—————————————

1. Testimonies and evidence of scientists about the existence of God

The teachings of Charles Darwin became the most powerful idea, which significantly alienated the ideas of scientific development, and the established foundations of religion. Many scientists of that time adopted the position of science, which was further and further removed from the religious understanding of the surrounding world and its development.

But, Darwin's theory was only - theory. Darwin's theory was based on the gradual development of more complex organs from simple ones. Charles Darwin himself said that if the irreducible organs of living beings are found, then his whole theory goes to dust. "Irreducible" are organs that should have been formed immediately, and not as a result of "gradual development" (evolution). And over time, when microscopes with high magnification appeared, such "irreducible organs" were successfully discovered.

Such a complex mechanism will not work if at least one of its constituent elements is removed from it. This means that it appeared immediately, in a complete - working "set" ... And not gradually, as a result of "evolution", according to the theory. Bottom line: Darwin's theory was disproved. In fact, the discovery of the irreducible elements of creation are testimony and evidence the fact that exists some reasonable Creator, without whose participation the construction of such complex functional organs would be impossible!

And only the strongest conservatism of the scientific world does not allow accepting this refutation. And what to do with the thousands of dissertations and scientific papers that were based on the evolution of Darwin? Read more about the refutation of Charles Darwin's theory in the article, there is also a video film on this topic. After reviewing all these materials, you can understand: why scientists believe in God.

ALSO YOU CAN WATCH THE 28 MINUTE SCIENTIFIC VIDEO (BELOW)

And now, with the further development of research methods, scientists have discovered a DNA molecule. The very fact that the information in the molecule is in encoded form, says that "accidentally" such a thing could not have been formed in fact!

One of the representatives of the scientific world who has faith in God is Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) - an American geneticist who became known as the leader of the project to decipher the human genome. He currently heads the US National Institutes of Health. Collins has many international awards. When Collins went to university, he considered himself a convinced that he had come to the gospel faith, and now describes himself as a committed Christian. The scientist (Collins) even wrote the book “Proof of God. Scientist's arguments "

In 2000, a very striking event took place, about which many newspapers wrote. An important stage of the Human Genome project has come to an end - a working draft of the genome structure has been released. At a gala reception at the White House, the project leader, scientist Francis Collins, gave a speech.

“Today is a happy day for the whole world,” he said in response to then President Bill Clinton. - The consciousness that we were first able to look into the instructions according to which we were created, and which until now was known only to God, fills me with humility and reverence.

After this speech of the scientist, many newspapers were full of headlines: “The scientist who deciphered the code of the DNA molecule announced that he now believes in God. He added that the scientist Francis Collins publicly renounced atheism, because he was amazed by the most complex structure of the code that records the program of all living organisms on Earth, from the pale spirochete to humans.

By the way, an interesting fact is that committing sinful acts, and even just thoughts that are considered in different religions as “sinful”, greatly reduce the speed of the human brain. That is, they reduce - the amount of vital (psychic) ​​energy, which is perceived by a person directly - as a feeling of happiness. You can read more about this in the article. (the page will open in a new additional window).

In the 70s in the West the book We Believe was published, in which 53 outstanding scientists, many of them Nobel laureates, convincingly testify to their unshakable faith in God. Here quote from this book:

“We (physicists) saw the handiwork of the Creator in this world, which is unknown to other people ... This gives me and many of my co-workers the feeling that there is something great and beautiful. This something is - the reason for the creation of the Universe, and this reason cannot be understood by us ”(Dr. David R. Inglis - scientist, one of the leaders of the US National Physics Laboratory);

"Scientists studying outer space have discovered so many beautiful and unexpected things that today it is more difficult to convince a scientist that God does not exist ..." (Dr. Jules C. Duchez, Belgian scientist chairman of the Department of Atomic and Molecular Physics).

"Spiritual revival has recently penetrated into the environment of scientists engaged in space exploration ... I stood near the rocket and prayed for Allan Teppard before its launch, and I did not see around dry eyes ..." (space flight expert, chief specialist in the design of manned capsules series "Mercury" and "Gemini" by Walter F. Burke).

In ancient times, as strange as it sounds, religion from science was not separated. The great scientists of antiquity did not even think of opposing any opinion that was contrary to the main ideas faith and religion... On the contrary, they actively participated in discussions if any contradictions were found in certain views on religion. After reading the following information, one can see - how much and what scientists believed in God and why.
Pythagoras(ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician), Plato(ancient Greek philosopher, student Socrates, teacher Aristotle), Plotinus(the ancient philosopher) and their followers, they all talked about the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), Origen said the same. This contradicted the opinion of the church, which was as follows: the soul is born at the same time as the body. In 553 AD, the 2nd Council of Constantinople was convened. At this council, the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul was rejected. The Roman Church did not take the decision of this council until the very end of the sixth century. And yet, by order of the Emperor Justinian, the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul, abandoned even by Constantine, was removed from the Bible. But, still, there is something left in the Bible, which suggests that the knowledge of reincarnation took place:

  1. “And as he passed, I saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked Him: Rabbi! Who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind? " (John 9: 1-3).

A logical question arises: when could he have sinned before he was born blind? The answer is unequivocal: only in his past life.

Now a lot of knowledge is revealed that previously highly developed civilizations flourished on Earth. In particular, there was a Vedic civilization on the territory of Eurasia. A lot of evidence has been found to support this fact. Also found unique scientific blueprints vimanov - aircraft. These aircraft used a principle of operation unknown to this day.

In the ancient scriptures - the Vedas, which are considered the most ancient knowledge on Earth, there is a mass of scientific information. The Vedas give the speed of light up to 10 thousandths coincidence with the data of modern science. The size of the atoms is given. The structure of the solar system with an accuracy of kilometers. The structure of our galaxy. There is information about the time of the origin of the universe, as well as the time of its disappearance. And also, in the scriptures, the words of the Almighty are given:

“The goal of all the Vedas is to know Me. Verily, I am the compiler of the Vedanta, and the knower of the Vedas " ()

___________________________________________________________________________________________

4. First there was a word, or a footprint on the water. V. D. Plykin

In the book, the author shows that the universe is finite; that there are no atoms, electrons and elementary particles (in our today's understanding) in Nature; that it is not matter, but information that underlies the structure of the Universe; that matter is the form that energy has taken according to information - according to the program for creating material education; that the world in which we live (the physical world of the Earth) is the world of consequences; that the world of causes is in the system of closed information and energy flows of the Universe. The discoveries made by the author make it possible to explain anomalous phenomena on our planet and in the Universe, which modern science is unable to explain. Knowledge of the information and energy structure of the Universe, discovered by the author, makes it possible to prevent catastrophes on a planetary scale, to which the humanity of the Earth inevitably comes, due to its militant lack of spirituality. Addressed to all people thirsting for knowledge about the World in which they live.

And again crucifixion for Christ, -
Crucifixion on the cross of science.
Those whose cup is empty
They stretch their hands with special passion.
But the light of the sun, the flight of comets,
And the firmament of the sky and even eternity
Will sang the glory again harmoniously
The soul that has cognized infinity.
Who knew the moment, who knew the world,
All accepting and ardent
She gave herself to the "fire".
In the name of great truth.

Kirillova Valentina

———————————————

6. What scientists say about God VIDEO.

Documentary "Human Devolution" (2009)

Year of issue: 2009
Production: Studio Premananda
Genre: Popular science
Duration: 46 min 11 sec

Director: Michael Cremo.

Description : Today, the most common answer to the question of human origins comes from modern followers of Charles Darwin. According to evolutionists, life on Earth began between two and three billion years ago, the first great apes appeared about 40 million years ago, the first ape-like man appeared about 6 million years ago, and, finally, a man like you and me - 100-150 thousand years ago ...

1901 - Nobel Prize established


Nobel laureates in physics about faith

Antoine Becquerel (1852-1908) French physicist.
Discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity.
Nobel Prize in Physics 1903 "for the discovery of spontaneous radioactivity" (with Curie).
A unit of radioactivity is named after him"It was my work that led me to God, to Faith."

Joseph Thomson (1856-1940), English physicist
Opened the electron.
Nobel Prize in Physics 1906 "In recognition of his outstanding services in the field of theoretical and experimental studies of the conductivity of electricity in gases."

"Do not be afraid to be independent thinkers! If you think strongly enough, you will inevitably be led by science to faith in God, which is the foundation of religion. You will see that science is not an enemy, but a helper of religion."

Max Planck (1858-1947), German physicist.
The founder of quantum physics.
Nobel Prize in Physics 1918 "For the discovery of energy quanta"
The fundamental constant of the quantum of action is named after him.

“Wherever and how far we look, we do not find contradictions between religion and natural science, on the contrary, it is in the fundamental points that the best combination is found. Religion and natural science are not mutually exclusive, as some people today believe or fear, these two areas complement each other and are dependent on each other. The most direct, compelling proof that religion and natural science are not hostile to each other is the historical fact that even with a thoroughly practical discussion of this issue, it was precisely such the greatest natural scientists of all time, men like Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, who were imbued with the spirit of this religion of Christianity "

Robert Millikan (1868-1953), American physicist.
Nobel Prize in Physics 1923 "For experiments on the determination of the elementary electric charge and the photoelectric effect"

"I cannot imagine how a real atheist can be a scientist."

James Jeans (1877-1946), English astrophysicist:
“Primitive cosmogonies depicted the Creator as working in time, forging the Sun and the Moon, and the stars from the already existing raw material. Modern scientific theory makes us think about the Creator, working outside of time and space, which are part of His creation, just as an artist is outside his canvas. "

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - great German-Swiss-American physicist(Changed citizenship 2 times)
The author of the special and general theory of relativity, introduced the concept of a photon, discovered the laws of the photoelectric effect, worked on the problems of cosmology and the unified field theory. According to many prominent physicists (for example, Lev Landau), Einstein is the most significant figure in the history of physics. Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 "" for services to theoretical physics, and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect "

“The harmony of natural law reveals Reason that is so superior to us that, in comparison with it, any systematic thinking and action of human beings turns out to be an extremely insignificant imitation." , which we are able to only partially embrace and cognize with our mind. This deep emotional confidence in the highest logical harmony of the structure of the universe is my idea of ​​God "

“The real problem is the inner state of the soul and thinking of humanity. This is not a physical problem, but an ethical problem. What scares us is not the explosive force of the atomic bomb, but the force of the bitterness of the human heart, the explosive force for bitterness. "

“In vain in the face of the catastrophes of the 20th century, many complain:“ How did God allow it? ”... Yes. He admitted: he admitted our freedom, but did not leave us in the darkness of ignorance. Let the knowledge of good and evil be indicated. And the man himself had to pay for choosing the wrong paths "

What a deep confidence in the rational structure of the world and what a thirst for knowledge of even the smallest reflections of the rationality that manifests itself in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had. People of this kind draw strength from the cosmic religious feeling. One of our contemporaries said, and not without reason, that in our materialistic age only deeply religious people can be serious scientists "

“Every serious natural scientist must be a religious person in some way. Otherwise, he is not able to imagine that the incredibly subtle interdependencies that he observes are not invented by him. The activity of the infinitely perfect Reason is revealed in the infinite universe. The usual idea of ​​me as an atheist is a big mistake. If this idea is gleaned from my scientific work, I can say that my scientific work is not understood. "

Max Born (1882-1970), German physicist
One of the founders of quantum mechanics.
1954 Nobel Prize in Physics "For fundamental research in quantum mechanics"

“Science has left the question of God completely open. Science has no right to judge this. " “Many scientists believe in God. Those who say that studying the sciences makes a person an atheist are probably some funny people. "

Arthur Compton (1892-1962), American physicist
Nobel Prize in Physics "For the discovery of the Compton effect" (increasing the wavelength of X-rays when scattered by weakly bound electrons)

"For me, Faith begins with the knowledge that the Supreme Reason created the Universe and man. It is not difficult for me to believe in this, because the fact of the existence of a plan and, therefore, Reason is irrefutable. The order in the Universe, which unfolds before our gaze, itself testifies to the truth the greatest and most sublime statement: "In the beginning - God"

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), Swiss physicist
One of the founders of quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory
Nobel Prize in Physics 1945 "For the discovery of the Pauli exclusion principle"

"We must also recognize that on all paths of knowledge and deliverance we are dependent on factors beyond our control and which are called grace in the religious language."

Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) German theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics.
Nobel Prize in physics 1932 "For the creation of quantum mechanics". He put forward a hypothesis according to which atomic nuclei should consist of protons and neutrons held by the forces of nuclear exchange interaction.

"The first sip from the vessel of natural science gives rise to atheism, but at the bottom of the vessel, God awaits us."

Paul Dirac (1902-1984) English physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum statistics.
Nobel Prize in physics 1933 "For the development of new, promising forms of atomic theory"

"Nature has that fundamental feature that the most basic physical laws are described by a mathematical theory, the apparatus of which has extraordinary strength and beauty. We just have to take it for granted. The situation could probably be described by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high rank and that he used mathematics of the highest level in the construction of the universe "

Physicians, biologists about faith

Nikolai Pirogov (1810-1881), professor of medicine, great Russian surgeon

"I consider faith to be the psychic ability of man, which more than any other distinguishes him from animals."

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), French microbiologist and chemist, founder of modern microbiology and immunology

“The day will come when they will laugh at the stupidity of modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature, the more I stop in awe at the deeds of the Creator. I pray during my lab work. "

Ivan Pavlov (1849 - 1936) great Russian physiologist, academician

“I study higher nervous activity and know that all human feelings: joy, grief, sadness, anger, hatred, human thoughts, the very ability to think and reason - are connected, each of them, with a special cell of the human brain and its nerves. the body ceases to live, then all these feelings and thoughts of a person, as if breaking away from the brain cells that have already died, by virtue of the general law that nothing - neither energy nor matter - disappear without a trace and make up that soul, an immortal soul, which professes the Christian faith. "

Alexander Spirin (b. 1931), Russian biologist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading Russian specialist in the field of molecular biology:

“I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to obtain a complex device by 'brute force', by way of evolution ... this mysterious, I would say, 'divine' compound - RNA, the central link of living matter, could not appear as a result of evolution. It is either there or it is not. It is so perfect that it had to be created by some system capable of inventing. "
Physicists - Our Contemporaries About Faith

Andrey Sakharov (1921 - 1989) - Russian physicist
Academician, three times Hero of Social. Truda (1953, 1956, 1962), laureate of the Stalin (1953) and Lenin (1956) prizes.
The creator of the hydrogen bomb (1953)

“I don’t know, deep down, what my position really is, I don’t believe in any dogmas, I don’t like official churches. At the same time, I cannot imagine the Universe and human life without some meaningful beginning , without a source of spiritual "warmth" lying outside of matter and its laws. Probably, such a feeling can be called religious "

“My deepest feeling. - the existence in nature of some kind of inner meaning. And this feeling, perhaps most of all, is nourished by the picture that opened before people in the XX century. "

Hugh Ross, modern American astronomer:

“In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several other characteristics of the universe were successfully measured. Each of them pointed to the existence of incredible harmony in the Universe, ensuring the maintenance of life. Recently, twenty-six characteristics have been discovered that must take on strictly defined values ​​for life to be possible ... The list of fine tuning parameters continues to grow ... The more accurately and in more detail astronomers measure the Universe, the more finely tuned it is ... In my opinion opinion, the Reality, which gave life to the Universe, must be a Personality, for only a Personality can create something with a similar degree of accuracy. Consider also the fact that this Personality must be at least hundreds of trillions of times more "intelligent" than we, human beings, even taking into account our potentialities. "

Evgeny Velikhov b. 1930 g.
President of the Russian Scientific Center "Kurchatov Institute", academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Hero of socialist labor, laureate of the USSR State Prize, Lenin Prize and the State Prize of the Russian Federation.

"It is absolutely clear to me that all human activity is not just mold on the surface of a small earthly ball, that it is somehow determined from above. I have such an understanding and perception of God."

And so, it turns out, said Charles Darwin himself, the best friend of atheists of all times and peoples:

Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist. Author of the theory of the origin of species

"In a state of extreme hesitation, I have never been an atheist in the sense that I deny the existence of God."

"The suggestion that the eye arose as a result of evolution seems to me to be highly absurd."

"The impossibility of recognizing that the great and wonderful world with ourselves, as conscious beings, arose by chance, seems to me the main proof of the existence of God. The world rests on laws and in its manifestations is presented as a product of reason - this is an indication of its Creator."

Let's also listen to the Nobel laureate, he is the main atheist of Russia, a 90-year-old fighter for truth in the company of Voltaire, Freud, Marx and Lenin:

Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg (born 1916) Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
2003 Nobel Prize in Physics (for work carried out in the 1950s together with Lev Landau and Pitaevsky).
Received in cooperation with the Soviet-American physicist Alexei Abrikosov, who answered a journalist's question about Ginzburg: "A good popularizer." At the end of his life, the popularizer's fix idea began to convince everyone that there is no God, and, accordingly, "hydrogen is a colorless and odorless gas that, if available for a long time, can turn into a man" (someone's quote, I don't remember). We will not cite the atheist statements of the academician, all the same until Count Tolstoy (who, sensing the end, took spare boots and stomped from Yasnaya Polyana to the Shamordinsky monastery ) it is far away. But somehow, having lost his vigilance, the academician said in one interview:

"For example, I even envy believers. I understand that faith is needed by weak people. But I am also weak in my own way, maybe, but I cannot believe. It would be much easier for me. But I am 90, which means 89, which means that if I live to 90, it will be 90. My wife is not a young woman, and she is very bad, I would gladly believe in God, meet somewhere in the next world, etc. I cannot. This is contrary to reason "

And elsewhere, Vitaly Lazarevich declares:

“I agree with Pope John Paul II, who in his last encyclical, published in 1998, wrote:“ Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit ascends to the contemplation of truth. ”So science and religion are not at all opposed to each other "(VL Ginzburg" Remarks in connection with the encyclical of Pope John Paul II "Faith and Reason").

We will end with a quote from Viktor Trostnikov. He cannot be put on a par with those great people with whose opinions we have just met (although Trostnikov is a candidate and associate professor and the author of 20 works on mathematical logic). For the book "Thoughts before dawn", which was published in Paris in 1980, Viktor Trostnikov was expelled from the teachers and worked as a janitor.

“In our study of matter, we have already reached the point where the assumption of its substantiality (self-sufficiency) becomes a brake on further progress. To paraphrase Marx's Manifesto, we can say that a ghost wanders throughout the field of scientific research - the ghost of the Creator. makes it all the more obvious that there could be no "by itself", that Someone at a certain moment created the universe out of nothing (the "big bang" of theoretical cosmogony and the "relic radiation" of observational astronomy), endowed it with certain properties that contribute to the achievement of certain goals (the "anthropic principle" of physics) and directed it towards this goal, imparting to it the appropriate impulses ("creationism" of biology). And you imagine that, having run out onto the road along which a lot of scientists have gone, and spreading your hands, you will stop them and turn back to atheism?
Several years ago, my (Trostnikov's) old acquaintance, one of the greatest mathematicians of our time, asked me to take him to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Knowing about his materialistic upbringing, I expressed surprise. Lowering his voice, the academician told me: "I'm not stupid enough to be an atheist."

All quotes are given without reference to sources and therefore cannot be considered as convincing.
These quotes (and others), provided with links to the original source, are given in the book by Sergei Bantser

Religion recognizes God as the creator of our world, and science considers the Universe to be a self-developing system. How can you combine opposing views: creationism and evolutionism? How can you objectively analyze reality, while believing that at the beginning of all things there was a miracle, some kind of mystery? We asked these questions to four believing scientists.

They are real researchers. To study the true nature of phenomena, to penetrate into the secrets of reality - for them this is their daily work. But at the same time, they are believers: some part of them takes on faith the invisible, irrational, inexplicable. They do not see this as a contradiction. They came to their faith as mature people.

Science is not omnipotent that it cannot explain all the details of this world

Our heroes are convinced that science is not omnipotent, that it cannot explain all the details of this world and that something remains in it that is beyond the control of our mind. They do not diminish the importance of science, but it is faith that gives them spiritual support in their search for the essence of life, and each defines it in his own way.

This is an "internal moral watchdog" (for Marklen Konurbaev); "Philosophy of life" (for Nikolai Vereshchagin); “The core of all life” (for Alexander Shtanko); “That which gives a sense of the meaning of life” (for Maria Timofeeva). They chose the path between unconditional trust in science and literal interpretation of sacred texts... And they are trying to say that one can believe in God while fighting at the same time for the progress of human knowledge.

"This is the basis of my philosophy of life"

Nikolai Vereshchagin, mathematician, professor at Moscow State University, Orthodox

“Without a doubt, the world is much more complex than our scientific imagination can imagine. It seems to me, for example, extremely doubtful the idea that life and consciousness could arise and progress as a result of purely random processes. And without belief in the afterlife, existence in this world seems to me simply meaningless.

Science builds models of the world around us, accessible to us in sensations, using scientific methods. I value them highly and use scientific models wherever possible. But they have their limits. With their help, it is difficult to build a good model of, say, a family. Therefore, on the question of how to act correctly in some life situation, for example, in family life, I will turn to the priest, and not to the scientist.

Faith became the foundation of my philosophy of life and therefore guides my actions in everyday life... When it comes to doing science, I believe that unexpected ideas do not come to our minds by themselves, but are prompted by God or his angels. When I grasp such an idea, I am glad that my consciousness is ripe enough to perceive it and that I am sufficiently imbued with the subject. "

"Faith helped me understand the meaning"

Maria Timofeeva, psychoanalyst, Orthodox

“By my first education, I am a physicist, graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. But I badly lacked other life meanings, and after a long search, I came to psychoanalysis. A wonderful illusion arose that I had found the answers to all my questions.

And in 1991, before my eyes, a tragedy occurred - a colleague, a young bright psychologist, drowned. And the whole structure that I built inside myself collapsed in an instant. I stopped seeing meaning in psychology and in anything in general. The chance brought me to the city of Kurchatov to the priest, Father Georgy Neyfakh. For almost a month I lived with his family, went to services with him. We talked about a lot, and, most importantly, we spoke the same language: in the past he himself was a scientist, a biologist. This meeting turned my mind upside down. It's like a puzzle has finally formed inside me.

I took the religious path instantly, as an inspiration. It does not contradict my profession: religion and psychology are different spheres of human life. Faith has changed my whole system of values, a system of coordinates. I found the meaning of life that I lacked. Of course, I cannot say that I now have answers to all questions about human nature. But the world has definitely become friendlier, I discovered its beauty and harmony.

"I study the world to understand the Creator more clearly"

Marklen Konurbaev, philologist, professor at Moscow State University, Muslim

“I am engaged in philology. In other words, the art of comprehending the meaning in the oral and written text. For me, the text is a mosaic of timbre differences, emotional contrasts, meanings, words. I peer into their combinations and comprehend the author, hidden from me by the veil of language. The world around is also text. To understand it interferes with "clip-like", the abruptness of communication and an overabundance of information that does not carry meaning. They undermine the stability of life. But here, as in philology, I am looking for harmony and ways to preserve it.

Back in my student years, I tried to understand how understanding of polysemantic texts arises. In particular, the Koran. Then the question arose, what is the religion of my ancestors - Islam for me. Are these just rituals? It turned out that rituals only emphasize the significance of faith, and it itself - deep in the heart.

Gradually, faith became the moral support in life. And it does not contradict my scientific views. The Quran predicts many discoveries made by science centuries later. For example, it contains an indication that the Earth is round, the development of the human embryo is described in detail, which amazes modern biologists. What is this if not the sacred knowledge transmitted to people by God?

As a Muslim, I take on faith that the world and everything in it is a manifestation of various properties of God. And as a believing scientist, I try to better study this world with the help of science in order to better understand the Creator. The Quran says: "God balanced everything." I think that this balance is harmony. I am looking for the manifestation of God, which means I am trying to achieve harmony. AND it fills my scientific research with deep meaning».

"Now I see life in a positive way"

Alexander Shtanko, physicist, non-confessional believer

“I am a scientist, and also an experimenter, therefore faith could not have been accepted without evidence and empirical confirmation. I came to her through a deep ideological crisis.

I had health problems and medicine was powerless. And spiritual practice (close to what Christianity calls repentance) helped me to heal. And this is not the only example of a miracle in my life.

An atheist scientist will say that these are coincidences. But I am also a scientist and can count the likelihood of such accidents - they are practically excluded. Faith has changed my life dramatically. From a state of discouragement, pessimism, from fears, and the first of them - the fear of death - I moved on to a very positive, constructive attitude towards everything. Life has acquired meaning, I feel that I am constantly changing internally and discover new things for myself in others.

However, with all due respect to Christianity, I did not become a Christian. It seems to me that the mythological image of God, established 2000 years ago, is difficult to reconcile with the cultural context of our time.

The notion that science can explain everything is deceiving. This is a claim to the impossible. Science has no methodology for exploring the spiritual world. Although for his comprehension, she gives rich images. For example, holography, which I have been doing all my life. As you know, a whole image is displayed at each point of the hologram. It is possible that the Universe is organized according to the holographic principle. This image can be applied to a person: his spirit is only a particle, but the whole divine world is reflected in it ”.

About it

“Proof of God. Scientist Arguments "Francis Collins

An American geneticist, head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins was an agnostic in his youth, at the beginning of his scientific career an atheist, and over the years he came to the conclusion that one can “simultaneously be a natural scientist, strictly adhering to scientific methods, and believe in God, who is interested in each of us. personally". In his book, he substantiates why evolutionary theory, like science in general, does not contradict the idea of ​​God (Alpina non-fiction, 2009).

The Bible and Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy, the founders of Christian science.

Photo: Sarah Nichols / Flickr.com

A significant part of scientists consider themselves to be believers and many of them do not see the conflict between their scientific and religious views. This is stated in a report published by sociologists at Rice University according to a large-scale survey conducted over the past four years. The research results are published on the university website, briefly reported in a press release.

The study was conducted in eight countries - France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The authors of the survey attracted physicists and biologists to the study, since it is these sciences that investigate the origin of man and the Universe, and, according to the authors, religious and scientific views most often do not coincide in these two areas. The study involved 9,422 people of different sex, age, religious beliefs and status from universities and research institutes. The study participants answered the questionnaire, then the study authors selected 609 scientists from them and conducted in-depth interviews with them. Among the topics that interested the researchers were the relationship between science and religion, how religion influences the formation of the research program, the interaction of researchers with students and the solution of ethical issues.

It found that more than half of scholars from Hong Kong (54 percent), Italy (57 percent), Taiwan (74 percent), India (79 percent) and Turkey (85 percent) consider themselves religious. Atheists make up the majority among scientists only in France (51 percent). As the researchers suggested, scientists in general are less religious than the general population of the country. However, there are also exceptions. Thus, in Hong Kong, 39 percent of scientists consider themselves religious, while among the entire population of the country, only 20 percent consider themselves religious. In Taiwan, 54 percent of academics are religious, compared with only 44 percent of the country's population.


Distribution of the percentage of believers, agnostics and atheists among the surveyed scientists in eight countries.

Image: Ecklund, Elaine Howard, David R. Johnson, Sarah Hamshari, Kirstin R. W. Matthews, and Steven W. Lewis. 2015. A Global Lab: Religion among Scientists in International Context.

Not all scientists believe that scientific and religious views are in conflict with each other. In the UK and the US, only a third of those surveyed think so. At the same time, a quarter of Hong Kong, Taiwanese and Indian scientists believe that science and religion can peacefully coexist and complement each other.

According to the Pew Research Center, 5.8 billion people out of 7 billion of the world's population consider themselves followers of one religion or another. Most developed countries and many developing countries are trying to build science infrastructure. Nevertheless, according to the authors of the survey, so far there has been no global research on the influence of science and religion on each other.

Note: In the original version of the note, it was stated that believers make up more than half of the scholars surveyed. In fact, the authors of the study do not make such a statement in the report, only data for individual countries are published. In five out of eight countries, believers do make up the majority, but the authors do not provide cumulative data on the basis of which one could speak of the total predominance of believers in all the countries studied. The editors apologize to their readers.

Ekaterina Rusakova

When adherents of a religion run out of arguments in favor of yet another “most peaceful religion,” they always use dubious arguments. In particular, "famous scientists were believers." Believers believe that this is indeed a serious argument for the truth of religion.

But is this proof? Here is a respected man, he believes in Hebrew or, for example, in ancient Indian legends. What's next? For some believers, this means that everything - the dominance of religion is undeniable.

In fact, this does not mean absolutely anything. But since the "argument" is nevertheless given constantly, it is necessary to clarify the question. And in this case we are talking about a Christian cult.

Religion and Science in the Past

In the Middle Ages, science was truly the servant of religion. Religion was considered something unshakable, that is, rejection of religion was punishable by death, people were obliged to worship from an early age.

Therefore, when Christians remember the scientists of this period, one can ask the question: did these people have a choice? More likely no than yes, since the rejection of the "only true religion" is death.

Scientists, like everyone else during this period, probably did not particularly doubt the existence of God. In such a society, almost everything was explained as "God's will." And the scientists were appropriate.

By the way, theology was then considered a full-fledged science, even more so - the main scientific direction. All the most important things were studied there:

Triadology is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Angelology is the teaching about angels.

Anthropology is the doctrine of man.

Hamarthology is the doctrine of sin.

Ponerology is the doctrine of evil.

Christology is a teaching about the nature and person of Jesus Christ.

Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation.

Ecclesiology is a teaching about the Church.

Iconology is the doctrine of the icon.

Sacramentology is a teaching about the sacraments.

Eschatology is a teaching about the last destinies of the world.

Since it was considered a "science of sciences," the priests influenced all other disciplines. That is, one contradiction to biblical tales is heresy. Probably, even for believers (modern) it is obvious that there is no particular benefit in studying angels, but more than one hundred years have been spent on this.

In general, religion actually hindered the development of scientific knowledge, since it created blinders, because it was impossible to go beyond theological constructions about society or even about nature. This situation changed only over time, when it became necessary to seize new territories, change the mode of production, when technology became an urgent task and when the state could no longer restrict the mind of creators by religious obscurantism, at least partially. After all, you cannot win a war with the help of prayers, you cannot transport goods with the help of icons.

When it came to the study of nature, the holy fathers always recalled the words of Blessed Augustine:

“People are trying to unravel the secret power of nature, which does not bring them wealth. Their only desire is to multiply their knowledge. With the same perverse purpose, they study the art of magic ... As for me, I do not want to know the path along which the stars move, and I hate all the sacred secrets. "

But even in the dark ages, there were scientists who protested. For example, Adelard of Battsky wrote:

“Guided by logic and reason, I learned from my Arab teachers, while you, reveling in your power, persist in delusions that impede progress; How else, except as a bridle, can the power of authorities be called? Just as wild animals run wherever they are driven with a stick, so you, under the authority of the writers of the past, strive for the danger associated with your animal credulity. "

Of course, this was more rare than commonplace. But the fact that science was influenced by the discoveries of the East, and then the second edition of the texts of the ancient Greeks, but by no means all, is not disputed.

Nature at that time was judged by the encyclopedia "On the Nature of Things" by the theologian Raban Mavr. In short, natural phenomena were described there as "divine wisdom", that is, there is not even an attempt to understand the questions that might have arisen among the learned men of that time.

Indeed, everything is quite simple. There is a natural phenomenon that interests. It is difficult to understand, but it is very easy to say that it is just "God wanted it so". Such an answer at that time was more valuable than: "we do not know, but we will find out."

Cardinal Peter Damiani spoke about science in the 11th century:

“Why do Christians need science? Do you light a lantern to see the sun? ... Plato explores the secrets of a mysterious nature, determines the orbits of the planets and calculates the movement of the stars - I reject all this with contempt. Pythagoras singles out parallels on the Earth's sphere - I have no respect for this ... Euclid is struggling with intricate problems about his geometric figures - I also reject him. "

This is the position of the church in this period. Of course, it’s just to reject anything you like, but not to justify your position when the army is behind you, but this could hardly destroy the craving for knowledge. Moreover, even such figures, although they hated the learned Greeks, read their works.

Belief in the Immaculate Conception, speaking snakes, etc. savagery, of course, influenced public consciousness, which is why the study of reality included religious forms. Travelers, for example, talked about the islands where people with dog heads live. All sorts of "saints" constantly appeared to people. Often burned "witches" who were considered the source of many problems. And this is not to mention the “end of the world”, which was predicted regularly and prepared in the most spiritual times almost every ten years (except for the fact that in the villages local madmen could “predict” it all the time).

Age of Mechanism

"Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it"

(I. S. Turgenev. Fathers and children)

The development of a new mode of production changed social relations. Great geographical discoveries, the emergence of new technologies, wars, urbanization and commercial capitalism - pushed to the development of scientific knowledge, competition began between countries in this area.

And in terms of religiosity, everything has changed radically, because allowing priests to shackle scientists is an unaffordable luxury for the state. It was at this time that religious repression was slowly fading into the background. No, no one cancels them completely, just the relationship is changing.

For example, if a peasant blasphemes, he can be burned or imprisoned (depending on which country we are talking about), but a scientist whose conclusions contradict biblical tales may well create. But naturally, not every scientist. If we are talking about a science that will help the state win in the competition, create a new invention that can bring many benefits, then yes, but some philosophers, historians, etc., were still servants of theology.

However, the framework was tight. For example, Copernicus, who outlined the heliocentric system of the world, was afraid to publish his work during his lifetime. The work was published by a student, and it was negatively perceived not only in the church environment, but also among some scientists, but, what pleases, not everyone.

It was important for the Church to “prove” that the earth is the center of the universe. It is noteworthy that the teachings of Copernicus were condemned not only by Catholics, but also by Protestants and Orthodox.

First, the position of the Protestants. Luther's quote:

“They talk about some new astrologer who proves that the Earth moves, but the sky, the Sun and the Moon are motionless; as if the same thing happens here as when moving in a carriage or on a ship, when it seems to the rider that he is sitting motionless, and the earth and trees are running past him. Well, why, now everyone who wants to be branded as a smart guy tries to invent something special. This fool also intends to turn all astronomy upside down. ".

Conclusion of the Theological Commission of Experts (Catholics):

“Assumption I: The sun is the center of the universe and, therefore, is motionless. Everyone believes that this statement is absurd and absurd from a philosophical point of view, and besides, it is formally heretical, since its expressions in many respects contradict Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words, as well as the usual interpretation and understanding of the Fathers of the Church and teachers of theology.

Assumption II: The Earth is not the center of the universe, it is not motionless and moves as an integral (body) and, moreover, makes a daily circulation. Everyone thinks that this position deserves the same philosophical condemnation; from the point of view of theological truth, it is at least erroneous in faith. "

Well, and the verdict of the Orthodox Church during the Russian Empire:

"Copernicus's malignant ideas about many worlds, contrary to Scripture."

As you can see, in this sense, the churches took one position. And the main thing is that they do not even try to provide any evidence at all. The theory is "heretical", nothing can be done about it.

The sun revolves around the earth because the Bible said: in the book of Joshua (chapter 10) the sun stops:

12Jesus cried to the Lord on the day that the Lord delivered the Amorites into the hands of Israel, when he killed them in Gibeon, and they were slain in front of the children of Israel, and he said before the Israelites: Stand, the sun over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of Aialon !
13And the sun stopped and the moon stood while the people took revenge on their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of the Righteous: "The sun stood in the sky and did not hurry to the west for almost the whole day"?
14And there was no such day, neither before nor after that, on which the Lord would listen to the voice of a man. For the Lord fought for Israel.

It also shows how wonderful biblical commandments like “Thou shalt not kill” work. It is clear that scientists had to ponder each conclusion precisely in terms of not being condemned by religious fanatics. And the danger is that they never had any arguments at all, only remarks like "this is heresy" or "this condemns the church."

A reflection of this process was the famous Pascal's wager (scientists from different countries interacted). The famous scientist Blaise Pascal in the 17th century put forward the thesis according to which it is beneficial to believe in God. He asks the question:

“God exists or not. Which side do we lean on? Reason cannot decide anything here. Endless chaos separates us. On the edge of this infinity, a game is being played, the outcome of which is unknown. What will you bet on? "

Many people think that this is just religious propaganda. However, it is worth considering. After all, the very formulation of such a question suggests that the refusal of faith in God in the scientific community (and then all people could not read this text, since there was no mass education) is quite a common thing. Earlier, even reasoning on this topic was considered heresy, but then there is still free communication.

Pascal encourages his colleagues to be pragmatic. He even tells unbelievers that they can believe if they simply follow the cult rites. If they regularly visit the temple, act in accordance with religious principles, then over time, Pascal believes, they will believe.

In fact, this bet is evidence of free thinking in the scientific community of those years. Later, Newton outlined the basic laws of physics, without resorting to biblical dogmas in his work.

Undoubtedly, Newton was a believer, but his faith was radically different from the religiosity of the masses. He did not accept many dogmas, considering God not the creator of the world in the biblical sense, but a kind of "first impulse". That is, in general, Newton's theory (classical physics) is a materialistic doctrine, where God is already in the background.

Laplace continued the work of Newton, who, as you know, threw God out of his system altogether. His conversation with Napoleon is known:

- You wrote such a huge book about the system of the world and never once mentioned its Creator!
“Sire, I didn't need this hypothesis.

It cannot be said that all scientists abandoned belief in God, but we can say that all natural scientists abandoned the hypothesis of God in the scientific sense, that is, while engaged in their activities, they could no longer use religious dogmas as an argument. This is a big plus, since from now on dogmas did not fetter the consciousness of scientists, they began to separate science from religion, which, unfortunately, did not exist earlier.

The priests opposed such scientists, but they were protected by the state. It should also be noted that the religiosity of such scientists has always differed from the "standard set." It is not surprising that in the scientific environment of the times of mechanism deism was widespread, that is, the concept according to which God created the world, but no longer intervened in events, since objective physical laws were acting, independent of anyone's will.

The biblical picture of the creation of the world caused the grin of any physicist of that time, who took as a basis the teachings of Newton. Paul Holbach, a French encyclopedist, wrote about this in the 18th century:

“As for the exalted knowledge of Moses, then, with the exception of magical

tricks that he could learn from the Egyptian priests, famous in

antiquity with our charlatanism, in the writings of the Jewish legislator we are not

we find nothing that would testify to true knowledge. Lots of

scholars rightly note the mistakes by which this inspired writer

filled his cosmogony, or the history of the creation of the world. Only came out of his hands

a fairy tale that would make the most humble physicist blush these days ".

Not everyone admitted it so bluntly, but in fact it was. This is easy to see if you study almost any work in physics of that time, where there is no question of any divine laws.

The contradiction here is understandable. The task of scientists is to understand and explain, to discover the objective laws of nature, and the task of the priests is to maintain their dominance and make everyone simply believe in some crazy stories.

It is hardly surprising that as soon as the legislative norms securing the dominant position of religion disappeared, the number of believers immediately began to decline, especially among the intelligentsia. This can only be partially said about society as a whole. Formally, the religion has survived, but they began to visit churches not when the churchmen "needed", but on holidays, occasionally (on average). Undoubtedly, the transition from traditional to modern society is a blow to the religious worldview.

In Russia, modern priests often declare that allegedly "there was no inquisition", so everything was just fine with science in the Russian Empire. In fact, everything was worse than in the West, because even popular science books in Russia were simply destroyed. For example, even in 1916 Haeckel's book "World Mysteries" was destroyed, since the book contains:

"Daring antics against the highest objects of Christian veneration."

The same thing happened with almost any publication where it was written about evolution or about the heliocentric system of the world. So it cannot be said that "there were no contradictions." These books were published at the beginning of the 20th century in the most developed Western countries.

Believing scholars

If the number of believing scientists has become less than in the 19th century in percentage terms, this does not mean that there are none at all. Moreover, the number of scientists as a whole has become much more, today the concept itself is sharply different from what it was 200 years ago.

Not all people understand who a scientist is. Sometimes some ideal images are formed in the imagination, which in no way correspond to reality. For example, a person monitors how certain foods affect the health of mice all their lives. He has been doing this for 10-40 years. And why can't he believe in God? How his activities will interfere with believing in a deity, given that his work is often just a routine. We shouldn't also forget about professional deformation.

Religion is a social institution whose purpose is to preserve the state and society without changing anything. If everything suits you in this regard, then a person may well support religion as a "scrap", which sometimes happens.

Today we see that a state that provides "stability" supports a religious cult, therefore, by supporting religion, even if you don't believe in God, you support the social order. It is not surprising that so-called Orthodox atheists have appeared in the post-Soviet republics. They are all ardent supporters of the current regime.

It should be understood that there are a lot of scientists, whatever you like, among them there is no "like-mindedness" in the world outlook sense. Scientists not only can believe in God, but they also do various things. They have different interests, hobbies, political views, etc., etc.

If, for example, a scientist is a Nazi / Voodoo cult follower / admirer of Fomenko's historical concepts, does this mean that this is something true?

Nobody would say that. So why, if a scientist believes in God, then he automatically "proves" the truth of this or that religious cult? With such success, we can talk about the benefits of McDonald's hamburgers based on the fact that some scientist eats there regularly. Or about the benefits of smoking, because there are scientists who smoke.

And what does it mean - a believing scientist in the minds of religious leaders who share quotes? Do these people prove the existence of God? Not. This is how it goes. From the interview Artem Oganov - Russian theoretical crystallographer, chemist, physicist and materials scientist:

“Since 1993 you have been a parishioner of the Catholic Church of St. Louis in Moscow. Is it possible to combine science and faith in God?

- Science and faith do not contradict each other in any way, because they are about different things - just like medicine and astrophysics cannot contradict each other in any way. Faith is about the meaning of life, and not, for example, about the electronic structure of crystals or the evolution of plants. Science, on the contrary, is about the material world and cannot say anything about the meaning of life. The great scientist and also a believer, Louis Pasteur, said: "A small knowledge moves away from God, and a large one brings closer to Him." He said this when it was very unfashionable to be a believer in his native France. My faith gave me a system of coordinates in life, a person cannot exist without knowing the meaning of his existence. And science allows me to develop my abilities, and do what I love, and be useful. "

The conclusion is simple. Being engaged in science, a person does not in any way use religious dogmas in his work. In his field, he is a competent and respected person, but outside these frameworks he can share any ideas at all: even about a perpetual motion machine, even about God, about anything.

But one should not think that obscurantism somehow helps a scientist. As a rule, in modern society it does not particularly interfere, since the faith is "moderate". Here is an example from history of how the Orthodox Church treated education and enlightenment at a time when it was possible to talk about it freely (in the Russian Empire):

“It has been noticed that as our“ enlightenment and education ”develops, the number of people lovingly devoted to the holy faith and the church decreases inversely. If such a phenomenon is recognized as characteristic and typical even for the Russian peasantry, then, consequently, our enlightenment and education, being in irreconcilable contradiction with the principles of religious life, should be considered abnormal, and therefore unhelpful ".

In fact, the text above is not obscurantism, but a completely logical conclusion. The fact is that the church needs a devoted flock, and among scientists there are indeed full of doubters, "heretics", agnostics and atheists.

Sometimes the situation is such that visiting temples for a scientist is just a formality, since it is "accepted in the family." A typical example from the book by Richard Dawkins:

“The current Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, told me that he goes to church as a 'non-believing Anglican ... to stay connected to society.' He does not believe in God ".

Actually, this is normal for the so-called folk religion. Many people consider themselves to be a dominant cult, but they may not believe in God and do not know any dogmas at all.

But even if a person is a believer, knows the basic dogmas, then what the Nobel laureate Vitaly Ginzburg spoke about is always relevant:

“In all cases known to me, believing physicists and astronomers in their scientific works do not mention a word about God. They live simultaneously, as it were, in two worlds - one material, and the other some kind of transcendental, divine. They have a kind of splitting of the psyche. Engaging in specific scientific activities, a believer, in fact, forgets about God, acts the same way as an atheist. Thus, the compatibility of doing science with faith in God is by no means identical with the compatibility of faith in God with scientific thinking. "

There are many examples of sincerely believing scientists. Let's say theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell. But these people, who had at least some weight in science, never even thought of pushing biblical tales into the scientific sphere.

But, unfortunately, there are clinical cases when scientists still go to the camp of religious propagandists. An example is the physicist Richard Smalley:

"The burden of proof lies with those who do not believe that Genesis is true, that the universe was created, and that the Creator still supports His creation."

Despite fanaticism, there is no attempt to prove the truth of the biblical story. As always, the dubious argument is used: "prove it not." You can just as well prove the "truth" of everything. For example, in general, all the myths of different peoples of the world.

Another example is the famous Orthodox surgeon Voino-Yasenetsky. Orthodox obscurantism has brought a truly respected person in the past to pseudoscientific constructions. In particular, he held the view that "It is the heart, not the mind (as psychologists try to prove) that thinks, reflects, learns."

This is how religion "did not contradict" scientific knowledge. After all, it is obvious that the surgeon accepted this madness after reading Orthodox books "about the soul and body." When a person is already completely devoting himself to religious obscurantism, then, as a rule, he is lost to science.

What are the reasons for the scientist's religiosity? The same as everyone else:

Objective:

“The social foundations are formed by the totality of social factors (economic, technological) and relations derived from them in the spiritual sphere (political, legal, state, moral, etc.), those objective relations that dominate people in everyday life, are alien to them, produce lack of freedom and people's dependence on external conditions. The main aspects of these relations are: spontaneity of natural and social processes; development of alienated forms of ownership, non-economic and economic coercion of the employee; unfavorable moments of the conditions of existence in the city and the countryside, the division and separation of intellectual and physical labor, the employee's attachment to one or the other; constraint by belonging to a class, estate, guild, workshop, caste, ethnos, within which the individual acts only as an instance of a set (aggregate); the partial development of individuals under conditions of a limiting division of labor; power-authoritarian relations, political oppression of the state; interethnic conflicts, oppression of one ethnic group by another; exploitation of colonies by metropolises; wars; dependence on natural disasters and eco-crisis processes ”.

Psychological:
“The psychological basis of religion is created by a stable, constant feeling of fear of the destructive forces of nature and society. "Fear created the gods," said the ancient Roman poet Statius (c. 40 - c. 96). Fear is a natural reaction to a real danger, an alarm signal, but this painful, unpleasant feeling, in comparison with other emotions, it most oppresses a person. Strong, constant, stagnant fear has destructive forces: it weakens the living connection with reality, distorts sensation and perception, arouses painful imagination, fetters thinking, scatters attention. "

“The relationship of powerlessness, dependence, which in these conditions is insurmountable, unavoidable, give rise to a psychological complex, including fear, despair, and at the same time the expectation of the best, the hope of getting rid of the oppression of alien forces. The impossibility of real liberation leads to the search for liberation
spiritual. Visions and prophecies appear, in which apocalyptic moods are replaced by solemn fulfillment. "

Lies of the churchmen

Often, when speaking about believing scientists, religious leaders lie, that is, they classify unbelieving scientists as believers. There are many similar cases in history, then there are three main examples.

1. Charles Darwin

They began to talk about Darwin's religiosity right after his death. There were myths according to which he "renounced" his own theory on his deathbed. On the other hand, there were myths that were aimed at affirming the thesis "evolution does not contradict religion," and such preachers claimed that Darwin was always a believer.

What happened in reality? In his youth, Darwin really was a believer, hardly anyone would deny this fact. But in the future, the more he learned the facts, traveling on the ship "Beagle", the less he believed in religious dogmas.

Since in this case one cannot rely on religious preachers who claim that supposedly famous people were believers, you can give the floor to Darwin himself, since he left a great legacy, and in the writings you can find passages where the scientist shared his opinion on religion ...

And in his "autobiography" he describes how unbelief was born:

“During these two years I had to think a lot about religion. While sailing in the Beagle, I was completely orthodox; I remember how some officers (although they themselves were orthodox people) laughed at me heartily when, on some moral issue, I referred to the Bible as an immutable authority. I suppose they were amused by the novelty of my argument. However, during this period [i.e. that is, from October 1836 to January 1839] I gradually came to the realization that the Old Testament with its obviously false history of the world, with its tower of Babel, a rainbow as a sign of the covenant, etc., etc. his attribution to the god of the feelings of a vengeful tyrant is no more credible than the sacred books of the Hindus or the beliefs of some savage. At that time in my mind every now and then a question arose from which I could not get rid of: if God wanted to send down a revelation to the Hindus now, then would he really allow it to be connected with faith in Vishnu, Siwa, etc., similar to how is Christianity related to belief in the Old Testament? It seemed to me absolutely incredible. "

And in the same place Darwin points out:

“There is nothing more remarkable than the spread of religious disbelief, or rationalism, throughout the second half of my life. Before my pre-wedding engagement, my father advised me to carefully hide my doubts [about religion], for, he said, he had to see what an exceptional misfortune this kind of frankness brought to those who got married. Things went well until the wife or husband fell ill, but then some women experienced severe suffering, as they doubted the possibility of the spiritual salvation of their husbands, and this in turn caused suffering to their husbands. The father added that during his long life he had known only three unbelieving women, and it should be remembered that he was well acquainted with a huge number of people and was distinguished by an exceptional ability to gain confidence in himself. When I asked him who these three women were, he, speaking respectfully about one of them, his sister-in-law Kitty Wedgwood, admitted that he had no definitive evidence, but only vague assumptions, supported by the belief that such a deep and intelligent a woman could not be a believer. At the present time - with my small circle of acquaintances - I know (or have known before) several married women whose faith was not much stronger than the faith of their husbands. "

Darwin was a compromise person, he even offered his wife to burn his work if she considered it completely heretical (his wife was indeed a devout Christian). But this shortcoming does not in any way negate the fact that Darwin personally was not a supporter of religion.

2. Ivan Pavlov

It is not known why often believers claim that Pavlov allegedly believed in God. For an example (similar is complete):

“It is known that the great Russian scientist-physiologist Academician I.P. Pavlov was a believing Christian, a parishioner of the Church of the Sign in Leningrad, and this is the explanation he gives about the immortality of the soul:“ I study higher nervous activity and I know that all human feelings: joy , grief, sadness, anger, hatred, human thoughts, the very ability to think and reason - are connected, each of them, with a special cell of the human brain and its nerves. And when the body ceases to live, then all these feelings and thoughts of a person, as if breaking away from the brain cells that have already died, by virtue of the general law that nothing - neither energy nor matter - disappear without a trace and make up that soul, the immortal soul professed by the Christian faith ””.

This quote is easy to find unchanged on the Internet. The only problem is that you can't really find Pavlov's work with such a quote. Myths about his religiosity have been around for a long time, back in the 60s of the last century, his daughter-in-law wrote that she saw:

“The double of Ivan Petrovich, descending from the choir with a large church book. The resemblance was striking, especially since this man's gray beard was trimmed exactly like Ivan Petrovich's. Then I understood where the legend came from ".

However, everything can be much simpler here, especially since falsification in such cases is a common thing.

Pavlov was not only not a believer, but he had a hostile attitude towards religion even in the days of the Russian Empire. Here is what L.A. Orbeli wrote:

“Suddenly Ivan Petrovich, in the presence of all laboratory workers, says:

- The devil only knows what kind of manner we started to serve the requiem for no reason at all? We, scientists, are going to honor the memory of the scientist, and then suddenly, for some reason, a requiem. I think this order needs to be changed.

Everyone is silent. Then he says:

- So you will order that - I will not arrange any requiem, for what reason? I will come to a meeting of the Society and have to smell incense! It is completely incomprehensible!

The next day Ivan Petrovich comes to the laboratory, - Orbeli recalled. - He just took off his coat ... and immediately says:

- What a fool I played yesterday! As I did not think! I didn't feel like sniffing incense, and I didn't think about how family members were feeling. After all, they did not come to listen to our reports, they are used to the fact that we devote a meeting to the memory of Botkin, we serve a requiem, they are believers. I am not a believer, but I still have to reckon with believers. I will never forgive myself for this! I realized that as soon as I saw the expressions on the faces of the widow and the rest of the family. "

It was back in 1906. And here is what Pavlov then said about faith in God:
"I ... I myself am a rationalist to the marrow of my bones and finished with religion ... I am the son of a priest, I grew up in a religious environment, however, when at the age of 15-16 I began to read different books and faced this question, I changed my mind too. it was easy ... Man himself must throw away the thought of God ".

He also refuted the myth of his religiosity:

"As for my religiosity, faith in God, attending church, all this is not true, inventions. I am a seminarian and, like most seminarians, already from school, I became an atheist, an afheist. I don't need God ...
Why do many people think that I am a believer, a believer in a religious sense? Because I am against the persecution of the church, of religion. "

3. Albert Einstein

Religious fanatics often refer to Einstein, they say, such a genius and believed in God. Most often, a false story about a dispute between a student and a professor is used, where the professor "proves" that there is no God, and the student parries him and eventually wins. Here's the ending of this story:

"Student: Now tell me, is there anyone in this class who saw
the professor's brain? Heard it, smell it, touch it?
(Students continued to laugh)
Student: Apparently, nobody. Then, based on scientific facts, you can
conclude that the professor has no brain. Saving your presence,
Professor, how can we trust what you said in the lectures?
(There was silence in the audience)
Professor: I think you should just trust me.
Student: Exactly! There is one connection between God and man - this is FAITH!
The professor sat down. "

And at the very end it says: "This student's name was Albert Einstein"... It is worth noting that this bike is widespread on the Internet and, with minor changes, is often attributed to other famous people. Similar stories are often written about Einstein as well. As a rule, we are talking about the fantasies of religious fanatics, but sometimes it is a mixture of truth and lies.

Again, here you do not need to believe either believers or unbelievers, but look at what Einstein himself writes. First, it is worth paying attention to how he describes his own religious views:

“I - although I was the child of non-religious parents - was deeply religious until I was 12 when my faith came to an abrupt end. Soon, through reading popular science books, I became convinced that much in biblical stories cannot be true. The consequence of this was downright fanatical free-thinking, combined with the impression that the state was deceiving the youth; it was a devastating conclusion. Such experiences gave rise to distrust of all kinds of authorities and a skeptical attitude towards the beliefs and convictions that lived in the social environment that surrounded me at that time. "

What kind of speculations are possible after that, especially when a person himself has refuted all these ridiculous myths in advance? It is interesting that even during his lifetime he was often ranked among the adherents of religion and he had to refute this:

“It is certainly a lie that you have read about my religious convictions, a lie that is systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personified God and have never denied it, but I have expressed it clearly. If there is something in me that can be called religious, then this is undoubtedly an endless admiration for the structure of the Universe to the extent that science reveals it. "

Well, about the biblical stories:

“The word 'God' for me is just a manifestation and product of human weakness, and the Bible is a collection of venerable, but still primitive legends, which, nevertheless, are rather childish. No, even the most sophisticated, interpretation will not be able to change this (for me). "

I would like to note that the last quote is an excerpt from a letter from 1954, that is, not long before Einstein's death.

In general, I must say that there are a lot of such fakes. Believers, in order to add to the list of "religious scholars", often resort to falsifications, in particular, invent quotes and "stories from life." Fortunately, they always do it clumsily and use one story too often.

On the religiosity of scientists

You can see how the churchmen diligently find the imaginary believing scientists. And, interestingly, they no longer care what these same scientists believed. That is, supporters of the Orthodox cult can easily name a Catholic, a Protestant, and even a deist as an example, if only they believe in God.

And what will happen if you look at the picture as a whole, that is, you still find out how religious scientists are in general. But first it is worth repeating that there is no place for religion in scientific activity. Oxford University professor Peter Atkins emphasizes:
“You, of course, can be a scientist and profess any religion. But I do not think that in this case you can be a real researcher in the full sense of this concept, since the scientific style of thinking is completely incompatible with religious ideas. "

Believers often refer to the fact that many of the Nobel laureates are believers. Is it really? In 2013, T. Dimitrov's book "They Believed in God" was published, where the author accurately calculated the number of believers. The result is like this:

physics: 17 (8.7%)
chemistry: 4 (2.4%)
in physiology or medicine: 6 (3%)
by literature: 11 (10%)
Peace Prize: 12 (11.5%)
in economics: 0

TOTAL: 50 (6%).

I would like to note that, despite such a small percentage, religious leaders are clearly speculating on "believing scientists." The fact is that for some reason the author of the book himself classifies Einstein as a believer, and if he is removed from the list, then there are already 16, not 17 physicists.

But let us assume that Einstein is a believer because of “ admiration for the structure of the Universe to the extent that science reveals it. "The important thing here is what exactly these “believing scientists” believed, that is, 6%. If we take the natural sciences (it is unlikely that the prize for literature and the prize for peace, which was received by figures like Obama or Gorbachev in this case, is of interest), then of all scientists he believed in Jesus Christ only 1 laureate in physiology and medicine and 3 laureates in physics. But all the rest will still be used by believers as proof of "the truth of the only true religion."

Richard Dawkins correctly observed:

"The attempts of unwavering adherents of religion to find truly outstanding modern, believing in God scientists border on despair and their futility resemble the booming sounds that come when scraping the remains from the bottom of a barrel."

Scientists often talk about this topic in interviews. Russian physicist Zhores Alferov on whether there are many believers among Russian scientists:

"Of course, there are more atheists among scientific workers. The basis of religion is faith, the basis of science is knowledge. There is no scientific basis for religion."

But how things were in the scientific community of the United States and Europe. The table shows data from different years. Scientists were asked questions like "do you believe in God" and others. Here about belief in a theistic god:

1914

1933

1998

Believers

27.7

15

7.0

Unbelievers

52.7

68

72.2

Doubters

and agnostics

20.9

17

20.8

And here about the belief in the immortality of the soul:

1914

1933

1998

Believe

35.2

18

7.9

Do not believe

25.4

53

76.7

Doubt

43.7

29

23.3

Believers have no reason to claim that most scientists in the developed world believe in God. Although such statements are encountered, especially if some pop is addressing an ignorant crowd.

Knowledge and opinion

Unfortunately, when it comes to scientists, people do not understand when it comes to opinion and when it comes to knowledge. Here you need to decide on the concepts. Opinion:

"Knowledge is insufficiently substantiated, which is the result of uncritical assimilation of experience, obtained by sensory means or with the help of" authorities. " Opinion is knowledge influenced by incorrect initial attitudes, illusions generated by sensory or emotional life experience ".

“The result of cognition of reality, tested by practice, its correct reflection in the consciousness of a person; a set of information that makes up any science, its branch ".

Well, at the same time, faith (several definitions suitable for this case):

“A deep conviction in the existence, truth or inevitability of something, which does not require proof or justification; conviction in the existence of God; belonging to any religion, absolute recognition of the dogmas of religion, religious traditions and rituals, religious worldview of a certain sense; religion, confession ".

It follows from this that when a scientist believes in God, then we are not talking about knowledge, the scientist is not trying to prove the existence of God. The fact is that proving the existence of God is about as stupid as proving the existence of a fairy, baba yaga, koshcheya, etc.

A person has no real reason to believe in God, since his existence is basically impossible to prove, like any fictional character in history. But there are no grounds, but there is faith, there are many "white spots", there are gaps in knowledge.

And it’s a good idea to use a deity then. If you do not know something, then everything can be explained with the help of God's will. Take traditional society. The peasants explain almost everything through divine intervention. It started raining when needed - God is generous, when not needed - angry. A man fell ill and died - God punished; recovered - God saved. The same can be said about a good or bad dream, about harvesting, about anything. Imagine if scientists approached any problem in the same way. Then there would be no sense in science.

However, there are situations in which a scientist can become like a peasant, that is, not rely on objective data, but believe in something, not necessarily in a religious dogma.

The truth or falsity of this or that view should be tested by practice, and not simply accepted as something true on the basis of the fact that an authoritative person in a certain field believes in it.

First of all, you should always remember that science and religion fundamentally disagree on key issues. In particular, on questions about the origin of the world and life. Today we can say that the Bible contains continuous "metaphors" in order to protect religion, but earlier it was a serious conflict, since religious leaders defended the biblical picture of the world to the last, believing that everyone should accept it as the ultimate truth. If you pay attention to old textbooks on world history, you will notice that often the story begins with Adami and Eve. Any scientist is influenced by the environment, the social foundations of the state, the traditions of society. This is how contradictory concepts can coexist.

Someone is satisfied that “science does not know everything yet,” that is, the god of white spots. Certain religious scholars just refer to this. However, such a position is hardly reasonable, because if a person does not know something, then he should try to find out, and not stop and believe that it is a question of divine will.

Indeed, in any case, all modern discoveries were once unknown, but over time, the "divinity" of the mysteries of nature comes to naught. It is more logical to assume that the problem can be solved over time than to rely on the fact that it is insoluble in principle and the whole point is in the character of ancient Hebrew or ancient Egyptian myths.

And about the root cause (the most important argument of the churchmen), Bertrand Russell also said:

“By its very nature, the root cause argument is no different from that of the Hindu who believed that the world rests on an elephant and an elephant rests on a turtle; when the Hindu was asked: "And what does the turtle rest on?" - he replied: "Let's talk about something else." Indeed, the root cause argument is no better than the answer given by the Hindu. After all, there is no reason to believe that the world could not have arisen without a reason; on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the world could not exist forever. There is no reason to believe that the world had a beginning at all. The notion that things must necessarily have a beginning actually owes to the squalor of our imaginations. So I probably don't need to spend more time parsing the root cause argument. ”

In fact, the answer to any fundamental question on the part of religious leaders is “I don’t know”, and sometimes “I don’t know and I don’t want to know”. The latter most often refers to those who benefit from this activity, that is, the various priests.

“One of the most common types of arbitrary reasoning is incorrect references to authorities. Arguments "from authority" are very important and, in general, are often indispensable without them. But we must remember two conditions for their correct application: a) these arguments are correctly applicable or in the absence of substantive arguments (which happens very often, because we cannot know everything, test everything ourselves and check everything personally); or in support of substantive arguments. In itself, a reference to authority in the vast majority of cases is only a more or less probable (and not reliable) argument; b) secondly, each authority is an authority only in the field of its specialty. If there are several such areas, it is better for him, of course. But outside the limits of his specialty, he is an "ordinary mortal", and the reference to him in these cases is a mistake or sophism. Here are two conditions under which an authority reference can be valid. In other cases, such a link is a mistake or sophism (of a false or arbitrary argument) ".

In the question of the existence of God, a scientist is always an "ordinary mortal", since in his constructions he does not use empirical evidence, the scientific method. In the case of the ignorant, such arguments are not sophism, but paralogism.

If God is mentioned in some scientific question, it means that a person simply refuses to understand, since faith is not only the absence of any knowledge, but often a fundamental refusal to understand.

And if we return to the believers, when they use the authority of scientists in their own interests, we can note an interesting thing. What do they really know about Newton, Galileo or Pascal? Basically only that they were "some sort of scientists", but the main thing is that they believed in God. That is, they are usually referred to people who influenced the development of science, and religious fanatics most often single out only that they were believers.

You can be sure that the religious fanatics who use these names, for the most part, do not know anything at all, except that the latter believed in God. And earlier they did not have to use such an argument, since the attitude towards scientists was negative, but now it is a requirement of modern society. However, there are rare exceptions, like Herman Sterligov, who calls for the killing of scientists.

The appeal to authority is logical when it comes to the question of where a person is really authority. But to appeal to authority if you need to prove the "truth" of your religious, political and other views is a logical mistake.

However, since we are talking about faith in God, then there is nothing to be surprised at, since in apologetics everything is built on logical errors. You should always remember that God is an empty concept. The existence of a biblical deity is no more likely than the existence of a flying macaroni monster.

What believers always forget about in disputes is the law of sufficient reason, because they have no facts. It remains only to say: "prove that there is no God." But here you still need to remember the words of Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"... So far, there is no such evidence, despite the long years of "scientific work" by Christian apologists in the dark ages.

In modern times, attempts do not stop, but in general they do not differ from what they were 1000 years ago. For example, here is how the Orthodox theologian Osipov, who is full of awards and who has been doing this for more than a dozen years, proves the existence of God:

“First, a simple example. Several unfamiliar people at different times saw a bear in the forest. Can you believe them? Yes, especially since there could be no collusion here. But in order to deny this, you will have to carefully and repeatedly examine the specified forest, do a tremendous job, and even then you can still doubt, what if the beast cleverly hid?

The same can be said about the existence of God. "

This man has taught theology at the Moscow Theological Academy since 1965, so if someone thinks that these people have any arguments, they are greatly mistaken. Such absurdities are the norm when it comes to trying to prove the existence of God. Moreover, what is funny, this does not in any way prove the existence of the same Jesus. Thus, you can "prove" the existence of some ancient Greek god or any other.

But this is quite convincing to believers, just like in 1984 it was written: "The best books, he realized, tell you what you already know yourself"... Believers already believe, but such waste paper “strengthens” the faith, as these books are written by church authorities, who in fact know no more than anyone else on the topic. Ignorance is raised to the rank of "special knowledge", but the point is precisely that the root of any religion is the practical impotence of man before nature and before society. This also includes "difficult questions". Alas, instead of knowing objective reality, people simply find the simplest answers, some scientists are no exception.

Sources of

Sources of

1. Theology - Psychologos. URL: www.psychologos.ru/articles/view/bogoslovie

2. Europe in the Middle Ages. Life, religion, culture. URL: www.universalinternetlibrary.ru/book/29182/ogl.shtml

4. Gilson, 2010, p. 178-179.

5. Copernicus. Galileo. Kepler. Laplace and Euler. Quetelet: Biogr. Narration / Comp., Total. ed. N.F.Boldyreva; Aftersl. A.F. Arendar. - Chelyabinsk: Ural, 1997 .-- 456 p.

6. A. Fantoli, Galileo: in defense of the teachings of Copernicus and the dignity of the Holy Church. - M .: MIK, 1999 .-- S. 161.

7. Grekulov. Orthodox Inquisition in Russia. - Science, 1964, p. 150.

8. Pascal's wager. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pari_Pascal

9. B. Russell. Why I am not a Christian. 2012, p. 155.

10.D.Diderot, P. Holbach, K. Helvetius. Let the darkness hide! 1976, c. 133.

11.E. Grekulov. Orthodox Inquisition in Russia, 1964, p. 163.

12. "Science and faith do not contradict each other in any way." URL: https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/12/18_a_7976183.shtml

13. A Guide for Rural Pastors, 1909, no. 2

14.R.Dawkins. God as an illusion, 2016.

15.V. Ginzburg . Belief in God is incompatible with scientific thinking // Search. - 1998. - No. 29-30.

16. They believed in God. URL: www.omiliya.ru/oni-verili-v-boga

17. Orthodox Faith - John Krestyankin about the soul. URL: www.verapravoslavnaya.ru/?Ioann_Krestmzyankin_o_dushe

18. Yablokov. Fundamentals of Religious Studies, 1994.

19.Ch. Darwin. Autobiography

20. Academician Pavlov on the immortality of the soul. URL: www.hamburg-hram.de/letopis/akademik-pavlov-o-bessmertii-dushi/268.html

21. Pavlova E. S. Memories of I. P. Pavlov // I. P. Pavlov in the memoirs of contemporaries. L., 1967. S. 79-80.

22. Orbeli L. A. Memories. S. 77-78.

23. Pavlovsk clinical environments: Minutes and transcripts of physiological conversations. T. 3, p. 360.

24. V. Bolondinsky, N. Kupriyanova "IP Pavlov with family and friends". "Ntoabene", 1999

25. Einstein. Physics exam. URL: http://pikabu.ru/story/yeynshteyn_yekzamen_po_fizike_1613925

26. Einstein, Albert (1979). Autobiographical Notes... Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 3-5.

27. Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert einstein the human side... Princeton: Princeton University Press

28. In a letter to Eric Gutkind, 1954

29. Most of America's leading scientists deny the existence of God. URL: https://www.skeptik.net/ism/sci_god.htm

30. About "believing scientists" and T. Dimitrov's book "They believed in God". Part ½. URL: http://fritzfinkel.livejournal.com/6210.html

31. R. Dawkins. God as an illusion, 2016.

32. Nobel laureates about God. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSg9hjy5tyM

33. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." , in Nature, July 23, 1998, p. 313.

34. Knowledge and opinion. Faith and conviction. Intuitive cognition. URL: http://studopedia.org/10-102899.html

35.https: //ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge

36.https: //ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

37.B. Russell. Why I am not a Christian.

38. C. Povarnin. The art of arguing.

39. "Scientists must be destroyed like mad dogs!" - German Sterligov. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjuKk4zgoQM