Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
- Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution – and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. - Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism) - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. - Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannicasays of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. - Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published hisOrigin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution. - William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). - Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!” - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Tagged as Albert Einstein, Famous Scientists, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, Nicholas Copernicus, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, Scientist believes in God, Sir Francis Bacon, William Thomson Kelvin + Categorized as Apologetics, Christianity, Scientists
51 Comments
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
-
links for 2009-05-05 « Where Is All This Leading To?
[...] Famous Scientists Who Believed in God | PALLAYI (tags: apologetics god scientists) [...]
-
History of the University of Pittsburgh » Kingdom of Ireland
[...] Famous Scientists Who Believed in God | PALLAYI [...]
-
Romans Inductive Bible Study Guide. | 7Wins.eu
[...] Best Bible Reading System by Professor G. Horner « Bible Reading GroupWriting Notes in Bibles and Books | Scripture ZealotGroup Life 2008 – Heather Zempel & Mark Batterson – Where Community Grows Best | Will Johnston | Mind Muse This is the Army, Mr. Jones!About « gracecreed.comFamous Scientists Who Believed in God | PALLAYI [...]
Interesting list but it is a pretty bad argument for anything really. Its not even as powerful as saying 8 out of ten doctors recommend chewing Dentene gum. It is also true that more than half of the list didn’t beleive in washing their hands and had no idea that bacteria was responsible for illness. As far as using them as some sort of argument proponents for belief in God, not very compelling. This would be on the same order as making an argument if they had all spoke English, “since they all spoke English, English should be the principal language of science. It really doesn’t matter if they did or didn’t. It might be an interesting fact on the same level as if they all shared blue eyes or something but using this as an argument for a belief in God carries little weight if what you are doing is trying to make an argument for theism based upon famous scientists who believed in God.
Thanks,
Walter
Most of these were not scientists, because the term had not been coined until 1833. Those before them were natural philosophers.
p.s. There is no need need for God to fit into science.
Agreed with those above me. Not to mention that these were some of the people that eroded the need for a god. A god is useful for explaining what at the time is unexplainable. Why does the wind blow? Why does the sun rise every day? Why is the sky blue? How are babies first formed? Why do people have different personalities?
These are the types of questions where the answer “God did it” or the like were useful. However since then through our observations we have whittled away at the mysteries and lessened our need on a god to explain the universe.
I would also like to say that scientists are very commonly wrong, especially ones that lived 300 years ago. Darwin was wrong several times, but we’ve had 200 years to refine his hypothesis and theories into workable theories and models. How many of those on the list thought that sickness was caused by demons? It wasn’t until Pasteur came around that we were able to come up with germ theory. Even 15 years ago, a mathematician thought he had proved Fermat’s last theorem, it took him a year to realize he was wrong and another year to come up with another proof that has yet to be disproved.
Hi Walter,
I understand and I agree with your argument about this subject, the famous scientists who believed in God. This definitely is not a strong case if I was going for support for theism. It is an insightful fact that they believed in a higher being and such. I think it also brings up another point, if they believed, how and why they believed. What was their stand on believing in an unseen God. Of course you and I agree that they are famous men and I think that itself has the credibility to investigate their case for Faith.
Joe
hahhaha descartes. I can’t believe you try to make him out as anything but crazy. He had his own special beliefs like animals have no soul and he would hammer them by their paws to the ground during his class. If thats what being religious means count me out
Hi Luke,
I don’t think he will ever fit into science. He is way bigger in terms of understanding. What science know today about what He created is not something should be on the same table for comparison. And I think the real interesting matter here in this subject is that these famous men believed in an unseen God. I would like to learn more about what were they thinking when they believed. Did their mind agreed to the matter of their hearts?!
Joe
I can’t understand how we can have this beautiful, orderly, governed by laws universe and to be expected to believe it just happened. Athiests expect us to believe in more miracles, believing in their “theories” than believing in a supreme being, a creator who we are just scratching the surface in learning His laws. I think religion has grossly misrepresented God or the Creator but I’m sure He understands how little knowledge we really have. I would like to see a list of some more recent scientists, I’m sure there are many.
All dead guys.
Awesome list…………………………………………………
Make another post of scientists who believed the earth was flat, followed up by ones who thought the earth was the center of the universe.
=)
A persons mind has to be very shallow to believe that the complexities that are implemented within system upon system in the universe and the world just accidentally melded together out of nothing.
You anti-theists have never been able to explain your great faith in that as opposed to something more “LOGICAL”
Am I the first to point out that Einstein was not a believer in any kind of a personal god, and was infact an ateist with a usual great scientific admiration for nature? It is also worth pointing out, that all of these men born into religious societies, where it was the norm to believe in god. Therefore, there was noone and nothing pointing out the problems. Also, there was no good science, since you started with the basic assumption that there was a god. Still they could find out things, because that assumption is irrelevant for many things, specially in physics.
you forgot to mention the little part about Galileo being PUT TO DEATH by the church. plus, belief in god and time periods are all relative. if these guys were alive today, more than likely most of them would be atheist/agnostic. so yeah, you can sit there and trumpet these guys’ beliefs and make yourself feel better about your own, but do so knowing that most of us non-theists don’t really care.
These dudes were all Illuminati pawns. Check with Henry Makow.
Not once did I get the impression that you were making an argument for theism. To me, it just seems that you listed people who were documented to have shown an acknowledgment in a higher being. Coincidentally, all the comments above rebuking your assumed claim seem also unnecessary and a bit trigger happy.
John Big: no you aren’t the first to point that out, it is actually stated in the article… but he did believe in a higher power.
Also in response to a lot of these comments I don’t think the point of the article is to prove God’s existence. I agree with Jacob, this is an interesting article concerning some famous scientists (yes who are dead) who believed that there was more to the universe than just the physical. Good read, no need to get argumentative about anything.
So, what’s your point, pal?
** Of course your argument is fallacious — but your “facts” are often false.
If you’re going to use examples drawn from the history of science, do your research first. Either you’re a liar and hope to get away with it — or you’re just another fundie ignoramus:
There’s no excuse for the historical ignorance you show with your list. Let’s look at two areas:
1. Time: any period between 400 CE – 1810 CE
2. Concepts of “god” (gods, God) in the West.
Before 1770 no one in the West could publish a major work in theology, philosophy, or natural philosophy (what we call the physical or biological sciences) which opposed the existence of the xian God. You could be arrested by the Inquisition of the Church (Roman).
Then like Galileo, you would be shown the instruments of torture and “politely” asked to recant. In his case Galileo had to live out his life under house arrest in Florence, 1630-1642.
Or, like Giordano Bruno, who espoused a doctrine of many worlds, you appeared perhaps a shade too Epicurean, you could get burned at the stake. Bruno was. In 1600 in the Campo dei Fiori (Field of Flowers!) where his statue is today turned towards the Vatican.
Newton was too smart to reveal his true beliefs. Had he done so he would have been turned out of Cambridge, dismissed from his professorial chair and fellowship at Trinity College. Newton, as his notes of many years clearly demonstrate, was a unitarian (no divinity of Jesus). You simply do not recognize how important hypocrisy is — it’s part of every politician’s birthright.
You leave out Joseph Priestly (1733-1804) who dared to openly espouse deism in England. Crowds burned down his house and forced him to emigrate to the US. A unitarian deist as “out there” as Priestly was attracted hatred as anti-war (It’s 1791 — the British reaction to the French Revolution).
Why it’s just like today when fundies turned up their hate machine on those opposed to Bush’s illegal war in Iraq.
As for Einstein, he notes specifically that his “God” is definitely not the God of xianity.
Of course, as others have pointed out — from a logical perspective, your opinions are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any religious proposition. Scientific statements are not faith based (trust in what someone tells you). Science is not done by the book.
The de-deification of culture (including all the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
anti-supernaturalist
Einstein was no atheist, and no believer in a personal god.
“The fanatical atheists,” he wrote in a letter, “are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
it is simply showing that persons knowing more than we will ever know and understand about the material world around us believe in God!
—> everything we can see and feel is more real than we could ever imagine.
—> honestly i feel bad for atheists
Before you can go ahead and claim Giordano Bruno believed in God you have to have an understanding of exactly what connotation of God did he hold. Certainly not the one presented by the Church. In his philosophising of multiple lifeforms filling the universe, he essentially percieved God as a natural force of creative power and his expression of these beliefs led to his ultimate downfall. But one must ask the question, why after so many years of Giordano Bruno’s scientific heresies, philosophizing, womanizing, and contempt for the robes he wore as a Dominican priest, did Pope Clement finally have him burned at the stake. What was it that prevented Clement’s predecessor, Sixtus V, a pope notorious for his murdering of close to thirty thousand opponents that he had labelled as brigands from doing so much earlier. And why was it only after Bruno spent two years in Prague, as friend and sometimes confidant of the Emperor Rudolf II, (a man also despised by the Church until they removed him a few years after burning Bruno by forcing him to abdicate and naming his brother as Holy Roman Emperor) that the Church finally felt it had to act? Even then, it was only after eight years of imprisonment that they finally were able to sentence him on a new charge of denying the Trinity. What exactly did he confess to that they felt it necessary to extinguish his brilliance? History is not without its sources that escape the book burnings and bannings in spite of the Church being very thorough in its eradication programs. Many of the clues as to what Giordano Bruno did during those two years in Prague that finally sealed his fate can be read in the book Shadows of Trinity released by Eloquent Books. Bruno was a complex and complicated man, who took a path which led him to his own personal salvation. What he learned about the Trinity in Prague sealed his fate. The book is available at the publisher’s website http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ShadowsOfTrinity.html or from Amazon Books and Barnes and Noble. A great read that helps you not only understand the man, but the reason the Church feared him most of all and led to his final comment to them when he asked, “I believe you fear me more than I could ever fear this sentence?”
How about you list some famous scientists who are alive and can speak for themselves regarding their actual beliefs? Many of these people lived in times where they could not speak about their true beliefs regarding religion or the existence of god at the risk of their lives.
So it would be much more informative and enlightening to list currently living, famous scientists who believe in god.
“It is also true that more than half of the list didn’t beleive in washing their hands and had no idea that bacteria was responsible for illness.”
“Make another post of scientists who believed the earth was flat, followed up by ones who thought the earth was the center of the universe.”
Those are scientific beliefs. This article shows that many scientists share a religious belief, proving that there is not a ‘choice’ between science and religion.
Hi anti-supernaturalist,
You say “The de-deification of culture (including all the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years” after making an argument about the wrongness of religion persecuting those who do not believe in a deity.
It seems you are not arguing that persecution is wrong, but only that persecution of people who believe oppose religion is wrong, as you then mandate “de-deficating” culture.
This philosophy is identical to that of the organization you are arguing against. How can anyone, of any viewpoint, can possibly think that their beliefs are so superior that all other beliefs be eliminated? And how could anyone do so immediately after decrying their exact same policy of elimination?
All world religions, according to my understanding, preach a predominant message of peace and love. Because of this, I do not see how persecuting people who follow religious traditions is different or better than persecuting those who do not. Perhaps you can illuminate this for me, or perhaps I have misinterpreted your point.
Martin
Walter’s right. Saying there’s a God because a bunch of scientists who actually contributed to scientific progress believed in God is a pretty weak argument. If you wanna prove that atheism is hogwash, you need only state a single word: Omnipotence.
After that, dare them to disprove it the existence of a being with infinite power. Once they give you “proof”, just say, “Omnipotence.” Bonus points if you have a great imagination and can elaborate on a method that said infinite power could be used to debunk the aforementioned “proof”.
I.e., I build a machine that can detect the existence of anything that has infinite power. I turn on the machine and the result is negative. Does that mean that God does not exist? No. It means one of two things, possibly both.
1) The machine’s broken.
2) God has a sense of humor.
Either way, that machine CANNOT disprove the existence of an omnipotent God, for the sheer and simple fact that He could have hid Himself from the machine and tricked it into giving it a negative result. If I were God, I’d do it just because it’s funny. Then again, I’d have destroyed the planet in a spectacular explosion by now, so I guess it’s a GOOD thing I’m not God, huh?
Just some interesting sources some of you may want to check out.
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
http://richarddawkins.net/article,117,A-Challenge-to-Atheists-come-out-of-the-closet,Richard-Dawkins
-look about halfway down for this statement:
“Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious . . .”
thanks.
@anti-supernaturalist
Dude you are a hypocrite! Look at YOUR “facts”!! You have simply deduced that those scientists hid their true (atheistic?) beliefs to save their lives, when in reality there is NO proof of most of them ever saying that. Simple deduction like that is not credible at all!! SO this article is way more credible than your “facts”.
Newton MAY have been a Unitarian, but he was still a firm theist, that’s a fact..
And Galileo was a firm christian too! He knew the consequences of his discoveries and yet revealed it to the world!
“Another background factor in Galileo’s conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence.”
- George Paul
wow. People are getting really wrapped up in all of their own intellectual B.S.
you want to know the facts? Here are the facts.
Some people believe in God
Some people don’t believe in God
A lot of people say that you can’t mix religion and science,
a lot of people say that you can.
All this pointless belittling, bantering, arguing and seeing who can wikipedia more facts than anyone else is making me dizzy!
Atheists: When atheism first began it was a NEW form of acceptance, it paved the way for people who wanted to go against the norm and find a safe place (or lack thereof) in society to believe what they believed without heavy religious influences. Atheism is all about accepting people with dissenting beliefs…
Christians: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love your neighbor…Jesus outright said it was the most important commandment. Love is also about acceptance.
get it? love and acceptance people…
all this bashing is pointless, because people are set in their ways.
So live and let live guys.
Einstein “recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe” but clearly not the fallacy of the non-created God.
You will never find the Lord intellectually. Seek the Lord with all your heart and soul. Seek the Lord and He will find you. Seek the Lord with the evidence that is all around you. Open your eyes and ears and seek the Lord. There is nothing to figure out.
I’m not sure why a bunch of atheist stumblers always interpret any spiritual mention some kind of personal attack to their beliefs. I’ve often felt like it’s more like getting punched in the face for looking at a gangster the wrong way than having an emotionally neutral reaction to an emotionally neutral argument. Of course that doesn’t take into account the more straightforward counterarguments but I guess that just kind of perturbed me.
I agree with Beckster almost completely except that the only thing that “changes” people is experience…so a list of renown scientists that are somewhere along the line reported as a believer in some high intelligence is futile just like the rest of it.
This list is interesting because I think it illustrates that the Church had a problem with science long before science had a problem with the church.
Interesting… some of the same people who say that it means nothing, are the same ones who quote what others say. I guess knowledge and accurate critical thinking only applies to them when it fits what they WANT to believe. So facts, and truth have little room in their world obviously. Its actually sad, because for those that exalt science so much, they are pretty hypocritical when it comes to accepting knowledge.
“Atheists are very interesting specimens.”
Wait a second… I didn’t see anything in this article that was trying to make an argument for God. It is simply a list of scientists who believe it God.
And to you Pooter – Even if we found out everything about the universe there was for us to observe by science wouldn’t the same questions remain?
Why are we here?
What is the purpose of this universe?
Was it created by something higher than us?
I believe the list`s purpose is to give people who are searching for God, but need some kind of scientific proof that he exists, some pointers. Here is a list of some of the greatest inteligents in the world, pointing out that God is the base of their science, and STILL people are wildly denying the existence of a living god!
I cant by any means explain God scientifically, but for they who tries, good luck! You will need all of it.
The only pathway to God is by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord & saviour, and mean it by heart and understand it with your brain.
For they who may search; read the bible, it will come to you and you will find proof everywhere
The Brain alone will not be enough.
Thank you for taking the time to research this excellent article.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the fundie atheists come crawling out of the woodwork attacking the article and the writer. This was not meant to be about “why you should become Christian”. This was about scientists who believed in “a” God. It was an example of how theism isn’t necessarily at odds with science.
BTW Galileo was a devout man who didn’t happen to agree with Catholic dogma. The entity many of the above commenters refer to as “The Church” was very often at odds with God and The Bible.
Just wanted to point out that, while I suppose the points made aren’t bad, the idea here is that people often seem to think you either believe in science or you believe in God. These men believing in God shows that there is room for both. I like it.
Google the Templeton Project to see current scientists who believe in God. Consider too that current particle and astrophysics have defined the twenty equations that define the existance of the universe, one for each of your fingers and toes; that point to the existence of seven dimensions within each subatomic particle. And then ask yourself if there isn’t enough mystery left in the Universe to hide an underlying intelligence more energetic and thorough than our atoms will ever coagulate. Astronomer’s have begun to notice sort of a channel or appendage in the outer Universe that whole galaxies are floating into. The story of Adam had to have come from the only guy left to tell it, Noah. They say Noah could live 800 years, and landed somewhere just after a flood, with a whole boat ful of animals. And yes they all argue about the timing of all that, and how it’s told. They also say that the Andromeda Galaxy was likely made mostly from a “rib” of stars stripped of from our Milky Way, like Eve getting Adam’s rib. The Hubble Space Telescope is named after Edwin Hubble who discovered the Andromeda, and they also say there is a foreseable Armagedon when the black hole in the center of Andromeda comes back to take a bite out of our little apple of knowledge and we may be thrown clear out of our quiet little garden like part of the galaxy we live in. So when the bible prepares you for heaven, it may also be preparing us to float out into it with only the Lord in Heaven to guide us. Peace brother, I say let’s build homes like space capsules meant to last millions of years instead of cheating each other with planned obsolescence. Stop fighting with people about their interpretations of the Bible, have enough faith to study it some for yourself, I recommend the Sword Project open source study and comparison software and Crosswire iterations. And you’ll find what you are seeking like others have, having faith is about seeking real time guidance rather than shiny new objects for your nest. When you find the alpha and omega is doing the guidance instead of “nature” like the Bible says you learn to help care for nature rather than it doing all the caring for you. Like since we want to suppose that we have all this great knowledge about our planet, there are people who want to sit back and let “Nature” handle itself and us and interpreting Nature’e wrath as God’s will. But everyone we lose is a great loss to God the real father of us all. There is the possibility that if you expand a few of the diffcult points in the Bible, just right it justifies everything Astronomer’s see that we should travel into the “Heavens”. And life in a capsule might be of such a biological requirement meeting experience, even the joy of weightlessness would be a perfect retirement home for the elderly. To truly believe in one God to me is to see how easily Maxwell Smart defeats Chaos everyday. There is a greater likelyhood of chaos and yet it doesn’t happen, unless we tear things and each other up ourselves fighting over interpretations
I don’t have the patience or time to read all the comments, because I’m so so busy (not) but I agree with the first two comments, they made good points.
I don’t have the means to argue what religion that Einstein was, but I’m pretty sure he was actually more atheist than anything, although her never actually just flat out said it. It seems that all religions want to claim Einstein as their own when it in fact has no effect on the credibility of the religion itself
Science has uncovered much more about the natural world since the listed scientists passed on, their religions beliefs seem irrelevant
Aaron, your argument (below) is as pointless as Joe’s original argument since it uses the same logic.
Aaron =) wrote:
May 6th, 2009 at 7:08 am
“Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious . . .”
Based on E=mc^2, can it be said that mass is the ‘potential state’ of matter and energy is the ‘kinetic state’ of matter and just multiply mass with c^2 you will get huge amount of energy and divide energy by c^2 you get very small amount of mass OR some other factors/ mechanisms are essential for these conversions ?
cmooon most of them on the list lived in middle ages…they HAD TO believe in God
According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2. According to this relationship of Energy and Mass
1 kg mass of any matter is equivalent to 9 x 10^16 J of energy.
Does it mean that,
Mass of any matter is Condensed Form of Energy and Energy is Diffused Form of Mass of any matter ?
A question may also arise what existed before the creation of the Universe Energy or Mass ?
This is a great list. Thanks for posting it.
It is atrocious that there are those that put science and the belief in God at opposite ends of the spectrum. Great article!
I wonder where this list came from?
“Most of these were not scientists, because the term had not been coined until 1833. Those before them were natural philosophers.
p.s. There is no need need for God to fit into science.”
Wow, that was one of the most stupidest and irrelevent comments I’ve read in my life. Sure the term wasn’t coined until 1833 by William Whewell (a scientific historian and anglican priest) but those men were scientists. The word natural philosopher is the equivelent of scientist you uneducated moron.
Next, there is no need for God in Science of course, science is the study of nature and its laws not about origins. Science doesn’t deal with that, and there is a wide misconception among the common people that it does, i.e. you.
-Irv
The point of this article, it seems to me, isn’t to prove the existence of God but rather it seeks to stand against the currently common and popular notion that science and belief in God are incompatible. Nothing less, nothing more. Can that point be accepted?
That they did not all share a common theology means nothing here.The men listed here are presented to show that one can have a valid scientific mind, an inquiring mind, honest, and a worthwhile scientist, and also believe in God. That might seem strange or even abhorrent to some, but never the less it offers the significant evidence of men who were are the cutting edges of their fields, who made deep and significant contributions to scientific method or knowledge, and who showed a harmony between that science and their faith. In some cases even that the excellence of, and motivation for, their science arose out of their faith. That is all this article seeks to show. It is worthy, I think, of at least some honest consideration.
As for those who would simply seek to dismiss this whole thing out of hand alleging that these men were either crazy, dim or greatly ignorant I would ask you to at least consider the possibility that they were not. Then from there what can you find as evidence as to whether these men were deficient in some way (which prevented their realisation of the truth of atheism) or that they were not and it must be accepted that it is possible for a happy, rational, scientifically minded human to also maintain a spiritual dimension to their view of life and the universe.
I wonder if the notion that science is married to atheism is exalted by many today because some do not want to believe in or accept the possibility of the existence of a God and science seems to offer the best alternate understanding of the universe where that dream can be a reality.