Paul Dirac's quote on religion...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was wondering what the more religious inclined on here think of this statement?

All comments welcome.

I'm not religious, but I think that if he's right about religion, yet religion persists regardless, then it's definitely a social phenomenon that warrants quite a bit of investigation and discussion.

I don't doubt he thought about it a lot. But it's clear he did so while lacking important information about religion.

I'm not so sure.

I don't think it really matters that he didn't know about every religion on the planet. His point was that religion is unnecessary. Okay, so he lived in a culture that was ignorant of a certain spectrum of religions... still, that culture got along pretty well regardless of the fact that it was missing out on all those religions. I'd say that if we can thrive without a particular belief system, then that belief system is unnecessary. He didn't need to take into account the beliefs he didn't know; they were already taken into account in his argument by the mere fact he didn't know them.

 

[Photonic]

Dirac was a scientist, rather a physisict ans a communist. Why should his opinion be given same status as his physics?

Communism makes perfect sense in a community that is reasonable and enlightened.

It makes no sense in humanity because we are not either of those for the most part.

I think the opinion of someone who has done such great things for humanity should be taken quite seriously, regardless of their specialization.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not so sure.

I don't think it really matters that he didn't know about every religion on the planet. His point was that religion is unnecessary. Okay, so he lived in a culture that was ignorant of a certain spectrum of religions... still, that culture got along pretty well regardless of the fact that it was missing out on all those religions. I'd say that if we can thrive without a particular belief system, then that belief system is unnecessary. He didn't need to take into account the beliefs he didn't know; they were already taken into account in his argument by the mere fact he didn't know them.

Not necessarily. On a large-scale level, of course all aspects of religion isn't necessary anymore. But that level isn't the only one that exists; what about the individual level? There are people out there who literally can't function without some sort of religion.

 

[Photonic]

Not necessarily. On a large-scale level, of course all aspects of religion isn't necessary anymore. But that level isn't the only one that exists; what about the individual level? There are people out there who literally can't function without some sort of religion.

Why can they not simply hold faith in the human race then?

We are going to go extinct if people only care about waiting to die.

 

[Riverwolf]

Communism makes perfect sense in a community that is reasonable and enlightened.

It makes no sense in humanity because we are not either of those for the most part.

I think the opinion of someone who has done such great things for humanity should be taken quite seriously, regardless of their specialization.

King Solomon, one of the wisest men of his time, who is credited with a lot of pearls of wisdom we still use today, went insane later in life.

In the comic book world, Frank Miller gave a lot to the industry through Dark Knight Returns. In recent years, however... well, 300.

So, yeah, achievements in one field, or even at one time, doesn't mean someone knows everything and should always be taken seriously.

 

[atanu]

Communism makes perfect sense in a community that is reasonable and enlightened.

It makes no sense in humanity because we are not either of those for the most part.

I think the opinion of someone who has done such great things for humanity should be taken quite seriously, regardless of their specialization.

I do not disagree. But I have equal value for opinions of Pauli, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger (and Einstein).

 

[Photonic]

I do not disagree. But I have equal value for opinions of Pauli, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger (and Einstein).

As do I.

Just because they contradict does not mean I cannot give equal weight to all to formulate my own, unique perspective.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why can they not simply hold faith in the human race then?

What's there to hold faith in? The human race is EXTREMELY inconsistent.

We are going to go extinct if people only care about waiting to die.

Since when was religion about waiting to die? Last I looked, it's primary goal is about being a good person in this life.

 

[Photonic]

What's there to hold faith in? The human race is EXTREMELY inconsistent.



Since when was religion about waiting to die? Last I looked, it's primary goal is about being a good person in this life.

Maybe we should look at why the human race is so inconsistent.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe we should look at why the human race is so inconsistent.

Hoo, there's an entire philosophical field that I think every philosopher throughout history has at least touched upon.

 

[Tellurian]

I'm sure some have you have come across this reasonably famous quote before from Paul Dirac, which was from a conversation with Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenburg, at the 1927 Solvay Conference.

The quote goes like this:

'I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.'

I was wondering what the more religious inclined on here think of this statement?

All comments welcome.

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive who either want to believe in some kind of god or have been so indoctrinated that they are afraid to question their religious indoctrinations and fear not believing in the supposed existence of a god.

Trying to push a specific religious belief onto people has resulted in the deaths of millions for thousands of years. Why has that been done? Simply for power, control, and money. Religious fanaticism has brought us the Inquisition and the suicide bombers. The world would be a much better place without religious beliefs in the existence of alleged gods, especially when the people supposedly speaking for those alleged gods promote intolerance.

 

[Riverwolf]

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive who either want to believe in some kind of god or have been so indoctrinated that they are afraid to question their religious indoctrinations and fear not believing in the supposed existence of a god.

Trying to push a specific religious belief onto people has resulted in the deaths of millions for thousands of years. Why has that been done? Simply for power, control, and money. Religious fanaticism has brought us the Inquisition and the suicide bombers. The world would be a much better place without religious beliefs in the existence of alleged gods, especially when the people supposedly speaking for those alleged gods promote intolerance.

And here we have the weakest anti-religious argument of them all (which, BTW, isn't what Dirac seems to be saying), and is easily countered.

We can't possibly know what the world would have been like without religion, so declaring that "the world without religion would be a better place" is illogical.

In addition, in about 90% of the cases of religion being connected with atrocities, the actual reasons have been political, with religion being the justification. When this is combined with the actual instances of religion having no place in other atrocities committed throughout history, we can safely say that it's simply the lust for power which causes them, which would exist regardless of religion. While we can safely say that history would have been completely different if religion didn't exist, we can't actually say that it would necessarily be "better." The best speculation that can be made (and a speculation is all it is) is that the world would ultimately be no different.

Dirac seems to be saying that religion is no longer necessary, and is, in fact, detrimental. In this quote, he doesn't seem to be saying anything about whether it was ever necessary, or what history would be like without it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not necessarily. On a large-scale level, of course all aspects of religion isn't necessary anymore. But that level isn't the only one that exists; what about the individual level? There are people out there who literally can't function without some sort of religion.

In fact, come to think of it, how would we determine whether or not a culture is well-off or thriving? It can be argued that society is actually in a severe detriment right now, and back then.

 

[Walkntune]

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive who either want to believe in some kind of god or have been so indoctrinated that they are afraid to question their religious indoctrinations and fear not believing in the supposed existence of a god.

Trying to push a specific religious belief onto people has resulted in the deaths of millions for thousands of years. Why has that been done? Simply for power, control, and money. Religious fanaticism has brought us the Inquisition and the suicide bombers. The world would be a much better place without religious beliefs in the existence of alleged gods, especially when the people supposedly speaking for those alleged gods promote intolerance.

You are wrong! If it wasn't for the need of power, control and money the world would be a better place. A lot of evil is done in the name of science!Now where can I buy me a healthy apple to eat? Talk about being pushy!

 

[atanu]

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive ----

Wow. I suppose you belong to the former category?

 

[Storm]

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive who either want to believe in some kind of god or have been so indoctrinated that they are afraid to question their religious indoctrinations and fear not believing in the supposed existence of a god.

And then there are the people who think everyone who disagrees with them is stupid....

 

[ManTimeForgot]

...

I don't think it really matters that he didn't know about every religion on the planet. His point was that religion is unnecessary. Okay, so he lived in a culture that was ignorant of a certain spectrum of religions... still, that culture got along pretty well regardless of the fact that it was missing out on all those religions. I'd say that if we can thrive without a particular belief system, then that belief system is unnecessary. He didn't need to take into account the beliefs he didn't know; they were already taken into account in his argument by the mere fact he didn't know them.

Explain the fact that religion was developed in every society all over the planet. The fact that religion satisfied a social necessity that lead to its development is a tenet of social science that is evidenced so strongly that you would have to give up Evolution before you could give up religion's necessity.


The QUESTION is: Is Organized Religion still necessary? And if so, then what kind of organized religion is necessary? And if not, then is any religion necessary? (The answer to this latter question is almost assuredly yes)


If you are being half as honest as you think you are being, then you can and will have to admit that most people value certainty over fidelity. As I pointed out before your average person votes for politicians who are certain on issues knowing full well that their campaign promises get fulfilled almost literally never.

As long as it is the case that humans value certainty over truth there is going to be a requirement for religion or something which approximates religion. The thing is people can be distracted. Circus and Theater. If you distract people well enough, then they don't get "bogged down" in "needless introspection" or "uncomfortable questions about the meaning of life." Most people either don't want to be put into situations where they have to introspect or be concerned about the value of their lives.


Up the average IQ of humanity by 40 points, and then we will talk about humanity having a global philosophy; until then what are you going to replace religion with since it is patently obvious that people would just reinvent another form of it if you were strip it away wholly.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I completely agree with his statement. People seem to be either intelligent or naive. There are the intelligent people who realize the silliness of the god concepts, and there are the gullible and naive who either want to believe in some kind of god or have been so indoctrinated that they are afraid to question their religious indoctrinations and fear not believing in the supposed existence of a god.

Trying to push a specific religious belief onto people has resulted in the deaths of millions for thousands of years. Why has that been done? Simply for power, control, and money. Religious fanaticism has brought us the Inquisition and the suicide bombers. The world would be a much better place without religious beliefs in the existence of alleged gods, especially when the people supposedly speaking for those alleged gods promote intolerance.

See page 3 of this debate: Respond to my post if you have the intellectual honesty you claim to have.

In response to your former assertion:

If reality was created, then how can something which approximates "God" NOT be true? And before you respond, "Why should it have to be created?" I will point out that it doesn't have to be, merely that we have no evidence that it could not have been and therefore it remains a possibility that it was in fact created.

Concepts are useful. They lead to the creation of paradigms that form the boundaries to our intellect. Imagination is many times more important than mechanical faculty; ask Einstein or Feynman. The problem facing us is not merely the absolute certainty of organized religions but also the absolute certainty of a certain class of intellectuals and scientists.


Being unwilling or unable to consider alternative viewpoints is a fallacy not just of Strong Theists but also of Strong Atheists. The fact that Strong Atheists have the null hypothesis on their side means that the absurdity of their stance is only slightly less preposterous. Outside of logic and mathematics (which are bounded systems) a rationalist assigns only probabilities. You might be 99.999999% confident that there isn't an Abrahamic deity out there, but that is NOT the same as 100% confidence. 100% confidence is anathema to rational discourse and paradigms.

MTF

 

[gnostic]

I realize there are some cultures and religions that don't believe in eternal life or reward as christians do but they all have some sort of eternal life and reward.

As to Jews are there different beliefs because my friends actually believe they will one day be with God. I have been to several bries and am going to my first barmistva. Also I thought Moses and Abraham were taken up to god.

My understanding is that they have to wait on earth until there saviour comes and then they will all be able to meet god.

The idea of person gain entry into heaven as a reward is foreign.

Enoch, Moses, Elijah and possibly Abraham may have gain entry into heaven, but they are exceptions, but it is not the rule in Judaism.

There are some references that everyone who die, will go to Sheol. Sheol should not be confused with heaven, or not even with hell.

Christians have always mistaken Sheol to be hell, hell in the Christian sense. Sheol was not a place of punishment and torment, but a place where all souls go to. A more accurate description of the Sheol would be the Netherworld.

One Jew here (don't remember who or which topic it was) also tried to explain to me the concept that the soul, or the breath of God, that gave life to the body, will depart and return to God, when a person die. Actually, he stated all souls will return to God. However, there is no judgement, no reward and no punishment. The soul also have no self or identity of a person that the soul had once resided in. The soul just simply get reabsorbed into God, and everything about you (and your mortal life, your personality) will cease to exist. Therefore, there is no afterlife.

This fascinating concept may sounds strange to any Christian or Muslim or to anyone who believe in the afterlife, it actually make far more sense than this whole judgement and afterlife that the (Christian) Bible and Qur'an mention.

 

[Matthew78]

I'm sure some have you have come across this reasonably famous quote before from Paul Dirac, which was from a conversation with Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenburg, at the 1927 Solvay Conference.

The quote goes like this:

'I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.'

I was wondering what the more religious inclined on here think of this statement?

All comments welcome.

Penny,

I would like to comment. First off, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Paul Dirac. He was a brilliant physicist and a first-rate mind. I remember being impressed with Dirac and his work many years ago when I was a physics major. I don't remember everything I read about Dirac but let me confine my comments to the quote that you have presented us with.

I understand Dirac's concern about religion. Theism presented more questions than answers and where it attempted answers, it answered rather poorly. Science has an impressive track record of discovering facts, laws, and testing hypotheses. I can understand how Dirac would think that science has robbed revealed religion of its explanatory power. Much of the explanatory scope of theology was expanded in ignorance of how this world operates and science has greatly decreased the explanatory scope of theology to the point where even theism seems almost superfluous.

I think Dirac probably misunderstood what religion does for many people. Religion provides people with a basis for morality, meaning, and hope. It's discomforting to think that there's nothing beyond the grave for us, that there is no meaning to this life beyond what we choose, and that there's no compensation for the injustices that we suffer. Religion provides hope and meaning for people, even if such hope is misplaced. I considered myself a Secular Humanist since I was about, say, 26 and while I had moments of joy, I also suffered from severe bouts of depression. I am no longer a Secular Humanist.

I think the quote brings up some valid points. Not only does revealed religion provide more questions than answers, it doesn't seem to provide satisfactory answers to what it attempts to answer. It doesn't answer why a god-of-love allows for pain and suffering. It doesn't answer why the rich exploit the poor (I didn't know that Dirac had socialist views or views sympathetic to socialism). I was an atheist and an anarchist (a libertarian socialist). The quote perfectly described my viewpoint years ago.

So, I understand the quote. I understand why Dirac thought the way that he did.