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