The ignorance of the people is a systemic problem and trickles its way into every aspect of "western civilization."

@t1nick

“The voids that we experience is science is the void that occurs when a new unasked question arises spurring on a new avenue of inquiry.”

True, but besides those temporary voids is a really huge void in our basic understanding of reality. Science does not even address, let alone answer the deep questions of existence. Richard Feynman addressed that issue in the introduction to “QED”. He said not to ask why. No one knows why, and the why might be unknowable. He said that if students ask why they are told to shut up and compute.

It is no surprise to me that half of US scientists express belief in some sort of God concept, and that most of the founders of modern physics were deeply religious in their own ways. I do not support pedantic religious organizations, and equally I do not support a pedantic embrace of science. IMO the most honest and reasonable response to the staggering implications of reality is total bewilderment.

I might sound phony to you but I am writing what I feel deeply.

@t1nick As you know, an undergraduate degree in the world of mathematics is just kindergarten, so my “background in mathematics” is slight.

So far as absolutes, it would depend on the context, however, I don’t think a mathematician would express belief or disbelief, which are nothing but opinions—emotions. A mathematician would analyze the definitions, assumptions and logical steps and determine if certain assertions are logically consistent within a given logical system.

Which absolutes are you referring to?

@WilliamFleming

With all due respect, I disagree with your premise. The scientific paradigm and the faith-based (i.e. religion) are IMO mutually exclusive. They cannot be reconciled together. as the method each chooses to substantiate conclusions are opposed in almost all ways.

As far as leading scientists believing in religion contemporaneous with their science, I truly believe they thought they did. But to try to reconcile science with religion is to serve two masters so to speak. Usually when splitting such loyalties, one must make compromises at the expense of the other.

Most scientist, like everybody else are usually born into, and raised in a society that espouses some form of religion. As such, we are raised throughout our lives with religious symbolism. Its on our money that we use everyday (In God We Trust). We are indoctrinated early on with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. The symbolism is all around and ubiquitous. As such, it takes a strength of character to fight against that indoctrination and the weight of societies opinions. I have no doubt regarding the strength of these scientists intellect, but not in their strength of character. Even Darwin was unable to shed the weight of the Church of England up to his dearh. Can you imagine how much further he MIGHT have been able to take his principles of evolution had he not been fettered by his fear of the church and his religion?

As to your conjecture tegarding the infinite "Why". Without sounding too pedantic, IMO opinion that is a superfluous and meaningless question as to itself. If one has a solid foundation in physics, and evolutionary principles that question is meaningless except at the beginning of a new line of inquiry.

Here's where the pedantic comes in. Everything in the entire Universe is interrelated. In physics they talk about String Theory, in biology and evolution we talk about habitats, biomes, climate, organisms, etc. The point being at some level all things are part of larger system, and those systems are part of larger systems, and so on. In a sense this not too dissimilar to the idea of the Universe as working like a giant clock. For every movement of one mechanism in the clock, another is affected and therefore responds in kind.

Although this is a much to simplistic analogy for the complexities of the relationship between the Natural and Physical Laws, you get the idea. Once one has an understanding of these Laws and the interelationships, the question "Why" becomes superfluous. It works because of it interconnectedness to the system in which it dwells and operates. Exceptions do appear at random, but just that they are exceptions. They too are dealt with according to the Natural Laws and Principles. They do notvremain exceptions for long. They are either incorporated, elimenated, or ignored if harmless and nonessential.

As to mybquestion about absolutes. As a long standing science teacher, I have founf in my teaching that a trend arose in the 1960's and 70's. The, "I'm alright, you're alright" philosophy. While on the surface I'm quite fine with that when dealing with human relationships. However, a side effect was that society began to reject the idea of absolutes. I.e. you have a different idea, thats okay, nobody is wroong, we're all right. Its just your opinion and you have as equal right to your opinion as I have to mine. Nobody's wrong, we're all correct.

This gave way to a trend for educators to abandon the concept that some things do have a right or a wrong answer. Some things do not stand up to opinions. Educators were pushed to give open-ended questions to content that was an absolute. This brings us to today and the rise of the "alternative facts". The abandonment of reason, burden of evidenciary proof, and the dismissal of quantitatively supported facts.

There, that's my contribution to pedantry for the day. I hope this clarifies my points.

@t1nick Actually I was not trying to say that science and religion are on equal footing or are equivalent. What I said was that there are deep questions pertaining to existence of which neither science nor religion offer insight or understanding, and that the most rational state of mind in the face of the stark mysteries of reality is awe, reverence, and bewilderment.

I fully appreciate the need for strict discipline in the application of the scientific method, and I appreciate the great boon science has been to mankind. I am pro science all the way but I know that there are areas untouchable by science in its present form. Science does NOT explain everything, and the insights that science provides, while valuable, are superficial.

There is a great amount of anti-religious fervor on this forum, and that antipathy is understandable. A person who has found the courage to break away from dogmatic, irrational religion naturally is very anxious to keep religion away from them at all costs. I am just as averse to authoritarian, dogmatic religious groups as anyone, but IMO there are religious-like or metaphysical sentiments that are a valuable part of humanity and deserve respect. There’s a lot more to religion that what is taught in traditional Christian churches.

My vision of an advanced religion is one that requires no belief whatsoever. It embraces the findings of science. Most of all, it should foster deep awareness, reverence and appreciation for the overwhelming mystery of existence. Religion is not a belief system about nature, in opposition to science. It is rather, a way of life that mirrors deep conscious awareness for the beauty and value of each passing moment. It seems to me that in every scientific discipline the most creative and productive scientists have been deeply involved in metaphysical thought.

It's not science OR religion. Each, if viewed a certain way, complements the other. Many truly creative and celebrated physicists have been religious, but in their own ways. Of course, if you insist on the most dogmatic and immature approach you'll get conflict. It seems to me that courageous people, whether atheists or theists, evolve toward common ground. Others remain stuck either in materialist or religious dogma, frozen by fear.

Werner Karl Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

“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.”

Niels Bohr:
"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

Sir Arthur Eddington:
"The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

"We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness."

"The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs."

Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Albert Einstein:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

James Clerk Maxwell:
“It has been asserted that metaphysical speculation is a thing of the past, and that physical science has extirpated it. The discussion of the categories of existence, however, does not appear to be in danger of coming to an end in our time, and the exercise of speculation continues as fascinating to every fresh mind as it was in the days of Thales.”

@WilliamFleming
While I respect your well thoughtout argument, I still disagree with your conclusions. I fully appreciate that great men like Einstein. Oppenheimer, Planck, etc., were believers, but I question their motivation for believing. Something that usually goes unspoken or unchallenged. I believe they were, despite their obvious brillance, products of their culture and environment.

I rarly engage in religious arguments on this site, I find them fruitless and not interesting to me. I walked away from religion 45 years ago and never looked back. I fought those battles a millenia ago and have moved on. Not to denegrate you or your opinions in anyway. Just dispelling any misconceptions about my agendas.

@t1nick I will only say that those great scientists were not “believers”. They were open-minded inquirers who knew the limitations of science.

Now that I understand your question about absolutes I can say no, in this context I do not believe in absolutes. I don’t even believe in belief.

So they didn't go down under, but went there over?

@godef Look - it's stranger than fiction.
[iflscience.com]

@chazwin Never mind that you can actually see the curvature of the earth when you look out to sea.