheres!
"You will hear things like, 'Science doesn't know everything.' Well, of course science doesn't know everything. But,
because science doesn't know everything, it doesn't mean that science knows nothing. Science knows enough for us to be
watched by a few million people now on television, for these lights to be working, for quite extraordinary miracles to have taken
place in terms of the harnessing of the physical world and our dim approaches towards understanding it. And as Wittgenstein quite
rightly said, 'When we understand every single secret of the universe, there will still be left the eternal mystery of the human heart.'"
Stephen Fry quoting Wittgenstein during a Room 101 TV program of March 2001
Spirituality may be relative to "Desire" and to "Wrath"!
Shakespeare has Falstaff saying to Prince Hal that:
Plato and Socrates, foundational figures in Western Philosophy, are regarded as having accepted that Human Beings have a Tripartite Soul, or Psyche, featuring Reason, Spirit and Appetite!
Find out much more on this "Tripartism" by following this link:
Stephen Fry quoting Wittgenstein during a Room 101 TV program of March 2001
Spirituality may be relative to "Desire" and to "Wrath"!
Shakespeare has Falstaff saying to Prince Hal that:
.... there's neither Honesty, Manhood, nor good fellowship in thee …
Plato and Socrates, foundational figures in Western Philosophy, are regarded as having accepted that Human Beings have a Tripartite Soul, or Psyche, featuring Reason, Spirit and Appetite!
Find out much more on this "Tripartism" by following this link: