In a time when there is so much dispute about the compatibility or incompatibility of science with religion, it may be a good idea to revisit what Newton and Einstein had to say about God.
Maybe this will surprise some people, but both science giants had a very intimate relationship with God, even though their version of “God” departed (to a greater or lesser extent) from the versions of God originating in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions. Perhaps we can all learn something from the famous pair.
In the General Scholium (from the 1713 edition) of his masterpiece Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1686), Newton writes:
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God Pantokrator, or Universal Ruler… The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God.
This vision of a God that must be worshipped for being lord of his infinite dominion can be considered pantheistic, if we understand by pantheism the doctrine that identifies God with the universe or that identifies the universe as a manifestation of God. Newton’s physics was part of his effort to decode the essence of this Lord God Pantokrator, whose essence was indistinguishable from that of the cosmos.
Einstein’s version of God echoed somewhat that of Newton’s, if we take away the heavy Christian background of the latter. Einstein despised organized religion, in particular its rigid hierarchy and dogmatic orthodoxy. To him, a God that cared about the individual fate of men made no sense whatsoever. His vision was much more abstract, founded in part on the teachings of Baruch Spinoza, the 17th century philosopher that was excommunicated from the Jewish faith for his contrarian views of divinity. In a letter addressed to Eduard Büsching, dated 25 October 1929, Einstein wrote:
We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested.
In another letter, from 1947, he wrote:
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.
How can these positions be used in the debate on the compatibility of science and religion?
On the one hand, we have radical atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris arguing that compatibility is fundamentally impossible, that religion is a form of delusion that needs to be eradicated from society. On the other hand, many scientists are religious, some even orthodox, and don’t see any conflict between their work and their faith. In fact, what is usually claimed is that their work helps them understand the nature of their faith even better.
The co-existence of both positions in this day and age reflects, if nothing else, the richness and breadth of human thought.
I see here a possible point of conciliation.
It is true that the recent radicalization of some atheists is a response to attempts at the evangelization of public and political institutions by fundamentalist groups. “War is war and if we want to have our choices respected we must use the same weapons,” some of my atheist friends say. And I heard them. But the worse thing that a fundamentalist can do is to make you into one. Radicalization is a bad diplomat.
Einstein and Newton found God in Nature and saw science as a bridge between the human and the divine mind. (To Einstein, in a metaphorical way.) To both, to adore Nature, to study it scientifically, was a devotional act. I find it difficult to criticize this position, whatever your beliefs are. (Although I’m sure some commentators from both sides will…) Religions appear, change in time, and eventually disappear. It’s all a matter of time scale. But as long as we exist as a species, our intimate relationship—and codependency—with Nature will remain. To me at least, it’s quite clear what I should be worshipping.
Maybe this will surprise some people, but both science giants had a very intimate relationship with God, even though their version of “God” departed (to a greater or lesser extent) from the versions of God originating in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions. Perhaps we can all learn something from the famous pair.
In the General Scholium (from the 1713 edition) of his masterpiece Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1686), Newton writes:
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God Pantokrator, or Universal Ruler… The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God.
This vision of a God that must be worshipped for being lord of his infinite dominion can be considered pantheistic, if we understand by pantheism the doctrine that identifies God with the universe or that identifies the universe as a manifestation of God. Newton’s physics was part of his effort to decode the essence of this Lord God Pantokrator, whose essence was indistinguishable from that of the cosmos.
Einstein’s version of God echoed somewhat that of Newton’s, if we take away the heavy Christian background of the latter. Einstein despised organized religion, in particular its rigid hierarchy and dogmatic orthodoxy. To him, a God that cared about the individual fate of men made no sense whatsoever. His vision was much more abstract, founded in part on the teachings of Baruch Spinoza, the 17th century philosopher that was excommunicated from the Jewish faith for his contrarian views of divinity. In a letter addressed to Eduard Büsching, dated 25 October 1929, Einstein wrote:
We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested.
In another letter, from 1947, he wrote:
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.
How can these positions be used in the debate on the compatibility of science and religion?
On the one hand, we have radical atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris arguing that compatibility is fundamentally impossible, that religion is a form of delusion that needs to be eradicated from society. On the other hand, many scientists are religious, some even orthodox, and don’t see any conflict between their work and their faith. In fact, what is usually claimed is that their work helps them understand the nature of their faith even better.
The co-existence of both positions in this day and age reflects, if nothing else, the richness and breadth of human thought.
I see here a possible point of conciliation.
It is true that the recent radicalization of some atheists is a response to attempts at the evangelization of public and political institutions by fundamentalist groups. “War is war and if we want to have our choices respected we must use the same weapons,” some of my atheist friends say. And I heard them. But the worse thing that a fundamentalist can do is to make you into one. Radicalization is a bad diplomat.
Einstein and Newton found God in Nature and saw science as a bridge between the human and the divine mind. (To Einstein, in a metaphorical way.) To both, to adore Nature, to study it scientifically, was a devotional act. I find it difficult to criticize this position, whatever your beliefs are. (Although I’m sure some commentators from both sides will…) Religions appear, change in time, and eventually disappear. It’s all a matter of time scale. But as long as we exist as a species, our intimate relationship—and codependency—with Nature will remain. To me at least, it’s quite clear what I should be worshipping.
No comments:
Post a Comment