"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.
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.