4 ms·

Werner Heisenberg: "In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled

Werner Heisenberg: "In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” From “Scientific and Religious Truth” (note that Heisenberg was a devout Lutheran from what I have read)

locallost 4y ago
As she points out in this interview, she liked the church as a community, but was not a believer. I think most religious people fall in this category, their religion is more about everyday life than the divine. It gives them peace of mind and a set of rules to go by, which eliminates a lot of friction and doubt in life. So in that way it's not incompatible, but at the core they are the most incompatible things possible - one is about overcoming your limitations to understand the world better, the other to either accept things without questioning them or even try to find proof for something you already believe, ignoring all contradictions.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > So in that way it's not incompatible, but at the core they are the most incompatible things possible ... There are many ways of understanding the world; rational thinking is only one of them. Note however, that the kind of theology that organized religion is usually known for is a kind of, perhaps misguided, rational thinking. The real core of religious thought is closer to direct theophany. (Note that a genuinely rational account of theophany and such is quite possible, but only at a meta level. The way you directly engage with such things is what leads to the distinction I'm referencing here.)
  - locallost 4y ago
    Science - here is our evidence, how do we interpret that. Religion - here is the interpretation, how do we find evidence for it. I don't know anything about religious thought. Not that it doesn't exist, but I don't know anything about it. Like I said, the way I see it, most people find value in it for practical everyday life. And the older I got, the more I understood it -- life is definitely easier if you are convinced of something and don't question it. But in that view it's mostly for the earthly things, and less for the religious thought.
- squaredot 4y ago
  I don't see the difference so much in the methodology as in the kind of reality one wants to observe. The sciences have the experimental part, which is a method made possible by the kind of phenomena you observe. As far as religion is concerned, I don't want to oversimplify, as I think we run the risk of lumping everything together, as there are different interpretations as to what a religion is.
- dan_mctree 4y ago
  >the other to either accept things without questioning them or even try to find proof for something you already believe, ignoring all contradictions. I feel like this isn't at all what most religious people are doing and that you're presenting some kind of strawman to make them seem alien and dumb There's really roughly two camps, one which is very much questioning the existence of God and are actually busy trying to find the answer to the existence question by finding evidence. Sometimes in scripture, sometimes in others or in nature. Often these people are actually somewhat open to counter arguments. These people are generally somewhat equivalent of physicists with a pet theory they're trying to pursue, develop and prove, say string theorists. The other camp believes strongly, and isn't so much involved with whether or not God exists, but instead they deal with the details. They might think about how the trinity works, talk about trying to reach the youth, working on helping people in their local community, etc. These people are kind of the equivalent of physicists who work within the existing framework of established physics. Whether that's through applied physics or by say trying to analyze the composition of some star.
  - locallost 4y ago
    The people I was talking about don't fit into either of those categories - but are more like the person in the interview. They might believe, but the most important part is the community around them and the piece of mind they get. This doesn't make them dumb in my eyes, but completely relatable. It's a bit like selecting a framework to develop an application -- you can do everything from scratch, but your life will mostly be easier by building on top of something else. Granted, this might be a cultural thing and there a cultures where the beliefs are less practical and more intense, including intense studies of holy books. But most people around me that are religious don't do that. It's just been my experience.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Heisenberg did a lot of important work obviously, but that doesn't excuse him from making a real argument. Does he have anything to justify his assertion beyond personal feeling and intuition?
- squaredot 4y ago
  > I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking He doesn't really speak about personal feelings, but more about the frontiers of a personal investigation.
- Antipaxos 4y ago
  This may provide some context on Heisenberg's thoughts — SCIENCE AND RELIGION [Edge.org, 2007]: https://www.edge.org/conversation/werner_heisenberg-science-and-religion https://www.edge.org/conversation/werner_heisenberg-science-...

locallost 4y ago

As she points out in this interview, she liked the church as a community, but was not a believer. I think most religious people fall in this category, their religion is more about everyday life than the divine. It gives them peace of mind and a set of rules to go by, which eliminates a lot of friction and doubt in life. So in that way it's not incompatible, but at the core they are the most incompatible things possible - one is about overcoming your limitations to understand the world better, the other to either accept things without questioning them or even try to find proof for something you already believe, ignoring all contradictions.

zozbot234 4y ago
> So in that way it's not incompatible, but at the core they are the most incompatible things possible ... There are many ways of understanding the world; rational thinking is only one of them. Note however, that the kind of theology that organized religion is usually known for is a kind of, perhaps misguided, rational thinking. The real core of religious thought is closer to direct theophany. (Note that a genuinely rational account of theophany and such is quite possible, but only at a meta level. The way you directly engage with such things is what leads to the distinction I'm referencing here.)
- locallost 4y ago
  Science - here is our evidence, how do we interpret that. Religion - here is the interpretation, how do we find evidence for it. I don't know anything about religious thought. Not that it doesn't exist, but I don't know anything about it. Like I said, the way I see it, most people find value in it for practical everyday life. And the older I got, the more I understood it -- life is definitely easier if you are convinced of something and don't question it. But in that view it's mostly for the earthly things, and less for the religious thought.
squaredot 4y ago
I don't see the difference so much in the methodology as in the kind of reality one wants to observe. The sciences have the experimental part, which is a method made possible by the kind of phenomena you observe. As far as religion is concerned, I don't want to oversimplify, as I think we run the risk of lumping everything together, as there are different interpretations as to what a religion is.
dan_mctree 4y ago
>the other to either accept things without questioning them or even try to find proof for something you already believe, ignoring all contradictions. I feel like this isn't at all what most religious people are doing and that you're presenting some kind of strawman to make them seem alien and dumb There's really roughly two camps, one which is very much questioning the existence of God and are actually busy trying to find the answer to the existence question by finding evidence. Sometimes in scripture, sometimes in others or in nature. Often these people are actually somewhat open to counter arguments. These people are generally somewhat equivalent of physicists with a pet theory they're trying to pursue, develop and prove, say string theorists. The other camp believes strongly, and isn't so much involved with whether or not God exists, but instead they deal with the details. They might think about how the trinity works, talk about trying to reach the youth, working on helping people in their local community, etc. These people are kind of the equivalent of physicists who work within the existing framework of established physics. Whether that's through applied physics or by say trying to analyze the composition of some star.
- locallost 4y ago
  The people I was talking about don't fit into either of those categories - but are more like the person in the interview. They might believe, but the most important part is the community around them and the piece of mind they get. This doesn't make them dumb in my eyes, but completely relatable. It's a bit like selecting a framework to develop an application -- you can do everything from scratch, but your life will mostly be easier by building on top of something else. Granted, this might be a cultural thing and there a cultures where the beliefs are less practical and more intense, including intense studies of holy books. But most people around me that are religious don't do that. It's just been my experience.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Heisenberg did a lot of important work obviously, but that doesn't excuse him from making a real argument. Does he have anything to justify his assertion beyond personal feeling and intuition?

squaredot 4y ago
> I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking He doesn't really speak about personal feelings, but more about the frontiers of a personal investigation.
Antipaxos 4y ago
This may provide some context on Heisenberg's thoughts — SCIENCE AND RELIGION [Edge.org, 2007]: https://www.edge.org/conversation/werner_heisenberg-science-and-religion https://www.edge.org/conversation/werner_heisenberg-science-...