"The Convergence of Science and Religion," by Charles Townes

The Convergence of Science and Religion 

 By Charles H. Townes

The author, a scientist and activer church member, explains why he believes that science and religion may ultimately converge. Dr. Townes, whose work on the maser won him a Nobel Prizze in 1964, [was] Provost and Professor of Physics at MIT.

"The ever-increasing success of science has posed many challenges and conflicts for religion — conflicts that are resolved in individual lives in a variety of ways. Some accept both religion and science as dealing with quite different methods, and thus separate them so widely in their thinking that no direct confrontation is possible. Some repair rather completely to the camp of science or of religion and regard the other as of little importance, if not downright harmful. 

To me science and religion are both universal and basically very similar. In fact, to make the argument clear, I should like to adopt the rather extreme point of view that their differences are largely superficial, and that the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each. It is perhaps science whose real nature is the less obvious, because of its blinding superficial successes. To explain this, and to give perspective to the non-scientists, we must consider a bit of the history and development of science.

The march of science during the 19th century produced enormous confidence in its success and generality. One field after another fell before the objective inquiry, experimental approach, and logic of science. Scientific laws appeared to take on an absolute quality, and it was very easy to be convinced that science in time would explain everything. 

This was the time when Laplace could believe that if he knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe and could calculate sufficiently well, he would then know the entire future. Laplace was simply expressing the evident experience of the time, that the success and precision of scientific laws had changed determinism from a speculative argument to one that seemed inescapable.

This was the time when the devout Pasteur, asked how he as a scientist could be religious, simply replied that his laboratory was one realm, and that his home and religion were a completely different one.

Scientific Absolutism

There are today many vestiges of this 19th century scientific absolutism in our thinking and attitudes. It has given Communism, based on Marx's 19th century background, some of its sense of the inexorable course of history and of "scientific" planning of society. 

Toward the end of the 19th century, many physical scientists viewed their work as almost complete and needing only some extension and more detailed refinement. But soon after, deep problems began to appear. The world seems relatively unaware of how deep these problems really were and of the extent to which some of the most fundamental scientific ideas have been overturned by them. Perhaps this unawareness is because science has been vigorous in changing itself and continuing to press and has also diverted attention by ever more successes in solving the practical problems of life. 

Many of the philosophical and conceptional bases of science have, in fact, been disturbed and revolutionized. The poignancy of these changes can be grasped only through sampling them. For example, the question whether light consists of small particles shot out by light sources or by wave disturbances originated by them had been debated for some time by the great figures of science. The question was finally settled in the early 19th century by brilliant experiments that could be thoroughly interpreted by theory. The experiments told scientists of the time that light was unequivocally a wave and not particles. But about 1900, other experiments turned up that showed just as unequivocally that light is a stream of particles rather than waves. Thus physicists were presented with a deeply disturbing paradox. Its solution took several decades and was only accomplished in the mid-1920's by the development of a new set of ideas known as quantum mechanics. 

Albert Einstein and Job.  Faith is necessary to men of both science and religion, says Dr. Townes. A firm belief in an orderly universe, somewhat like Job's durable conviction, sustained Einstein. "God is very subtle," he once remarked, "but he is not malicious."

The trouble was that scientists were thinking in terms of their common everyday experience, and that experience encompassed the behavior of large objects but not yet many atomic phenomena. Examination of light or atoms in detail brings us into a new realm of very small quantities with which we have had no previous experience, and where our intuitions could well be untrustworthy. And now in retrospect, it is not at all surprising that the study of matter on the atomic scale has taught us new things, and that some are inconsistent with ideas that previously had seemed so clear.

Physicists today believe that light is neither precisely a wave nor a particle, but both, and we were mistaken in even asking the question, "Is light a particle or is it a wave?" It can display both properties. So can all matter, including baseballs and locomotives. We don't ordinarily observe this duality in large objects, because they do not show wave properties prominently. But in principle we believe they are there.

We have come to believe other strange phenomena as well. Suppose an electron is put in a long box where it may travel back and forth. Physical theory now tells us that, under certain conditions, the electron will sometimes be found toward one end of the box and sometimes toward the other, but never in the middle. This statement clashes absurdly with ideas of an electron moving back and forth, and yet most physicists today are quite convinced of its validity and can demonstrate its essential truth in the laboratory. 

The Uncertainty Principle

Another strange aspect of the new quantum mechanics is called the uncertainty principle.  This principle shows that if we try to say exactly where a particle (or object) is, we cannot at the same time say exactly how fast it is going and in what direction; or, if we determine its velocity, we can never say exactly what its position is. According to this theory, Laplace was wrong from the beginning. If he were alive today, he would probably understand along with other contemporary physicists that it is fundamentally impossible to obtain the information necessary for his precise predictions, even if he were dealing with only one single particle, rather than with the entire universe. 

The modern laws of science seem, then, to have turned our thinking away from complete determinism and toward a world where chance plays a major role. It is chance on an atomic scale, but there are situations and times when the random change in position of one atom or one electron can materially affect the large-scale affairs of life and, in fact, our entire society. A striking example involves Queen Victoria, who, through one such event on an atomic scale, became a mutant and passed on to certain male descendants in Europe's royal families the trait of hemophilia. Thus one unpredictable event on an atomic scale had its effect on both the Spanish royal family and, through an afflicted czarevitch, on the stability of the Russian throne. 

Einstein and Chance

This new view of a world that is not predictable from physical laws was not at all easy for physicists of the older tradition to accept. Even Einstein, one of the architects of quantum mechanics, never completely accepted the indeterminism of chance that it implies. "Herr Gott wurfelt nicht" — the Lord God doesn't throw dice! It is interesting to note also that Russian Communism, with its roots in 19th century determinism, for a long time took a strong doctrinaire position against the new physics of quantum mechanics.

When scientists pressed on to examine still other realms outside our common experience, further surprises were found. For objects of much higher velocities than we ordinarily experience, relativity shows that very strange things happen. First, objects can never go faster than a certain speed, regardless of how hard they are pushed. Their absolute maximum speed is that of light — 186,000 miles per second. Further, when objects are going fast, they become shorter and more massive — they change shape and also weigh more. Even time moves at a different rate; if we send a clock off at a high velocity, it runs slower. 

The Cat-Kitten Concept

This peculiar behavior of time is the origin of the famous cat-kitten conceptual experiment. Take a litter of six kittens and divide them into two groups. Keep three of them on earth; send the other three off in a rocket at a speed nearly as fast as light, and after one year bring them back. The earth kittens will obviously have become cats, but the ones sent into space will have remained kittens. This theory has not been tested with kittens, but it has been checked experimentally with the aging of inanimate objects and seems to be quite correct. Today the vast majority of scientists believe it true. 

Scientists have now become a good deal more cautious and modest about extending scientific ideas into realms where they have not yet been thoroughly tested. Of course, an important part of the game of science is, in fact, the development of general laws that can be extended into new realms. These laws are often remarkably successful in telling us new things or in predicting things that we have not yet directly observed. And yet we must always be aware that such extensions may be wrong, and wrong in very fundamental ways. In spite of all the changes in our views, it is reassuring to note that the laws of 19th century science were not so far wrong in the realm in which they were initially applied — that of ordinary velocities and of objects larger than the point of a pin. In this realm they were essentially right, and we still teach the laws of Newton or of Maxwell, because in their own im- portant sphere they are valid and useful. 

We know today that the most sophisticated present scientific theories, including modern quantum mechanics, are still incomplete. We use them because in certain areas they are so amazingly right. Yet they lead us at times into inconsistencies that we do not understand, and where we must recognize that we have missed some crucial ideas. We simply admit and accept the paradoxes and hope that sometime in the future they will be resolved by a more complete understanding. In fact, by recognizing these paradoxes clearly and studying them, we can perhaps best understand the limitations in our thinking and correct them. 

With this background on the real state of scientific understanding, we come now to the similarity and near identity of science and religion. The goal of science is to discover the order in the universe, and to understand through this order the things we sense around us — even man himself. This order we express as scientific principles or laws, striving to state them in the simplest and yet most inclusive ways. I believe the goal of religion is to understand (and hence accept) the purpose and meaning of our universe and how we fit into it. Most religions see a unifying and inclusive origin of meaning, and this supreme purposeful force we call God. 

Understanding the order in the universe and understanding the purpose in the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart. It is interesting that the Japanese word for physics is butsuri, which translated means simply the reason for things. Thus we readily and inevitably link closely together the nature and the purpose of our universe.

What are the aspects of religion and science that often make them seem almost diametrically opposite? Many of them come, I believe, out of differences in language used for historical reasons, and many from quantitative differences that are large enough that unconsciously we assume they are qualitative ones. Let us consider some of the aspects where science and religion may superficially look very different. 

The Role of Faith

The essential role of faith in religion is so well-known that taking things on faith rather than proving them is usually taken as characteristic of religion and as distinguishing religion from science. But faith is essential to science too, although we do not so generally recognize the basic need and nature of faith in science. 

Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind — in fact, his own mind — has a good chance of understanding this order. Without this confidence, there would be little point in intense effort to try to understand a presumably disorderly or incomprehensible world. Such a world would take us back to the days of superstition, when man thought capricious forces manipulated his universe. In fact, it is just this faith in an orderly universe, understandable to man, that allowed the basic change from an age of superstition to an age of science and has made possible our scientific progress. 

The necessity of faith in science is reminiscent of the description of religious faith attributed to Constantine: "I believe so that I may know." But such faith is now so deeply rooted in the scientist that most of us never stop to think that it is there at all. 

Einstein affords a rather explicit example of faith in order, and many of his contributions come from intuitive devotion to a particularly appealing type of order. One of his famous remarks is inscribed in German in Fine Hall at Princeton: "God is very subtle, but he is not malicious." That is, the world that God has constructed may be very intricate and difficult for us to understand, but it is not arbitrary and illogical. Einstein spent the last half of his life looking for a unity between gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Many physicists feel that he was on the wrong track, and no one yet knows whether he made any substantial progress. But he had faith in a great vision of unity and order, and he worked intensively at it for 30 years or more. Einstein had to have the kind of dogged conviction that could have allowed him to say with Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." 

For lesser scientists, on lesser projects, there are frequent occasions when things just don't make sense, and making order and understanding out of one's work seems almost hopeless. But still the scientist has faith that there is order to be found, and that either he or his colleagues will someday find it. 

The Role of Revelation

Another common idea about the difference between science and religion is based on their methods of discovery. Religion's discoveries often come by great revelations. Scientific knowledge comes by logical deductions, or by the accumulation of data that are analyzed by established methods in order to draw generalizations called laws. But such a description of scientific discovery is a travesty on the real thing. Most of the important scientific discoveries come about very differently and are much more closely akin to revelation. The term itself is generally not used for scientific discovery, since we are in the habit of reserving revelation for the religious realm. In scientific circles one speaks of intuition, accidental discovery, or simply that someone had a wonderful idea. 

If we compare how great scientific ideas arrive, we see that they all look remarkably like religious revelation viewed in a non-mystical way. Think of Moses in the desert, long troubled and wondering about the problem of saving the children of Israel, when suddenly he had a revelation by the burning bush.  Consider some of the revelations of the New Testament. Think of Gautama Buddha, who traveled and inquired for years in an effort to understand what was good and then one day sat down quietly under a Bo tree where his great ideas were revealed. 

Similarly, the scientist, after hard work and much emotional and intellectual commitment to a troubling problem, sometimes suddenly sees the answer. Such ideas much more often come during off-moments than while confronting data. 

A striking and well-known example is the discovery of the benzene ring by Kekule, who, while musing at his fireside, was led to the idea of a vision of snakes taking their tails in their mouths. 

We cannot yet describe the human process that leads to the creation of an important and substantially new scientific insight. But it is clear that the great scientific discoveries, the real leaps, do not usually come from the so-called "scientific method," but rather more as did Kekule's — perhaps with less picturesque imagery, but by revelations that are just as real. 

Another aspect of the difference between science and religion is based on the notion that religious ideas depend only on faith and revelation, while science succeeds in actually proving its points. In this view, proofs give to scientific ideas a certain kind of absolutism and universalism that religious ideas have only in the claims of their proponents. But the actual nature of scientific "proof" is rather different from such simple ideas.

Proving a Set of Postulates

Mathematical or logical proof involves choice of some set of postulates, which hopefully are consistent with one another and which apply to a situation of interest. In the case of natural science, they are presumed to apply to the world around us. 

Then, on the basis of agreed-on laws of logic, which must be assumed, one can derive or "prove" the consequences of these sets of postulates. 

How can we be sure the postulates are satisfactory? The mathematician Godel has shown that in the most generally used mathematics, it is fundamentally impossible to know whether or not the set of postulates chosen are even self-consistent. Only by constructing and using a new set of master postulates can we test the consistency of the first set. But these in turn may be logically inconsistent without the possibility of our knowing it. Thus we never have a real base from which we can reason with surety. Godel doubled our surprises by showing that, in this same mathematical realm, there are always mathematical truths that fundamentally cannot be proved by the approach of normal logic. His important proofs came only about three decades ago, and have profoundly affected our view of human logic. 

There is another way by which we become convinced that a scientific idea or postulate is valid. In the natural sciences, we prove it by making some kind of test of the postulate against experience. We devise experiments to test our working hypotheses, and believe that those laws or hypotheses are correct that seem to agree with our experience. Such tests can disprove a hypothesis, or can give us useful confidence in its applicability and correctness, but they can never prove in any absolute sense. 

Can religious beliefs also be viewed as working hypotheses, to be tested and validated by experience? To some this may seem a secular and even an abhorrent view. In any case, it discards absolutism in religion. But I see no reason why acceptance of religion on this basis should be objectionable. The validity of religious ideas must be and has been tested and judged through the ages by the experience of societies and of individuals. Is there any great need for them to be more absolute than the law of gravity? The latter is a working hypothesis whose basis and permanency we do not know. But we risk our lives daily on our belief in it, as well as on many other complex scientific hypotheses. 

Science usually deals with problems that are so much simpler and situations that are so much more easily con- trollable than does religion. The quantitative difference in the directness with which we can test hypotheses in sciences and religion generally hides the logical similarities that are there. A controlled experiment on religious ideas is perhaps not at all possible, and we rely for evidence primarily on human history and personal experience. But certain aspects of natural science and the extension of science into social sciences have also required similar use of experience and observation in testing hypotheses. Suppose now that we were to accept completely the proposition that science and religion are essentially similar. Where does this leave us, and where does it lead us? Religion can, I believe, profit from the experience of science, where the hard facts of nature and the tangibility of evidence have beaten into our thinking some ideas that mankind has often resisted. 

First, we must recognize the tentative nature of knowledge. Our present understanding of science or of religion is likely, if it agrees with experience, to continue to have an important degree of validity just as does Newtonian mechanics. But there may be many deeper things that we do not yet know and that, when discovered, may modify our thinking in very basic ways. 

Expected Paradoxes

We must also expect paradoxes, and not be surprised or unduly troubled by them. We know of paradoxes in physics, such as that concerning the nature of light, which have been resolved by deeper understanding. We know of some that are still unresolved. In the realm of religion, we are troubled by the suffering around us and its apparent inconsistency with a God of love. Such paradoxes confronting science do not usually destroy our faith in science. They simply remind us of a limited understanding, and at times they provide a key to learning more. 

Perhaps in the realm of religion there will be cases of the uncertainty principle, which we now know as such a characteristic phenomenon of physics. If it is fundamentally impossible to determine accurately both the position and velocity of a particle, it should not surprise us if similar limitations occur in other aspects of our experience. This opposition in the precise determination of two quantities is also referred to as complementarity; posi- tion and velocity represent complementary aspects of a particle, only one of which can be measured precisely at any one time. 

Nils Bohr has already suggested that perception of man and his physical constitution represents this kind of complementarity. That is, the precise and close examination of the atomic makeup of man may of necessity blur our view of him as a living and spiritual being. In any case, there seems to be no justification for the dogmatic position taken by some that the remarkable phenomenon of individual human personality can be expressed completely in terms of the presently known laws of behavior and molecules. Justice and love may also represent such comple- mentarity. A completely loving approach and the simultaneous meting out of exact justice hardly seem consistent. 

These examples are only somewhat fuzzy analogies of complementarity as it is known in science, or they may indeed be valid, though still poorly defined, occurrences of the uncertainty principle. But in any case, we should expect such occurrences and be forewarned by science that there will be fundamental limitations to our knowing everything at once with precision and consistency. 

Converge, They Must

Finally, if science and religion are so broadly similar, and not arbitrarily limited in their domain, they should at some time clearly converge. I believe this confluence is inevitable, for they both represent man's efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together. Perhaps by the time this convergence occurs, science will have been through a number of revolutions as striking as those that have occurred in the last century and will have taken on a character not readily recognizable by scientists of today. Perhaps our religious understanding will also have seen progress and change. But converge they must, and through this should come new strength for both. 

In the meantime, with tentative understanding, uncertainty, and change, how can we live gloriously and act decisively today? It is this problem, I suspect, that has so often tempted man to insist that he has final and ultimate truth locked in some particular phraseology or symbolism, even when the phraseology may mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people. How well we are able to commit our lives to ideas that we recognize in principle as only tentative represents a real test of mind and emotions.

Galileo espoused the cause of Copernicus' theory of the solar system at great personal cost because of the church's opposition. We know today that the question on which Galileo took his stand, -the correctness of the idea that the earth rotates around the sun rather than the sun around the earth, is largely an unnecessary question. The two descriptions are equivalent, according to general relativity, although the first is simpler. And yet we honor Galileo for his pioneering courage and determination in deciding what he really thought was right and speaking out. This was important to his own integrity and to the development of the scientific and religious views of the time. 

The authority of religion seemed more crucial in Galileo's Italy than it usually does today, and science seemed more fresh and simple. We tend to think of ourselves as now more sophisticated, and of both science and religion as more complicated, so that our position can be less clear-cut. Yet if we accept the assumption of either science or religion, that truth exists, surely each of us should undertake the same kind of task as did Galileo, or as did Gautama long before him. For ourselves and for mankind, we must use our best wisdom and instincts, the evidence of history and wisdom of the ages, and the experience and revelations of our friends and heroes in order to get as close as possible to truth and meaning. Furthermore, we must be willing to live and act on our conclusions."

Sources: 

• The Improvement Era. V. 71, 02. The Convergence of Science and Religion. por Charles H. Townes. Mutual Improvement Association. (Archivo de Internet Archive). 
• (Download the original article as PDF, from Think Magazine,1966. March-April)

Gregor Mendel: Predigten

Gregor Mendel ursprünglichen Predigten in deutscher Sprache

(Für Rahmen und Teil Übersetzungen in Englisch, sehen Gregor Mendel's Sermons):

1

"Jesus erschien den Jüngern nach der Auferstehung in verschiedener Gestalt. „Der Maria Magdalena erschien er so, daß sie ihn für einen Gärtner halten mochte. Sehr sinnreich sind diese Erscheinungen Jesu und unser Verstand vermag sie schwer zu durchdringen. (Er erscheint) als Gärtner. Dieser pflanzt den Samen in den zubereiteten Boden. Das Erdreich muss physikalisch-chemisch Einwirkung ausüben, damit der Same aufgeht. Doch reicht das nicht hin, es muß noch Sonnenwärme und Licht hinzukommen nebst Regen, damit das Gedeihen zustandekommt. Das übernatürliche Leben in seinem Keim, der heiligmachenden Gnade [Seite 2] wird in die von der Sünde gereinigte, also vorbereitete Seele des Menschen hineingesenkt und es muß der Mensch durch seine guten Werke dieses Leben zu erhalten suchen. Es muss noch die übernatürliche Nahrung dazukommen, der Leib des Herrn, der das Leben weiter erhält, entwickelt und zur Vollendung bringt. So muss Natur und Übernatur sich vereinigen, um das Zustandekommen der Heiligkeit des Menschen. Der Mensch muß sein Scherflein Arbeit hinzugeben, und Gott gibt das Gedeihen. Es ist wahr, den Samen, das Talent, die Gnade gibt der liebe Gott, und der Mensch hat bloß die Arbeit, den Samen aufzunehmen, das Geld zu Wechslern zu tragen. Damit wir »das Leben haben und im Überflusse haben« (Joh 10, 10). Drei Sakramente, die das Leben spenden: Taufe, Beichte, Kommunion [sind] zur Osterzeit eingesetzt worden. (Eucharistie verbindet vollkommen, Glaube und Taufe unvollkommen dem Gottmenschen)

2 

"Sieg" 

Wie mutet es einen frommen Christen an, mitten in der ungerechten Welt von Sieg zu hören, und nicht wieder Hintansetzung, Beschimpfung, Verfolgung?; auch Siegesfreude. Mit dem Siegestag Christi, mit dem Ostertag, sind die Bande zerrissen, die der Tod und die Sünde um uns gelegt, und stark erhebt sich das Menschengeschlecht mit seinem Erlöser aus Nachtzeit und Fesseln in weite, heilige Höhen .und stark erhebt sich das Menschengeschlecht mit seinem Erlöser aus Nachtzeit und Fesseln in weite selige Höhen, himmlische Gefilde!?. 

Jesus ließ die Ungläubigen und Juden beiseite, er erschien nur den auserwählten Aposteln, er befaßte sich nur mit den treuen Gläubigen. Diese belehrte er, tadelte er und heiligte er, um sie zu vervollkommnen zu vollendeten Heiligen. i Nicht bloss Sünde und Tod ist von uns genommen, sondern durch die Auferstehung des Gottessohnes ist auch seine Gnade gewonnen, welche durch das Ostersakrament, Taufe und Kommunion, in die Seele eingesenkt und gepflanzt, diese in ihrem ganzen Sein erhebt, verklärt und zu einer wahrhaft göttlichen macht. Diese Gnade fließt wie eine Ostersonne weit aus dem Grabe des Erlösers, sie ergießt sich in die ganze Welt, in die Seelen, sie ist das Licht, das am Schöpfungstag einer anderen, schöneren, erhabenen Welt geschaffen wurde und nie mehr untergeht. Deshalb in der Nacht [in der] Finsternis eingesetzt das Bußsakrament, in die finsteren, traurigen Seelen ein neues Leben [und] Freude. Der Sieg Christi hat uns das Reich der Gnade gewonnen, das Himmelreich. Osterfahne wird zur Himmelsfahne, zur Flagge der Ewigkeit, die siegreich weht über den Toren der Heiligen Stadt Jerusalem." --- (Z. 67—71).

Max Planck: Religion & Science

"Religion and Science" (1937)

by Max Planck 

(An incomplete transcription of a lecture given by the scientist):

".........The choice between them depends solely on practical considerations. The chief advantage of the least-action principle is that it requires no definite frame of reference for its formulation. This principle is therefore excellently adapted for carrying through transformation of coordinates. But we are now interested in questions of a more general character. It will suffice at this point to note only that the historical development of theoretic research in physics has led in a remarkable way to a formulation of the principle of physical causality which possesses an explicitly teleological character; but at the same time this formulation introduces nothing substantially new or even contradictory into the character of the laws of nature. The issue is simply one of different perspectives of interpretation, both of which are equally well justified by the actual facts. The situation in biology should be no different than we have found it in physics, although in biology the difference between the two viewpoints has assumed far sharper outlines. 

In any case, we may say in summary that according to what exact natural science teaches us, the entire realm of nature, in which we human beings on our tiny mote of a planet play only an infinitesimally small part, is ruled by definite laws which are independent of the existence of thinking human beings; but these laws, insofar as they can at all be comprehended by our senses, can be given a formulation which is adapted for purposeful activity. Thus, natural science exhibits a rational world order the inner essence of which is and remains unknowable to us, since only our sense data (which can never be completely excluded) supply evidence for it. Nevertheless, the truly prolific results of natural-scientific research justify the conclusion that continuing efforts will at least keep bringing us progressively nearer to the inattainable goal, and they strengthen our inner hope for a constant advancement of our insight into the ways of the omnipotent Reason which rules over Nature. 

IV.  

Having now learned to know the demands which religion, on one hand and science on the other hand, place on our attitude to the most sublime problems of a generalized world outlook, let us now examine whether and to what extent these different demands can be mutually reconciled. First of all, it is self-evident that this examination may extend only to those laws in which religion and natural science conflict with each other. For these are wide spheres where they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Thus, all the problems of ethics are outside of the field of natural science, whereas the dimensions of the universal constants are without relevance for religion. On the other hand, religion and natural science do have a point of contact in the issue concerning the existence and nature of a supreme power ruling the world, and here the answers given by them are to a certain degree at least comparable. As we have seen, they are by no means mutually contradictory, but are in agreement, first of all, on the point that there exists a rational world order independent from man, and secondly, on the view that the character of this world order can never be directly known but can only be indirectly recognized or suspected. Religion employs in this connection its own characteristic symbols, while natural science uses measurements founded on sense experiences. Thus nothing stands in our way --and our instinctive intellectual striving for a unified world picture demands it - from identifying with each other the two everywhere active and yet mysterious forces: The world order of natural science and the God of religion. Accordingly, the deity which the religious person seeks to bring closer to himself by his palpable symbols, is consubstancial with the power acting in accordance with natural laws for which the sense data of the scientist provide a certain degree of evidence. 

However, in spite of this unanimity a fundamental difference must also be observed. To the religious person, God is directly and immediately given. He and His omnipotent Will are fountainhead of all life and all happenings, both in the mundane world and in the world of the spirit. Even though He cannot be grasped by reason, the religious symbols give a direct view of Him, and He plants His holy message in the souls of those who faithfully entrust themselves to Him. In contrast to this, the natural scientist recognizes as immediately given nothing but the content of his sense experiences and of the measurements based on them. He starts out from this point, on a road of inductive research, to approach as best he can the supreme and eternally unattainable goal of his quest --God and His world order. Therefore, while both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. 

The difference corresponds to the different roles of religion and natural science in human life. Natural science wants man to learn, religion wants him to act. The only solid foundation for learning is the one supplied by sense perception; the assumption of a regular world order functions here merely as an essential condition for formulating fruitful questions. But this is not the road to be taken for action, for man's volitional decision cannot wait until cognition has become complete and needs often make it imperative that we reach decisions or translate our mental attitudes into immediate action. Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction can which we gain form a direct inner link to God. This instruction alone is ableto give us the inner firmness and lasting peace of mind which must be regarded as the highest boon in life. And if we ascribe to God, in addition to His omnipotence and omniscience, also the attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him produces an increased feeling of safety and happiness in the human being thirsting for solace. Against this conception not even the slightest objection can be raised from the point of natural science, for as we pointed it out before, questions of ethics are entirely outside of its realm. 

No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear. They mutually supplement and condition each other. The most immediate proof of the compatibility of religion and natural science, even under the most thorough critical scrutiny, is the historical fact that the very greatest natural scientists of all times —men such as Kepler, Newton, Leibniz —were permeated by a most profound religious attitude. At the dawn of our own era of civilization, the practitioners of natural science were the custodians of religion at the same time. The oldest of all the applied natural sciences, emdicine, was in the hands of the priests, and in the Middle Ages scientific research was still carried on principally in monasteries. Later, as civilization continued to advance and to branch out, the parting of the ways became always more pronounced, corresponding to the different nature of the tasks and pursuits of religion and those of natural science. 

For the proper attitude to questions in ethics can no more be gained from a purely rational recognition that can a general Weltanschauung ever replace specific knowledge and ability. But the two roads do not diverge, they run parallel toeach other, and they intersect at an endlessly removed common goal. There is no better way to comprehend this properly than to continuee one's efforts to obtain a progressively more profound insight into the nature and problems of the natural sciences, on one hand, and of religious faith on the other. It will then appear with ever increasing clarity that even though the methods are different --for science operates predominantly with the intellect, religion predominantly with sentiment --- the significance of the work and the direction of progress are nonetheless absolutely identical. 

Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstion, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been , and always will be: "On to God!"

Another important quote by Max Planck let us see he certainly believed in Christ:

"Farsighted theologians are now working to mine the eternal metal from the teachings of Jesus and to forge it for all time."

From Planck to Study (2 December 1913), (Autog. I/383, SPK); as quoted in The Dilemmas of an Upright Man : Max Planck As Spokesman for German Science (1986) by J. L. Heilbron, p. 67

Sources

Taken from: Scientific Autobiography: by Frank Gaynor, Greenwood Press (1971) pp. 181-182)

Translation in English from German is available in Max Planck: Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1968).

Also available in Great books of the Western world, Volume 56, 1990. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1990

Gregor Mendel's Sermons & Faith in God

Gregor Mendel, best known as the Father of Genetics, was an Augustinian monk and abbott. An outstanding scientist who undertook experiments with peas and discovered the laws of genetics, which totally revolutionized science.

Though he didn't make references to God, religion or theology in his scientific papers, there are at least two surviving sermons where he expressed his religious views and faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

Mendel's surviving theological writings are undated, but it is thought they were written in his later years, due to the inferences and allusions he makes about his life.  The text of the first sermon was presented by the Mendel-Museum during an International Symposium in 1970, which was organized by the Director of the Museum, Prof. Dr. Vitezslav Orel, an expert in the life of the genetist.

These Sermons, as far as I can infer, are nowadays in the Mendel-Museum. It is thought that many other theological and scientific papers were probably burned after his death in ignorance of their historical importance. Some people blame a fellow in the abady, others blame think too that the invasion of the nazi and the communist regimes in St. Thomas, was responsible for the lost. In any way, fortunately, some people kept these writings hidden in the Moravian Museum.

The biographical books "Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybrids: A Guided Study" (1993) edited by ‎Alain F. Corcos, and "Gregor Mendel: And the Roots of Genetics" (2001) by Edward Edelson include a couple of quotes taken from one sermon, but only few books in German include the complete text. One of these books is Folia Mendeliana, published precisely by the Moravian Museum in Brno, in 1971.

The partial translations of the Sermons are these:

Sermon on Easter

"Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection in various forms. He appeared to Mary Magdalene so that they might take him for a gardener. Very ingeniously these manifestation of Jesus is to our minds difficult to penetrate. (He appears) as a gardener. The gardener plants seedlings in prepared soil. The soil must exert a physical and chemical influence so that the seed of the plant can grow. Yet this is not sufficient. The warmth and light of the sun must be added, together with rain, in order that growth may result. 

The seed of supernatural life, of sanctifying grace, cleanses from sin, so preparing the soul of man, and man must seek to preserve this life by his good works. He still needs the supernatural food, the body of the Lord, which received continually, develops and brings to completion of the life. So natural and supernatural must unite to the realization of the holiness to the people. Man must contribute his minimum work of toil, and God gives the growth. Truly, the seed, the talent, the grace of God is there, and man has simply to work, take the seeds to bring them to the bankers. So that we "may have life, and abundantly"... 

Three sacraments that contribute to life, baptism, confession, communion, have been used at Easter time. (Eucharist connects completely faith and baptism, God and man incompletely) Triumph: As expected of pious Christians, the joy of victory is heard in the midst of an unjust world; victory and not disparagement, insult, persecution. With the day of the victory of Christ, the Easter, the bonds are broken, the death and sin laid (?), and the Redeemer of mankind rises strongly the human race from night time and fetters, in blessed heights, heavenly gates!)...

A second sermon states:

Victory

"How does it affect a pious Christian to hear, in the midst of an unjust world, of victory and not of disparagement, outrage, persecution?

With the day of the victory of Christ, the Passover, the bonds are broken, death and sin are left behind, and the Redeemer of mankind rises powerfully the human race from the night time and the chains to blessed altitudes, to heavenly gates! ... 

Jesus let the infidels and Jews aside, he appeared only to the chosen apostles, he was concerned only with the faithful believers. To these he taught, rebuked, and sanctified, in order to perfect them to perfect the saints. This not only made sin and death be taken away from us, but by the resurrection of the Son of God grace was also obtained...

The victory of Christ gained us the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of heaven. Easter is the sky banner flag, the flag of eternity, the victory blowing over the gates of the Holy City of Jerusalem...

An analysis of this was written by the same source, published by the Moravian Museum:

"For precisely because these sermon outlines are but little polished, they give us a clearer idea of the personal religious sentiment and thought of the preacher. One fact imposes itself at the very first reading of these texts: Here speaks a man of true faith and a pastor who thinks with the Church. He endeavors zealously to acquaint his audience with the unadulterated Christian doctrine and to allow them to experience the beauty and the consolation of the Gospel of Christ.  

He puts the basic Christian truths in bold relief, the truths of Christ's death and resurrection, of man's fall and redemption, of the growth and maturing of the life of grace in man, of the importance of the sacraments of Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist, of the eternal life in God's love and glory. Nothing in Mendel's sermon outlines indicates, for example, that theological half-truths of the then prevailing Hermesianism and Guentherianism, which exerted their influence upon many theological circles, had affected him.   

Decades ago, some writers endeavored to present Mendel as a freethinker, who searched for truth without deference to dogmas. It has long been recognized that this opinion is incorrect. The discovery of these sermon outlines of the Abbot Mendel should cut the ground forever from under such imputations. 

Another characteristic feature of both sermons is the frequent use of pictures from nature to illustrate religious truth and the minute delineation of these pictures in their last details. An instance of this kind, in which in sermons usually hardly a word is wasted, is the Gospel report of St. John in which the risen Lord appeared to Mary Magdalen in the guise of a gardener. But for the scientist, who - as a hobby so to speak - had chosen to take care of the monastery garden, this topic of secondary importance in the report of the evangelist opens up a whole new world. It reminds him of the picture of the seed and It reminds him of the picture of the seed and plant, which the New Testament frequently uses to describe the origin, growth and advance of the "Kingdom of God" or the divine life in the heart of man. 

Thus Mendel is induced to develop this picture to a great extent, although it does not relate directly to the Easter feast. In like manner his second sermon uses as fit illustrations from nature the pictures of sun and light. It is also surprising, how often Mendel, who by discovering the laws of inheritance deserved well of modern biology, speaks in his second sermon of life: of life which Christ meant to bring in abundance; of that life of a more perfect order which unites immediately to Christ; then of the new transfigured life of the risen Lord Himself,and finally of the other life of dwelling in God which knows nothing of the frailty and the defects of earthly existence. 

But it is not only Mendel the scientist who appears in these pictures of light and life. φως and ζωή, light and life, are central concepts which the New Testament uses to describe the mystery of salvation in Christ. The logos was sent as the true light of the world /cf. Joh 1,9; 8,12; 9,5; 12,46; etc./ and as the life to person /cf. Joh 1,6; 6,35 & 48; 8,12; 11,25; 14,6 etc./ to impart this divine light and life to those who believe in Him. The manner in which Abbot Mendel makes use of these Johannean pictures should be sufficient proof how well he was acquainted with the thought of the New Testament. 

Finally the second sermon reveals in a few places the particular  situation of Mendel's life , that is , his exhausting contention with the Government because of the tax he considered unjust. Already the fact that the preacher wrote over the first part of the sermon, as it it were a title, the word "Victory" should not be regarded as a chance remark. The quarrel with the Government, which for the prelate gradually became a road he had  to walk alone, used up his whole strength and occupied the first place in all his thoughts. 

His every thought and wish, at that time, was indeed devoted to the "victory" of right over injustice. Mendel felt more and more misunderstood and betrayed, even by his brethren, who, for the rest, were well disposed towards him, though they did not share his stubborn attitude in this question. Even though the remarks he is supposed to have made to his nephew implying persecution or even danger to his life were perhaps never made, nevertheless the statement of Hugo lltis seems justified that a certain "melancholy and justified that a certain "melancholy and bitterness darkened the last years of life of the scientist" , Various expressions in this sermon bear unmistakable witness, how much Mendel suffered from these litigations over many years. 

When in the beginning of his sermon he referred to the slights, affronts, persecutions "in the midst of an unjust world" he evidently did not only think of what Jesus had experienced from His contemporaries, but also of the injustice he had sufffered in his own person. But then Mendel's sermon also shows that is was his religious conviction in which he sought and found, to use his own words, "advice, edification and comfort". 

When towards the end of his sermon he says that the risen Christ also in the glory of heaven still retains His wounds as signs of His love and shares them with those who love Him, we may be allowed to conclude that he himself strove to understand and master his own suffering through the passion of Christ. 

And as he had spoken at the outset of his sermon of the unjust world here on earth, he concludes with the anticipation of the life in God and calls it a life in the ardor of justice and goodness of God.  The earthly injustice, which he believed to experience, induced Mendel to desire the perfect justice of God which he knew to be balanced and even surpassed by the goodness of God. Summing up I wish to say: The newly discovered sheet with the two sermon outlines of Mendel truly contributes to a better knowledge of his personality, in so far as it affords a certain insight into the religious experience and sentiment of this great man." [Folia Mendeliana (1971), Volumen 6, Museo Moravo, p. 255]

German Original Sermon

If someone versed in German could help improve the translation, or help translate the whole excerpts into English, I'd be TOTALLY GRATEFUL! These are the two surviving sermons in German

The context:

"Abt an der wissenschaftlichen und praktischen Förderung der Pflanzen- und Tierzucht interessiert. Entsprechend der atheistischen Tendenz mancher Naturwissenschaftler behauptete der erste Biograph Mendels, H. Iltis, dieser wäre aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen, aber ohne religiöses Interesse, ins Kloster gegangen. Vor kurzem hat aber der Direktor des Mendel-Mu- seums, Prof. Dr. Vit£zslav Orel, eine Predigtskizze Mendels gefunden, welche eine riefe christliche Gläubigkeit bezeugt. Bei dem Internationalen Symposion, zu dem das Mendel-Museum im Jahre 1970 Wissenschaftler aus der ganzen Welt nach Brünn eingeladen hatte, hielt der damalige Generalassistent des Augustinerordens, P. Dr. Adolar Zumkeller, ein vielbeachtetes Referat über diese Predigtskizze, die um so wichtiger ist, als nach dem Tode Mendels sein gesamter schriftlicher Nachlaß, wohl in Unkenntnis der weltweiten Bedeutung seiner Entdeckung, verbrannt worden war. Es handelt sich in dem neu aufgefundenen Schriftstück wohl um zwei Osterpredigten über das Leben der Gnade . Dabei findet der naturwissenschaftlich interessierte Prediger zahlreiche Entsprechungen zwischen dem Leben der Pflanzen und dem inneren Leben der Gnade. Es heißt hier":

Mendel's original Sermons in German:

1

"Jesus erschien den Jüngern nach der Auferstehung in verschiedener Gestalt. „Der Maria Magdalena erschien er so, daß sie ihn für einen Gärtner halten mochte. Sehr sinnreich sind diese Erscheinungen Jesu und unser Verstand vermag sie schwer zu durchdringen. (Er erscheint) als Gärtner. Dieser pflanzt den Samen in den zubereiteten Boden. Das Erdreich muss physikalisch-chemisch Einwirkung ausüben, damit der Same aufgeht. Doch reicht das nicht hin, es muß noch Sonnenwärme und Licht hinzukommen nebst Regen, damit das Gedeihen zustandekommt. Das übernatürliche Leben in seinem Keim, der heiligmachenden Gnade [Seite 2] wird in die von der Sünde gereinigte, also vorbereitete Seele des Menschen hineingesenkt und es muß der Mensch durch seine guten Werke dieses Leben zu erhalten suchen. Es muss noch die übernatürliche Nahrung dazukommen, der Leib des Herrn, der das Leben weiter erhält, entwickelt und zur Vollendung bringt. So muss Natur und Übernatur sich vereinigen, um das Zustandekommen der Heiligkeit des Menschen. Der Mensch muß sein Scherflein Arbeit hinzugeben, und Gott gibt das Gedeihen. Es ist wahr, den Samen, das Talent, die Gnade gibt der liebe Gott, und der Mensch hat bloß die Arbeit, den Samen aufzunehmen, das Geld zu Wechslern zu tragen. Damit wir »das Leben haben und im Überflusse haben« (Joh 10, 10). Drei Sakramente, die das Leben spenden: Taufe, Beichte, Kommunion [sind] zur Osterzeit eingesetzt worden. (Eucharistie verbindet vollkommen, Glaube und Taufe unvollkommen dem Gottmenschen)

2 

Sieg: Wie mutet es einen frommen Christen an, mitten in der ungerechten Welt von Sieg zu hören, und nicht wieder Hintansetzung, Beschimpfung, Verfolgung3; auch Siegesfreude. Mit dem Siegestag Christi, mit dem Ostertag, sind die Bande zerrissen, die der Tod und die Sünde um uns gelegt, und stark erhebt sich das Menschengeschlecht mit seinem Erlöser aus Nachtzeit und Fesseln in weite, heilige Höhen .und stark erhebt sich das Menschengeschlecht mit seinem Erlöser aus Nachtzeit und Fesseln in weite selige Höhen, himmlische Gefilde!?. 

Jesus ließ die Ungläubigen und Juden beiseite, er erschien nur den auserwählten Aposteln, er befaßte sich nur mit den treuen Gläubigen. Diese belehrte er, tadelte er und heiligte er, um sie zu vervollkommnen zu vollendeten Heiligen. i Nicht bloss Sünde und Tod ist von uns genommen, sondern durch die Auferstehung des Gottessohnes ist auch seine Gnade gewonnen, welche durch das Ostersakrament, Taufe und Kommunion, in die Seele eingesenkt und gepflanzt, diese in ihrem ganzen Sein erhebt, verklärt und zu einer wahrhaft göttlichen macht. Diese Gnade fließt wie eine Ostersonne weit aus dem Grabe des Erlösers, sie ergießt sich in die ganze Welt, in die Seelen, sie ist das Licht, das am Schöpfungstag einer anderen, schöneren, erhabenen Welt geschaffen wurde und nie mehr untergeht. Deshalb in der Nacht [in der] Finsternis eingesetzt das Bußsakrament, in die finsteren, traurigen Seelen ein neues Leben [und] Freude. Der Sieg Christi hat uns das Reich der Gnade gewonnen, das Himmelreich. Osterfahne wird zur Himmelsfahne, zur Flagge der Ewigkeit, die siegreich weht über den Toren der Heiligen Stadt Jerusalem." --- (Z. 67—71).

Incomplete English transcriptions:

"a unified theme chosen from the truths of the faith and created in precise arrangement of the material; neither are they homiletic sermons whict. explain a passage of Scripture, the epistle or the Gospel of the day and try to derive benefit for the life of the congregation.  It may perhaps be best to describe the sketches as addresses for religious s feasts , which attempt in a rather loose arrangement of thought to impress the audience with the importance of the feast by presenting a few spiritually edifying thoughts. p. 252

"Since, however, the preacher in his further explanations does not refer- again to the Gospel of Low Sunday, it could well be possible that the sermon was preached on a different day of the Easter week. Starting with the preliminary text from St. John /Joh 20,29/ the preacher developes a few thoughts on the importance of faith. But the more specific subject matter he intends to discuss is another one. Beginning with the statement that the risen Lord showed Himself according to the report of the evangelists in various forms, the preacher is especially impressed by Christ's appearance granted to Mary Magdalen, in the guise of a gardener. This leads Mendel to the theme closest to his heart: he developes the image of the gardener, seed and plant."

intimately joined with Christ, is made possible for him through the sacraments of Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist, which Christ instituted during the Easter season. The truly leading thought of the sermon could be formulated thus: Easter, the feast of victory. Mendel begins with the statement: "How does it affect a pious Christian to hear, in the midst of an unjust world, of victory and not of disparagement, outrage, persecution." These words sound like an allusion to the injustice which the preacher himself believed to have experienced in the course of those years. He proceeds to describe Easter as the great day of the victory of Christ. Through his victory Christ triumphed over death and sin and freed mankind from its fetters. Furthermore, through the victory of His resurrection Christ gained for man divinizing grace which through Baptism and the Eueharist is embedded and planted into the soul. Very beautifully and with theological depth the preacher explains the essence of this grace, namely, that it "elevates and transfigures the soul of man in its entire being and makes it truly divine." Of course, we would grossly misinterpret him if  we attempted to give these words a pantheistic meaning. The meaning of this sentence corresponds to what Scripture teaches regarding man's divine sonship:  They who have received grace through Christ are children of God, they are born of God,..."

...Mendel calls this grace symbolically "an Easter sun" , the light of which radiates forth from the tomb of the Redeemer into the whole world, penetrating the very hearts of men and engendering new life and joy. Easter, therefore, appears to him  as the "day of creation of another, more beautiful and sublime world". For the Easter day of Christ leads to the Kingdom of heaven. Mendel understands this in its eschatological perfection and describes it as :he heavenly city of Jerusalem. Continuing, the preacher then speaks of the new transfigured life of the risen Christ which is immune from passing away and from this world. He deals shortly with the appearances of Christ each of which, in the words of Mendel, "contains an abundance of advice, edification and comfort for all time". He takes great pains to explain the marks of the wounds of the risen Saviour. Christ bears them even in His glory as signs of recognition. The preacher says literally: "From the passion, from the wounds we must know the Saviour [j"hey are] signs of love, signs that love is forever." Mendel concludes his sermon with a glimpse of......"

Source

Folia Mendeliana (1971), Volume 6, Moravian Museum, pp. 252-254