It's no secret that science and religion have been at "war" for quite some time. However, not all scientists deny the existence of religion. In fact, some are quite devout followers. This is not the case for biologist and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins. When writing about the final scientific enlightenment in John Brockman's book What Are You Optimistic About?, he states "I am optimistic that the physicists of our species will complete Einstein's dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures, evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer... And I am optimistic that this final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue deathblow to religion and other juvenile superstitions." It's clear Dawkins is a strict believer in science and just that. No supernatural force comes into play.
Frank Wilczek, on the other hand, is a physicist at MIT, and is against a theory of everything. When asked What Are You Optimistic About? he said "I'm optimistic that physics will not achieve a Theory of Everything... My advice, dear colleagues: Be careful what you wish for. If you reflect for a moment on what the words actually mean, a Theory of Everything may not appear so attractive. It would imply that the world could no longer surprise us, had no more to teach us." Wilczek goes on to credit Einstein and his quest for the Theory of Everything, although he doesn't strive to discover it. "I take inspiration from the early Einstein, the creative opportunist who consulted nature, rather than the later 'all-or-nothing' romantic who tried (and failed) to dictate to it. I'm optimistic that it will continue to surprise me and my succesors for a long time." It seems as though Wilczek is not opposed to religion, but is willing to keep an open mind and embrace the fact that we won't ever understand the laws of the world, which makes religion possible.
Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmoth College, sees value in religion. Although he is an atheist, he opposes scientists regarding religion as pointless. Gleiser responded to Brockman's question, What Are You Optimistic About? with the following statement. "I'm optimistic that the debate or, should I say, war between science and religion will see new light... Although I'm an atheist, I do not forget what is behind the power of religious thought: quite simply, hope... Yes, it's crazy to believe in supernatural influences in the world and to devote your life to a God that seems to have vanished from the world for, by conservative estimate, at least 2,000 years. But scientists ought not to forget that most people need some sort of spiritual guidance, a kind of guidance that science (at least as it is taught today) cannot offer... I am optimistic that scientists will teach people these lessons [humility and respect for life], instead of simply trying to rob them of their faith and offering nothing in return." Gleiser doesn't fail to see humanity's need for hope, he just believes science should change so religion doesn't need to fill the void.
It may seem as though all people educated in science don't see a need or place for religion in the modern world, but Anton Zeilinger is optimistic about the future of science, religion, and technology. In his response to What Are You Optimistic About? he states "I'm optimistic about the future of religion. We will learn to shed the unessential dogmas, rules, definitions, and prejudices that religions have built up over centuries and millennia... I am convinced that in all major religions we will discover the essentials of what it means to be human... Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist, and religion will learn that its essence is far deeper than ephemeral questions like whether we were created by evolution or not. I believe that someday we will arrive at a coherent view of the world that will transcend both what today we call science and what today we call religion." Zeilinger understands religion won't be disproved and people will continue to follow it. However, in the future he hopes science and religion will merge to create a world view with the strongest aspects from both. He sees some aspects of religion continuing to play an important role in everyday life for a long time to come.
As for me, I believe science and religion are both necessary in life. Many scientists claim that religion is out of place and serves no role, but I disagree. When people are dying, they don't spend their energy saying words to Aristotle, they pray to God. God gives them hope they can endure more than they ever thought possible. Even if God doesn't exist, just simply praying and wishing to get better can sometimes leads to extraordinary results. Either by God's will or shear determination people have survived unimaginable feats. These people have religion to thank, whether it is legitimate or not. Simply the idea of religion serves an important role in society, and any scientist who believes it is unnecessary should speak with a person who has experienced a miracle thanks to their devout religion. Disbelievers would no longer be able to claim that religion and belief serves no purpose.
Religion also adds a bit of morality to society. Some people behave and follow laws with the end result of heaven in mind. I'm sure if religion was discredited society would fall into chaos. Premarital sex would skyrocket and morals once held true to the religious, such as treating neighbors with respect, would be disregarded. Science doesn't enforce the same type of morals religion demands.
Of course, life without science would be ridiculous also. Science adds reason to life, but without the balance of shear hope society and humanity would crash and burn. If asked what are you optimistic about? I would respond, I'm optimistic that religion will continue to serve a purpose for humanity despite scientific advancements attempting to disprove it.
No comments:
Post a Comment