Tags
Atheism, atoms, creator, electromagnetism, gasses, gnosticism, mathematics, nebulae, Robin Claire, science, sir james jeans, stars, thought
Sir James Jeans
Made important contributions to the dynamical theory of gasses; the mathematical theory of electromagnetism; the evolution of gaseous stars; the nature of the nebulae; and more. Said this:
[quote]
“Today there is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to nail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter – not, of course, our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms, out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”
* * *
Erwin Schrodinger
Nobel Prize winner. His work became the heart of modern quantum mechanics, Said this:
[quote]
“The overall number of minds is just one. I venture to call it indestructible since it has a peculiar timetable, namely mind is always now. We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture.”
* * *
Sir Arthur Eddington
Made important contributions to the theoretical physics of stellar systems and was a leading exponent of relativity. Said this:
[quote]
“The idea of a universal Mind [sic] or Logos [sic] would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory. I assert that the nature of all reality is spiritual, not material nor a dualism of matter and spirit. The hypothesis that its nature can be, to any degree, material does not enter into my reckoning, because as we now understand matter, the putting together of the adjective ‘material’ and the noun ‘nature’ does not make sense. If those who hold that there must be a physical basis for everything, hold that these mystical views are nonsense, we may ask: ‘What, then, is the physical basis of nonsense?’ ”
* * *
Albert Einstein
[quote]
“The human mind is not capable of grasping the universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child know that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books. A mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
“The most important function of science is to awaken the cosmic religious feeling and keep it alive. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims, and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.”
“I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.”
* * *
Robin Claire
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
.
A Christian Overcomer 
How is this something for atheists to chew on?
A person’s knowledge of one subject does not make them knowledgeable on all subjects.
There are plenty of religious scientists. Significantly less than in the general population based on percentage, but they exist. And I’m fine with that.
But it doesn’t mean their religious beliefs are true.
I guess you will believe whatever you want to believe. You believe ‘science’ but when you are presented with ‘science’ at the top-most level, you throw it out with the trash. The truth is that you will only believe in the ‘science’ inside your own little mind. How many scientists do you need to read about, to believe what they say?
“I guess you will believe whatever you want to believe.”
I will believe what has been presented with good evidence supporting it.
“How many scientists do you need to read about, to believe what they say?”
Zero. They are expressing their opinions with nothing to back it up. It doesn’t matter who says it or how many people says it. The evidence matters. And they don’t have it.
The Christian’s belief is based on scripture and there is a great deal of historical evidence to support many parts of it…. Diane
Hi Diane,
This is what I believe too. Science wants us to prove that Jesus really existed [just like the Pharisees did]. As a former Atheist, I was taught by my parents the same way. I used to think that Jesus was a myth, a fable meant to teach us ‘lessons’ – but it was never explained to me exactly what these ‘lessons’ were. Then, like in the story of Thomas, Jesus came to me in as close to the flesh as a spiritual being can get. He was spirit who came down to us in flesh to teach us these ‘lessons’. And, since I’ve known Him, He as taught me much. It’s just plain crazy – these Pharisees. They saw the miracles first hand, yet were still too stubborn to believe in Him!! Just craziness!
love to you sister,
robin
As NotAScientist has already alluded to, each scientist here would have benefited greatly from providing some evidence for their assertion (except Sir Authur Eddington, who simply makes no sense in his quote). Each scientist here has made a career of gathering evidence to investigate certain claims, then failed outright to do the same when it comes to the spiritual realm.
I’m not even going so far as to say that they’re wrong (although, I’d think more carefully about Einstein’s use of words like “religious”). Simply that they have given me no criteria on which to judge their claims: no evidence, no falsification.
Also, to address another thing you said to NotAScientist, it is not “science at the top-most level” just because highly competent scientists said it. If that were the case, think about where you would have to stand in terms of some of the greats: Einstein rejected the personal God, Dawkins is an atheist, Hawking is an atheist, Kruass is an atheist deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic; these are great scientists. Instead, science is “science at the top-most level” when its methods are sound and its evidence is reliable. That’s it.