iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Science And Religion Quotes: What World's Greatest Scientists Say About God

The Huffington Post   Tavish Nanda   First Posted: 02/11/2012 4:46 am   Updated: 02/11/2012 4:46 am

Figuring God into the world of science is a nebulous task. What happens when observers of the fact-based natural world must come to terms with the faith-based spirituality of the mystical world?

Over the centuries, scientists' opinions have varied—from a reconciliation of the two to a complete rejection of one or the other. These days, many scientists span a middle ground—admitting the possibility of an omnipotent force, but refusing to assert one exists because, well, "we just don't know."

Below are science and religion quotes from 20 top scientists, ranging from the founding fathers of science to modern researchers who chose to speak out about their religious beliefs.

And if you just can't get enough, here's footage of 50 more famous scientists talking about God.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

    "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for 
the existence of God." <strong>Clarification</strong>: <em>The full quote, from <a href="http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-8837" target="_hplink">one of Darwin's letters</a>, carries a different sentiment. A young admirer <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16949157" target="_hplink">asked Darwin about his religious views</a> (the original inquiry is lost), and the great naturalist answered: "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide."</em>

  • Neil deGrasse Tyson (1958-

    "So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?" --American astrophysicist and science commentator

  • Stephen Hawking (1942-)

    "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." --English physicist and cosmologist

  • Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

    "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." --American astrophysicist

  • Francis Collins (1950-)

    "Science is...a powerful way, indeed - to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective...in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other." --American physician-geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute

  • Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)

    "Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" --American biochemist and science fiction writer

  • Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

    <strong>Clarification</strong>: <em>While the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html" target="_hplink">New York Times noted</a> that "Einstein consistently characterized the idea of a personal God who answers prayers as naive, and life after death as wishful thinking," he also "described himself as an 'agnostic' and 'not an atheist.'" One ambiguous quote, from <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=58HQXMp1ESwC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=einstein+phyllis+wright&source=bl&ots=zn6BlmXlY4&sig=DxDgqkMMwMaJ9pgUVmgwih4WbQE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2NY6T6euHIbr0gHC4PivCw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=einstein phyllis wright&f=false" target="_hplink">Einstein's response to a letter from a sixth-grade student named Phyllis Wright</a>, reads "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."</em> --German physicist, created theory of general relativity.

  • Max Planck (1858-1947)

    "It was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls." --German physicist, noted for work on quantum theory

  • Erwin Schroedinger (1887-1961)

    "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity." --Austrian physicist, awarded Nobel prize in 1933

  • Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958)

    "In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining...I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in another world." --British biophysicist renowned for her work on X-ray diffraction.

  • William H. Bragg (1862-1942)

    "From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." --British physicist, chemist, and mathematician. Awarded Nobel Prize in 1915

  • Richard Feynman (1918-1988)

    "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand." --American physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1965

  • Wernher Von Braun (1912-1977)

    "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." --German-American rocket scientist

  • Richard Dawkins (1941-)

    "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." --British evolutionary biologist

  • Nevill Mott (1905-1996)

    "Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions." --English physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1977

  • Fred Hoyle (1915-2001)

    "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --English mathematician and astronomer.

  • Sir Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008)

    "Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now" --British science fiction author and inventor

  • Walter Kohn (1923-)

    "I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influence in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery." --American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998

  • Sam Harris (1967-)

    "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." --American neuroscientist

  • Victor J. Stenger (1935-)

    "With pantheism...the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself...when modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writing, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature." --American physicist

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SCIENCE

Figuring God into the world of science is a nebulous task. What happens when observers of the fact-based natural world must come to terms with the faith-based spirituality of the mystical world? O...
Figuring God into the world of science is a nebulous task. What happens when observers of the fact-based natural world must come to terms with the faith-based spirituality of the mystical world? O...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,200
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (41 total)
05:26 PM on 05/15/2013
Isaac Asimov and Richard Dwakin's pretty much sum up how I feel in relation to religion & science.
2 hours ago ( 9:37 PM)
Macro-evolution is a religion - unsupported by historical and scientific evidence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
04:48 PM on 05/14/2013
is this thing taking comments?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
04:52 PM on 05/14/2013
richard dawkins - you make me nauseous and I'll gladly take you on with my eyes closed and looking like that guy from from Monty Python's Holy Grail.... anywhere, anytime.
03:37 PM on 05/15/2013
Do you always threaten your moral and intellectual superiors?
04:18 PM on 05/15/2013
Oh. You wrote you'd take him on with your 'eyes close'. You don't need eyes to debate. And you mentioned the Holy Grail, which involved combat.

And religion is omnicidal. Christians can't wait for this world to be over.
05:43 PM on 05/15/2013
"science has deranged us as well."

Science has caused physical harm when misused, yes. But science has helped us progress and evolve into a more rational society. It's a universal languge which unites people in ways religion never could (how many competing religions, sects, etc.)

But even more, science doesn't claim to have divine warrant by a perfectly moral, loving god. The effect of religion is in direct opposition to the claims of its benevolence. It's a malignant fantasy that our species invented when we were pig-ignorant about the world. And each time we learned more scientific truthes, religion has had to give ground.

Name me ONE concept that we had a scientific explanation for, but discovered that a religious one was more accurate. Now, lets think of religious explanations that were overturned by science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
04:44 PM on 05/14/2013
Atheists are Monotheists.
photo
Loki Laufeyson
If everybody had empathy, there would be no crime.
12:45 PM on 05/15/2013
Nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
12:51 PM on 05/15/2013
that sounds exactly like a monotheist's response I heard the other day.
photo
Loki Laufeyson
If everybody had empathy, there would be no crime.
09:14 PM on 05/16/2013
I am replying to your last comment here because of the lack of a reply button.
Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws. Sounds like atheism to me.
I cannot understand why you are having so much trouble understanding my point. Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in a deity. That's it, it ain't complicated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
10:49 AM on 05/17/2013
atheism and naturalism (which only comes closer to mine), are opposed, and further I do not agree with the concept of universe = machine. "Naturalism for the atheists discussed here is a belief system (though not a religion) and can be contrasted with supernaturalistic religions. Indeed, atheists might even make the distinction between themselves and others more clear by using the term "supernaturalist" to describe people whose beliefs — whether religious or not — include supernatural beings, forces, events, or realms." I prefer to call mine a religion as it is personal, naturalism is only a close and unfocused approximation and does little to explain the awe of life. "This may be reasonable because it would make it clear that those who believe in supernatural things believe in something above and beyond what everyone — including the believer — accepts in the natural world. Supernaturalists are making a claim for something extra, be it gods, ghosts, angels, demons, or whatever. It's not up to the naturalists to prove that there are natural forces at work producing natural, testable, and repeatable events. It's up to the supernaturalists to provide clear and convincing evidence that there are supernatural beings or forces producing supernatural events." that is a big line to cross.
08:29 AM on 05/04/2013
The Physicists of today seem to be afraid of religion.

Religion speaks of the other side of reality, the spirit world. This side is not included in the laws of physics that today's physicists follow.

In short, an apple has an inside, and an outside. But so does reality. Yet today's physicists accept the inside of reality, yet they exclude the outside of reality and leave that to the religious folk.

The inside of this reality is always confined to the present time or present moment. The outside is the side which extends across all time other than the present time.

Thus the laws of physics on the outside are different than the laws of physics on the inside. Thus if an event is being governed from the outside, the outcome of the event will be different than if it was governed from the inside.

Hence peculiar events occur such as Particle/Wave Duality, Action at a Distance, Entangled Pairs, Quantum Delayed Choice, Etc. Each of these are not understood by today's physicists.

However, if you include the laws of physics on the outside, these peculiar events become child's play to understand.

Concerning the proof of the existence of God, go to http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

Click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the web page take you on a web page tour of such proof, and do so via automatic scrolling of the web page along with audio coverage.
07:20 AM on 05/06/2013
There are no laws outside of physics. But there are emergent features made possible by this laws. Like our brain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
imageWIS
Extreme Moderate
02:09 PM on 05/11/2013
"Hence peculiar events occur such as Particle/Wave Duality, Action at a Distance, Entangled Pairs, Quantum Delayed Choice, Etc. Each of these are not understood by today's physicists."

The only reason you know about these things is because of physics; thus contradicting yourself. You DON'T understand the physics, so you just insert your nonsensical bronze age mythology, of which you have NO demonstrable evidence!
02:34 PM on 05/12/2013
"Particle/Wave Duality, Action at a Distance, Entangled Pairs, Quantum Delayed Choice, Etc."
Each of these are strange phenomena, yet despite being so strange, they have also been observed phenomena. However, each of them are still not fully understood by today's physicists, and not they are not fully understood due to the very reasons that I have given.
photo
ivsciguy
Engineer
12:17 PM on 05/03/2013
I don't really like looking at these comments that much because they can so easily be taken out of context or cherry-picked to indicate beliefs that the person may not actually hold. This is done all the time with Einstein, who really liked to use the word God as a metaphor and these metaphors are often used to show his belief, when in fact he explicitly said that he did not believe in a personal god.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
03:00 PM on 02/13/2013
By the way, the Max Planck quote rather undermined his more eloquent beliefs, as well as his actual credentials.

Here's a better one:
“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.”
- Max Planck (founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
01:44 PM on 02/13/2013
"I believe in evolution, for I have seen it within myself. How else am I to explain a childhood blindly and happily accepting a God who cared for me because I could daily see miracles and proof all around me---but once I was taught that everything had an explanation that did not require God, and therefore the only rational choice was to be atheist---only to slowly rediscover that the harder one looks, diligently seeks rational understanding of the universe, and discards all unevolved prejudices, that I once again was as happy as a child to find that indeed, the universe is a beautiful thought in the mind of God---and that I am one of those thoughts?

Yes, I believe in evolution. I am living proof of it."

~Christopher Lee Hartsock
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
03:57 AM on 01/01/2013
the first scientific experiment was because some guy said god just made maggots appear and someone more thinking oriented put raw meat under a glass and proved him wrong.oops no god there sorry.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
02:30 PM on 02/13/2013
It's abysmal research that would even suggest that your example was the first scientific experiment.
It is even more ludicrous to suggest that a single misperception by one person later disproved by scientific rigor --- especially such a simple-minded one...denies the existence of God.
Unless, of course, you wish to explain the mechanism by which the FIRST cell came into existence. I'm all ears.

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
09:51 AM on 02/16/2013
sore loser 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
09:52 AM on 02/16/2013
you can look it up on your own.i wouldnt want to try and explain how radiation on the early earth caused anything.you seem to have your mind already made up,and yes im telling the truth
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
03:53 AM on 01/01/2013
we learned along time ago that the XX chromosome was creadted first and that man XY was created from that. no scientists can believe in the bible after that fact was discovered but bible believers think that fact is just an opinion.they wouldnt make good scientists, we would still be in the dark ages. thats why they study their myth and leave discovery to the experts
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
02:19 PM on 02/13/2013
You're plainly mistaken.
I do not propose the Bible to be a scientific paper for peer review, however, in the first three words, "In the beginning..." we see a scientific theory. A universe with a beginning, a theory more than 3,000 years old.
The "Steady State Universe", darling of the scientific community for over a thousand years and more in one form or another, was used to bludgeon those who believed in a creative moment.

Georges LeMaitre, studying to be a priest, Jesuit trained, at a Catholic university...and even worst of all..a BELGIAN...finally proposed the truth, which was mocked, and called the Big Bang theory. Now it's fashionable to mock those who reject a universe that is NOT eternal.

“This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

- Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
02:38 PM on 02/13/2013
In short, it was a Christian whose scientific observations lifted the darkness from the eyes of the scientific community, shaping the entire 20th century of cosmology.
He did so when mocked by Einstein...who later acknowledged his accuracy.

Your prejudices blind you to facts in this instance. Perhaps you should examine their effects on your other perceptions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
imageWIS
Extreme Moderate
02:13 PM on 05/11/2013
""In the beginning..." we see a scientific theory"

You clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is!

For your edification:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative."
photo
1waitasec
jesus isn't the only truth or the only life
11:02 AM on 12/26/2012
a pubic service announcement:

:D

atheism is the lack of belief that a flying spaghetti monster is flying around the universe
(notice the name implies positive assertions of it's character)

1st lets define the word belief:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

def #3 fits atheism as lack of belief is based on lack of evidence of a the positive assertion of it's character as a flying spaghetti monster because:

1- it's highly improbable
2- the lack of evidence
3- it's characteristics cannot be verified

one would resonate with definition #3 as well...as you think it is both highly improbable and you have yet to see the evidence to prove these characteristics.

theism is a positive assertion; the word god carries a backpack of labels
of positive assertions
based on def. #3 label placed on god are synonymous with the word god has not been supported with evidence
labels like:
all knowing
benevolent
righteous
because we have evidence of;
chaos and indifference via diseases, natural disasters, accidents
atheism is therefore the acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for the positive assertions that are synonymous with the word "god".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
02:50 PM on 02/13/2013
In short, your polemics are a circular argument.

Diseases are not chaotic. They are -highly- ordered organisms, executing a specific purpose.
Natural 'disasters' are merely natural 'phenomenon'.
Accidents do not exist. Everything has a cause and an effect.
Your entire foundational argument is based on emotional and subjective value judgments placed upon occurrences in a highly ordered universe.

Expanding upon your disease model:
Every disease has had the benevolent effect of leaving a legacy of immunities to future generations.
Natural 'disasters' result from the choices of men. To live on a volcano, for instance. In a free will environment, poor choices can have disastrous consequences.
'Accident' is merely flawed perception, a result of not being able to see a chain of events in progress. Those events are not random, and they obey the laws of the universe.

Your definition of atheism needs a great deal more scientific objectivity. Too emotionally close to the subject, I suspect.
photo
1waitasec
jesus isn't the only truth or the only life
02:57 PM on 02/13/2013
the idea of  the flying spaghetti monster was introduced to the human imagination when diseases and natural disasters were a result of the flying spaghetti monster anger...no it isn't circular...asserting the flying spaghetti monster exists because the the flying spaghetti monster exists is circular
photo
1waitasec
jesus isn't the only truth or the only life
11:54 PM on 02/13/2013
"Your definition of atheism needs a great deal more scientific objectivity. Too emotionally close to the subject, I suspect."

i suspect your emotions is what got you to respond no less....had you not cared, you wouldn't have responded in such a pretentious manner...

science requires evidence, period...theism as in the monotheism that most of the human population who live in the western world understands, has no evidence to support any assertions theism claims about this deity.
theism is based on something called belief something you completely ignored and is very unscientific...and something you conveniently left out of your straw man argument.

therefore, i can't help but think my OP rattled your belief, otherwise why even respond?

yup...i'm feeling pretty good now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
03:05 PM on 02/13/2013
Be careful using words like 'chaos' in an unscientific manner.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

- Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

What you PERCEIVE as chaos has underlying highly ordered causation. But that's just science talking.
photo
1waitasec
jesus isn't the only truth or the only life
06:52 PM on 02/13/2013
well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to extrapolate the context for which the idea that a 'concerned god' came from.  the early stages of the human experience conjured up this "god" at a time when people were ignorant of the micro and macro world...thusly ...i fart on your silly straw man
fail.
photo
ivsciguy
Engineer
12:22 PM on 05/03/2013
Actually the chemistry of early life is pretty basic. With a couple billion years of organic molecules mixing around it doesn't seem that unlikely that a self-replicating RNA or DNA strand would happen to be randomly brought together. After that it is just evolution.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
05:54 AM on 12/26/2012
Don't waste your breath, learn'd chaps and chapesses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Bigg
Socialism always saves Capitalism
10:46 PM on 12/24/2012
All gods were created because primitive man did not understand what makes rain, thunder, snow, fire and so on.

But then old men created religions around those gods as a way for those old men to have and control wealth, mates and younger men.

Old men send young ones to die for their so called godly political beliefs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
11:56 AM on 05/15/2013
and does "modern man" understand these things and their relationships? btw, you need to read more regarding various cosmologies and maybe even some Thomas Kuhn too. Atheism is Monotheism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nogods
11:56 PM on 12/19/2012
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” feynman
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Loubro2
Cool Lou
07:37 PM on 01/03/2013
Non scientific problems are just delusion based rationalizations that only have value for the delusional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Iowa Fixer
03:09 PM on 02/13/2013
Ah, an 'intellect'.
Would you care to put forth your explanation, please, for the origin of the universe without going beyond the bounds of scientific rigor?
I'm breathless with anticipation of having my delusions shattered.

(No fair saying 'multiverse', since being outside the known universe, it really requires faith in the unprovable. Not very scientific.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
11:53 AM on 05/15/2013
what is a nonscientific problem?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nogods
11:52 PM on 12/19/2012
"As long as it is acceptable to for a person to believe he knows how god wants everyone on earth to live, we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths." Sam Harris”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Ravicher
Open Ended Definition
11:49 AM on 05/15/2013
and what about the myth of $? ask sam when the next scientific revolution is going to be and how it will affect the current scientific paradigm, and I'd suggest using your own words or reading Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Atheists as MonoDimensionalist and Monotheists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wallinmark
like shows;Mentilist, Bones ,Transformers,a Knight
01:16 AM on 12/18/2012
Brother abd sister cannot have children, Cane Killed Able and as he talked to God he asks "Don't send me there They will Kill me".
Who are "They" were they there before Adam and Eve?
Think ,who wrote the bible and why. were those people Gods chosen people or lets call it "Enlightened" People? The first believers in God. Of the Bible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
03:44 AM on 01/01/2013
ben franklin was enlightened
09:53 AM on 05/16/2013
Huh? They sure can.