web analytics

Life, the Universe and Everything!

By ATWadmin On January 1st, 2007

I was interested to read this article in today’s online Guardian:

" …religion and superstition will disappear within a few decades as […] scientists get closer to discovering a final theory of everything, leading thinkers argue today. Biologist Richard Dawkins said that physicists would give religion another problem: a theory of everything that would complete Albert Einstein’s dream of unifying the laws of physics. "This final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions." "

Don’t get me wrong, I very much look forward to the day when this ‘theory of everything’, (which Prof. Stephen Hawking has speculated about and worked towards for decades) is finally published in its first draft. I also look forward to whatever practical benefits it brings us, in terms of engineering, electronics, astrophysics, etc. But I think that Mr Dawkins is mistaken that this long anticipated theory will make religion disappear. I’ll just briefly outline why I think so:

First though (and I’m assuming that Dawkins’ words have been correctly quoted by the Guardian), I hope that everyone who understands what science is, will appreciate how stupid it is for a scientist to refer to the TOE as "this FINAL scientific enlightenment!" I thought that scientific theories were not supposed to be taken as "final", not even by the scientists who publish them. The theory would simply be the best overall explanation of the laws of physics in existence, until falsified or otherwise improved upon. It sounds to me like Dawkins desperately wants people to accredit the TOE with characteristics it cannot by definition have. His agenda is, as always, totally transparent. He rejects The Bible, but he seems to have a deep need for science to be a "final revelation", "the Word", The Bible! That, Mr Dawkins, is religion, not science.

However, let us pass over Mr Dawkins’ rather odd personal need to make science into a religion.  The man may know his physics, but I’m sure there are many atheists out there who wish he would shut up, and who agree that he does atheism a disservice with his strange obsessive "science as religion" talk.

Anyway, I can think of two reasons why I disagree that the TOE , if and when published, will lead to the death (or major decline) of religion. First, let us assume that the TOE will be, for all intents and purposes, scientifically sound, ie free of any obvious flaws. It will pretty much do what it’s supposed to do, ie tie together all our knowledge and observations about the known universe into one giant theory about the physical/chemical/biological processes by which the universe was formed, and by which it holds together. It will also be fundamentally useful to humanity. We will be able to use it to make great technological progress. Perhaps, (who knows?) even teleportation of matter, or even time travel! Fine, so it’s good and it’s useful. But still – it won’t pose any real mainstream challenge to religion, for the simple reason that, aside from the scientists who worked it out, hardly anyone will fully understand it! Who here has fully read and understood Einstein’s theories? I haven’t. All we see are the effects (nuclear technology, for example). The very fact that such theories take decades for the absolute top scientists to work out, pretty much excludes the rest of us from being able to participate in them on an intellectual level.

Actually, having just re-read that, I can see that my above argument only works up to a point.  Take Christianity for example: Although the basics can be summarised and understood (if not accepted) by most people, it is in fact full of mysteries and complexities, many of which are nowhere near fully explained by The Bible (eg, why do we suffer in this life?  How, exactly and precisely, does Christ’s death "work" as the "substitute" which makes forgiveness possible?) No, The Bible does not tell Christians everything plainly, but still we believe that we have sufficient grounds for belief. The same might prove true of the TOE…?

But even if the TOE turns out to be simple and easily understood by all, it STILL won’t deal a death-blow to religion. Why not? Well, you remember The Hitch Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy? They built a super-computer called "Deep Thought" and asked it "what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?" The computer thought and thought for millenia, and finally answered "42". Let’s suspend reality for a moment, and imagine that Deep Thought was correct. "42" is the answer to the equation for the whole physical universe. It explains the movements of the planets, gravity, how the universe started, when it will end, all that sort of thing. It is the grand theory of everything. The problem is….

SO WHAT?

You see, even knowing all that, it still leaves the human being with the biggest question, and the unsolved paradox is still intact: Ourselves.  No matter what scientific knowledge we have, the human being will always go on asking him/herself the eternal questions:

"Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die? Nothing? -What, all my joys, my happiness, the love I gave to and received from others, the sacrifices I made, and also all the pain I suffered, the loneliness, the tears I cried….it all comes to nothing, for all eternity? That….just doesn’t seem right. When so-and-so died, or left me, I missed them. I hurt from that, I knew that no-one could ever replace that person, and that there would never be another person born who WAS that person, ever again. In that awful pain, I glimpsed eternity, and I knew that love is real, and it matters, and that the individual is real, and matters for all time. The proposition that we are nothing more than the physical/biological/chemical, and that all is as nought for all eternity, is worse than horrible, it is a cruel joke! I am unsatisfied! I require more than this! Is there a god? God, where are you?"  

– Human beings will always scream these thoughts out, inside our minds. And no physical "theories of everything" will satisfy humanity. Communism tried its utmost to destroy the idea of God and to instill atheism into the very hearts of its captives. And it failed. Indeed, the Christian churches played a large part in overthrowing communism in East Germany, Romania, the Baltic states, etc. Mr Dawkins is very mistaken to think that a scientific theory will fare any better in destroying religion. But then again, Mr Dawkins clearly IS profoundly religious, he just doesn’t recognise it yet!

 

 

 

 

38 Responses to “Life, the Universe and Everything!”

  1. Tom,

    If you’re surmising that humans aren’t smart enough to be independent of religion then I’d agree with you.

  2. The professor is labouring under an old delusion. They never will prove a TOE due to Godel’s "incompleteness theorem". Any maths undergrad of the last 50 years could have told him.

    Here’s an interesting article, read it to the end. There are some real money quotes in there ! It seems Stephen Hawking has finally seen the light too.

    http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakiGodel.pdf

  3. Nothing or nobody will ever rid the world of religion, No matter how much proof, reasoning or scientific fact is thrown in people’s faces.

    Religion depends on the sad fact that people who require an emotional crutch to get them through life will belive what they WANT to believe over and above any rational reasoning.

    Point in case: The imaculate conception. Most, if not all people of a religious persuasion accept this out of hand. Despite most of those people knowing, (those with half a brain at least), that it was not physicly possible.

    With this kind of self brain-washing and blind desperation to convince themselves they are more than just a collection of cells with a finite biological clock, religion will be safe for as long as man exists.

  4. >>>What, all my joys, my happiness, the love I gave to and received from others, the sacrifices I made, and also all the pain I suffered, the loneliness, the tears I cried….it all comes to nothing, for all eternity? That….just doesn’t seem right.<<<

    that is; who you are! and why you are here!

    There being a God or no God is utterly irrelevant. If you are a good person who seeks to understand your own world and that of others around you, your on safe ground.

  5. Hmmm. Interesting entry – a lot to chew on. I also wonder why Dawkins would be so worried about spirituality. I must ruminate….

  6. Dawkins "final scientific enlightenment" relies on the factual foundation of modern scientific modeling which for all its appeal to higher intellectual vanity has a finite probability that will itself become subject to an evolution of modification in due course.

    As for dealing an " overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions." The obvious response would have to be: except for those religions that have, as central to their core religious beliefs, ethics based philosophies for their scientific explorations. And yes it is real science.

    In his book "The God Delusion" Dawkins deliberately pits his atheistic version of science against religion. His only acknowledgement that there are major religions that do not have a separation of religion and science is couched in the most vulgar and disparaging language.

    Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

  7. Anabel,

    "His only acknowledgement that there are major religions that do not have a separation of religion and science is couched in the most vulgar and disparaging language."

    Though I understand the sentiment, I disagree. And I have to ask – have you actually read the book? Dawkins is quite clear that he is speaking about a specific class of religion – ones involving a supernatural agent – and not what might be termed ‘Einsteinian’ religion.

    Also, out of curiosity, which ‘major religions’ are you referring to?

  8. Quite a long but interesting post.

    You are right of course, a theory of everything would not cause religion to disappear.

    I would however think that an increasing understanding of scientific phenomenon among a certain population would lead to a gradual decline in religious thought – at least such is the pattern observable in Western Europe in, for example, the post WWII years.

  9. Tom an interesting post and I can identify with a lot of it.

  10. Isaac Newton was one of the two greatest mathematicians/scientists who ever lived (the other is not Richard Dawkins) yet he was not an atheist – and he wasn’t a muslim either!

  11. Good post,Tom.

    The trouble with the Theory of Everything is that it is just that – a theory. Like many theories it may be scientifically plausible, but as a theory it will still be unproven. One of my biggest gripes about the theory of anthropogenic global warming is the way the term "scientific consensus" is applied to it as if that means it must be correct. Science is not determined by consensus but by proof obtained through experimentation or observation. In the case of AGW, despite years of trying and billions of dollars spent they still can not demonstrate that climate change has anything to do with man – just the opposite in fact.

    So TOE will not change anything. It won’t prove or disprove the existence of God, it will not prove the origins of the universe. But that is not the aim of it. The aim of TOE – like AGW – is as a propaganda tool. Where AGW is aimed at attacking conservatism from a economic anti-capitalist angle, TOE is designed to destroy the other side of conservatism – religion and order.

    Who said communism was dead?

  12. >>>The trouble with the Theory of Everything is that it is just that – a theory. Like many theories it may be scientifically plausible, but as a theory it will still be unproven.<<<

    any theory is given validity through application. if memory serves, quantum wave theory is difficult to prove (practically), yet it can be applied in laser development very successfully.

    >>>Where AGW is aimed at attacking conservatism from a economic anti-capitalist angle<<<

    horse-crap. environmentalism has and will continue to create new markets for business venture. most of the anti-environmentalism lobby is old guard protectionism.

    >>>TOE is designed to destroy the other side of conservatism – religion and order.<<<

    again, good for the rose beds. This is just another example of reactionary conservatism and its hatred of true progress. paranoia of the unknown always scares the crap out of such people.

    remember, those who are carrying out this scientific work arent motivated by the possibility of debunking God.

  13. "I would however think that an increasing understanding of scientific phenomenon among a certain population would lead to a gradual decline in religious thought…"

    Interesting you should say that, Andy. The celebrated astronomer, Neil deGrasse Tyson, calls attention to the reverse phenomenon. He points out that many of the stars have Arabic names, attesting to an era when Muslim scientists led the world.

    When religion began to call the shots, Muslim science nosedived:

    "At no time since the eleventh century has the scientific influence of the Islamic world been equal to what it enjoyed the preceding four centuries. The late Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam, the first Muslim ever to win the Nobel Prize, lamented:

    ‘There is no question [that] of all civilizations on this planet, science is the weakest in the lands of Islam. The dangers of this weakness cannot be overemphasized since honorable survival of a society depends directly on strength in science and technology in the conditions of the present age.’"

    Check out: http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/18magazines_naming.php

    Also, Tyson notes that the Islamic scientists have won only two Nobel prizes, in contrast to Jewish scientists who have won a great many. In a wonderful reading given in La Jolla in October last, he reminded us that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world, and only 15 million Jews.

    Watch it here: http://video.google.com.cob-web.org:8888/videoplay?docid=-6797394025753390191

    Or watch the entire congress: http://beyondbelief2006.org.cob-web.org:8888/Watch/

    Seems like we have to choose: do we want religion or do we want progress?

  14. Sorry, new at this. Those links above should be:

    http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%202

    and

    http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

  15. Just as no theory of everything developed by physicists can possibly render biology and medicine irrelevant, in the same way theology has its own domain that won’t be affected by even the most profound scientific theories.

    Well the only effect is that out of economic considerations more people will study science and less people will study theology in the capitalist democracies, just as it was the other way around under feudalism.

    Incidentally a decade and a half of capitalism in the former Communist East have done what half a century of communist indoctrination failed to do – made religion unfashionable and meaningless. 80% of Poles went to Church on a weekly basis in 1991. Today it’s more like 20%.

  16. Adrian,

    "theology has its own domain that won’t be affected by even the most profound scientific theories"

    Not any more, anyway. But that’s only because it’s evolved and learnt from past mistakes and retreated into the unfalsifiable.

    Dawkins deals pretty well with that ‘own domain’ stuff in his book, too.

  17. Frank,
    I haven’t read Dawkin’s book but I did read the speech he made at Bombay if it’s the right person I have in mind.

    When you say unfalsifiable you mean unfalsifiable by science. Yes, theology cannot be falsified by mundane science just as science cannot be falsified by theology. There’s no retreat involved here, just a better understanding of the powers and limits of human reason.

    If chemistry is able to explain all life processes would you say that biology has retreated???

  18. Adrian,

    "When you say unfalsifiable you mean unfalsifiable by science. "

    No I mean unfalsifiable by evidence.

    Theology claims to be able to answer questions science can’t but there is no reason to suppose theology can answer them either. After all the religious used to claim to be able to answer questions about cosmology, the future, origins, and whatnot, and all those answers turned out to be wrong. Having got all the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions wrong now it claims to be able to answer ‘why’.

    Now if you had a question that science can’t answer then you could I suppose ask a theologian if you’re desparate – or you save your money and ask the magic 8 ball instead, or simply guess, and get answers that are just as likely to be accurate and possibly more entertaining.

  19. "Having got all the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions wrong now it claims to be able to answer ‘why’""

    What is the "it" here? Religion is a struture of rules (the root of its name).

    Taking instead what is claimed for faith, That some claimed that it addressed the what and how of the physical world, doesn’t negate its potential to answer the why and indeed some of the what and how. As some of the what and how relates to what and how people act, as a result of the faith and its effects.
    I know what I mean, honestly ;o)

  20. Aileen,

    "What is the "it" here?"

    Theology.

    "doesn’t negate its potential to answer the why and indeed some of the what and how"

    Well it can answer. So can a random answer generator. There is just no reason to suppose one will be right more often than the other.

    The other thing is that the ‘why’ questions may not have any answer. They may be meaningless questions.

    "As some of the what and how relates to what and how people act, as a result of the faith and its effects. "

    I think you mean that religion has effects in the world because religion itself is part of the world, i.e. a natural phenomenon. If so then I wouldn’t disagree with that. But that says nothing about its truth – false beliefs also have real effects.

  21. Frank

    One of the points that I was trying to make is that theology makes no claims and neither does faith, which is slightly different

    "Well it can answer. So can a random answer generator. There is just no reason to suppose one will be right more often than the other."

    You may see or have no reason to do so and that is fine. If you beleive something then you [and I of course mean "one" ;0)] suppose that it is right. Some may just belevie it becuase they were told and would have beleived anything (includung a random answer generator). However some will have tested it (and continually do) agaisnt their expereince. Others will have developed their faith (very unrandom) as opposed to accepting anything off the peg.

  22. Aileen,

    "One of the points that I was trying to make is that theology makes no claims and neither does faith, which is slightly different"

    Theology claims to be or have some kind of access to a system of knowledge and answer questions that science cannot – things like what is the purpose of everything, why are we here, what happens to you after death, etc. But all it is a system of guesswork and assumptions and the questions may not be meaningful.

    "However some will have tested it (and continually do) agaisnt their expereince."

    If you can test it, even subjectively, then it is a scientific theory of sorts. I am referring to things that you cannot test in any meaningful way.

    For example supposing it occurred to you that Thor was responsible for thunder and that after your death you would go to Valhalla. How would you test that one against your experience?

  23. Can’t resist the chance to post this link again. Enjoy!

    http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

  24. LOL Peter! That sequel is cringe making…looks like a few people couldn’t tell it from the real thing 🙂

  25. Frank, you often, quite naturally, state that religious belief such as Christianity is mere "blind faith" or guesswork. Many atheists/agnostics such as yourself seem to think that Christians such as myself base our faith/belief in Christ on nothing more than a sort of "well, this sounds good, I hope it’s right, I want it to be right, so I’ll believe in it", with no actual evidence at all to support it.
    I just want to tell you that that is not the case.
    Of course, I do realise that what I call my "evidence" (as experienced by myself) is not quite the same thing as scientific evidence, in that I cannot prove it to you in a way that you would have no choice but to accept. The "evidence" would have to be experienced personally by you, in a way that was right for your situation, and I cannot make that happen.
    But in the meantime, all I would ask is, please accept that I am not being dishonest when I say that my belief in Christianity is based on more than mere wishful thinking/guesswork/"needing a crutch in my life, and so inventing one for myself" etc.

  26. Tom,

    "But in the meantime, all I would ask is, please accept that I am not being dishonest when I say that my belief in Christianity is based on more than mere wishful thinking/guesswork/"needing a crutch in my life, and so inventing one for myself" etc."

    I don’t think you’re dishonest in the least, indeed you’ve always struck me as remarkably honest. Anyway there is such a thing as personal experience and a personal science of sorts. However people can have experiences that they misinterpret or that have simpler explanations – which is why science is a collaborative process with continual checks and systematic cross-references.

    To take a slightly silly example, in work we have a drinks vending machine that uses some kind of smartcard instead of cash. Actually getting a can out of the thing is a black art – you have to wiggle the card, remove and reinsert it several times, coax the button, find its g-spot. At least that’s how I go about it. Others working on the floor have their own theories, all different. We all get a can eventually. The point is that each of us is totally convinced that whatever ritual we use is responsible, when probably all there is is a loose connection somewhere in the machine or a bug in the software.

    Shorter version: People are great at inventing theories and finding patterns. Sometimes they even find them when there isn’t one.

    Now I’m sure you’ll tell me your experience is something different than that, and I genuinely would be interested to hear it, but I’m going to be amazed if it has no simpler explanation. Even if Jesus appeared to you personally and changed the charge on an electron or something, it would still be simpler to assume that somebody spiked your drink with LSD.

  27. Frank

    "Theology claims to be or have some kind of access to a system of knowledge and answer questions that science cannot – things like what is the purpose of everything, why are we here, what happens to you after death, etc. But all it is a system of guesswork and assumptions and the questions may not be meaningful."

    Theologists might but surely not theology

    I test by beliefs agaisnt my experience and that in some cases involves extrapolation, which is where the afterlife comes in. The testing may not be about "proving" it. Often it is about checking that it is not "disproved" against my experience and logic.

    Tom in science you need scientific evidence in faith it is faith evidence :o)

  28. Aileen,

    "Theologists might but surely not theology "

    Sigh. I thought that might be what you were getting at – and I even wrote something like that and crossed it out – but then I thought no surely you’re not being that pedantic.

    *Adrian* made the claims, about theology. As do many others of a similar religious/theological bent. Better?

    The point was more about the claims themselves and not who makes them.

    As I said already if you can really test it against experience, then I would not call it faith but a form of science. Faith seems like a pretty empty boast if you also claim to have evidence, after all. Please give an example of one of these beliefs or whatever you prefer to call them, and how you might test it. Even better how you actually do test it.

  29. "Faith" in the Christian sense, means "trust". "Put your faith in God"….."If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain ‘move from here to there’ and it will be done for you by my Father in heaven", so said Jesus. He means "trust". In the same sense as, at a glance, the idea that a metal carcass weighing several hundred tonnes can fly through the air, seems at first a ludicrous proposal. Yet we trust in jet planes to deliver us across the world. And they do. Same sort of trust is asked for, in God. Seems silly, but does it work? That is the question.

  30. Tom,

    ""Faith" in the Christian sense, means "trust". "Put your faith in God""

    OK, but then it makes no sense to speak of faith that God exists.

    By that I mean that if I said that faith meant to trust Gandalf you would not accept that as any reason to believe that Gandalf was not fictional.

    As for faith moving mountains, that sounds like a testable claim. Who has moved a mountain by this method? Or is that not supposed to be taken literally. If not then why take any of it literally?

  31. I have faith that this mountain can be moved. Now is it faith that it can be moved or faith that the explosives will work, it is still an act of faith that moved the mountain…

    Eistein, Eddison, Tesla, DaVinci etc etc All believed in god the articles whole premis is based on a flawed conception that great scientific minds don’t believe in god.

    As for the other ridiculas statement "scientists get closer to discovering a final theory of everything" the unified feild theory is just the keystone to the next step in what we don’t know once it is figured out then we have the base equations for figuring out how to manipulate Space and Time.. To achieve faster than light momentum or wormholes, timetravel, interdimenstional movement and an unnumberable amount of things that we don’t even know that we don’t know yet.. The whole premis is a testomony to mans arrogance.

  32. "it makes no sense to speak of faith that God exists"
    -Jesus was talking to a group of people who had seen him with their own eyes perform miraclulous things, and attribute this power to God. He had become a sort of celebrity figure, and was renowned for healing the sick etc, and so I guess that he assumed that his audience at the time did already believe in the God of the Old Testament. All he was asking his audience to do, was to place their trust in that God.

    The "moving mountains" claim is not meant literally. The "mountain" is whatever problem or issue or pain you have in your life which seems to be immoveable. Jesus says "pray and ask God for help with it. Believe as much as you can that God wants what is best for you, and your prayer will be answered". Actually, that is the best scientific test of the veracity of Christianity. Christ makes several such promises, eg if one searches for God, one will find him. It’s difficult to put into words, and again, my own "evidence" will not be your "evidence". It’s not science, in that sense.
    Actually, come on, any book you might have read is a mixture of allegory, analogy and factual occurences. Take Orwell’s "1984", for example. A work of fiction, yet you can see clearly the bits where he is attempting to weave a poem, as opposed to the bits where he is describing matter-of-fact happenings, albeit fictional. Same goes for the Bible – it’s easy to cherry-pick bits and pieces of it and hold them up as implausible. But if you read the whole thing, you can grasp the big picture, the essence of what is being relayed.

  33. It’s not pedantic, especially in the contect that you are blaming it for false claims of the past. Those theologians are dead and of the living, one theologist doesn’t have to be responsible for another theologists work.

    Of course the same holds for science and scientists but I imagine that there is a greater degree of consensus about the basics and therefore the claims of science is a more meaningful shorthand for scientists, to me at any rate, than theology is for theologists.

    "Faith seems like a pretty empty boast if you also claim to have evidence, after all. " As I say I think it is more a matter of testing that it is not disporved, which would make me drop it. As for examples. I’ve had a very intensive day long team meeting and my brain hurts. nite nite :o)

  34. Troll,

    "I have faith that this mountain can be moved. Now is it faith that it can be moved or faith that the explosives will work, it is still an act of faith that moved the mountain…"

    Except the explosives will work whether or not you believe they will.

    "Eistein, Eddison, Tesla, DaVinci etc etc All believed in god the articles whole premis is based on a flawed conception that great scientific minds don’t believe in god."

    Einstein certainly did not believe in God. Most scientists don’t.

    Of course there are great scientists that believed in God (Newton has been mentioned already), but all scientists are atheists WHEN THEY ARE DOING SCIENCE. That is it is always part of the whole concept to assume that no angel or devil or god is going to interfere with the experiment.

    Newton also pursued a lot of other bullshit, such as alchemy, by the way, and the average science graduate today could dazzle Newton with what they know. Would he be a theist today? Who knows. But had Newton not been hung up on absolutism and theism, he was probably genius enough to come up with relativity ahead of Einstein.

    Tom,

    "The "moving mountains" claim is not meant literally. "

    I find your certainty about that fascinating. lol. I mean who says? How the hell do you know? Is it because it is implausible? If so then maybe the heaven and miracle and god stuff is not to be taken literally either?

    And Troll has a different answer! But you’re all working from the same book and you are both I assume Christians.

    "But if you read the whole thing, you can grasp the big picture, the essence of what is being relayed."

    Unfortunately that big picture appears to be either almost anything anyone wants to claim it is, or (if one reads what it actually says) absolutely appalling. In absolutely no way does it resemble what you’d expect to hear from omniscience. He’s a worse scientist than Einstein, a worse writer than Shakespeare, contradicts himself, and as for morality makes Saddam look like a girl scout.

  35. Einstein certainly did not believe in God. Most scientists don’t.

    BULLSHIT

    One of Einsteins favorite quotes is "My wonder of God is the Complexity of the Universe" and "God did not role dice when he created the Universe" not the words of an unbeliever

  36. Also Frank as someone who served in a scientific unit in the Air Force and had contact with people who dealt in pure cold scientific numbers. The majority of them were Christians and Jews only about 20% were atheists… Now nif your talking about fake scientists like those that blame man for Global warming you may be right, but those that design bombs and the things that kill people They believe.

  37. Troll,

    Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God:

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
    – Albert Einstein

    "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
    – Albert Einstein

    As for the pure cold scientific numbers, those are (still) that the majority of scientists are atheists. That’s one mountain (of evidence) that neither faith nor explosives is going to move for you, I’m afraid.

  38. >>>Now nif your talking about fake scientists like those that blame man for Global warming you may be right, but those that design bombs and the things that kill people They believe.<<<

    scientists who seek to improve life on earth = bad
    scientists who seek to maim kill and destroy = good

    happy new year troll.