The distinguished Japanese-American physicist and scientific writer Michio Kaku who helped develop string field theory said arrestingly a while ago that physics proved the existence of God:
What did he mean? On another occasion he said that for him and Einstein there were two ideas of God.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
What did he mean? On another occasion he said that for him and Einstein there were two ideas of God.
“One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”
"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realised that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."
Spinoza's concept of God, though his ideas are difficult, is one that should appeal to modern man. For Spinoza the universe is God. Spinoza, that God-intoxicated man, was ostracised by his fellow Jews as an atheist.
“So long as there is a the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer at the end.”
ReplyDeleteJohn von Neumann
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
ReplyDeleteYeah. That sort of belief seems to me to be functionally indistinguishable from atheism.
In fact I tend to suspect that these sorts of deist or pantheist ideas are just part of the post-Reformation War on Christianity. They're just another attempt to undermine Christianity (and indeed all religions) by "proving" that all the things that really matter in religion don't count.
These ideas are more dangerous than out-and-out atheism.
These sorts of ideas are also part of an attempt to harmonise science and religion. The trouble is that such attempts always end with religion being eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThe acceptance of these ideas by many Christians is also an interesting illustration of the mindset of modern Christians - their instinct is to surrender without a fight on almost every issue and then beg for a few crumbs. In this case the crumbs amount to being allowed to retain a vague belief in the God of the Atheists, which means they then have a perfect excuse not to fight on moral issues because to the God of the Atheists morality is irrelevant.