FINAL CAPSTONE ESSAY
I wrote a college essay about how if I could explore one topic further on my own time, it would be the reconciliation of religion and science. So here we are. My Capstone topic is exactly that. I wanted to explore the religious beliefs of two of the greatest scientific minds in recent history: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. I attempted to compare and contrast their scientific understanding with their beliefs in God. Here is what I came up with.
For centuries, people who have observed and have attempted to interpret the natural world have been met with resistance from religious scholars. The heliocentric world was humanity’s accepted model, and evolution was thrown out in favor of creationism. However, as technology has continued to improve and new discoveries are made, we have realized that we can’t plausibly deny the evidence we’ve acquired. Now, it is up to personal interpretation to reconcile long standing religious beliefs with newly gathered scientific observation and evidence for theories we once refused to believe.
Albert Einstein is the biggest scientific household name. His theory of general relativity shaped our understanding of the universe. He was a Jewish German whose religious beliefs were a mystery for most of his life. That is, until he wrote a letter to a colleague in 1954 attempting to explain some of his beliefs. Though he was born Jewish, the work he conducted throughout his life gave him little reason to hold religious texts in any high esteem. In this 1954 letter, he called the Bible, “a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends,” or any human’s best guess. Though he may not have believed in widely spread religious ideals, he is also often quoted saying, “God does not play dice:” the idea that such an intricate and purposeful world could not have been created completely at random. Einstein didn’t limit himself to strictly adhering to popular religion. He adapted and contorted it to meet what he discovered over his lifetime. In the letter to his colleague, Einstein seems to declare himself an atheist; however, he has been quoted directly stating he is not so. His overall belief stems from the idea that human consciousness can never comprehend the full order of the universe. We can see a pattern, only dimly, but we will never be able to understand, “the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” We can study and think and bend over backwards trying to give the universe some greater meaning, but we will never be able to fully understand its grand scheme.
The greatest scientist who has been alive in my lifetime is Stephen Hawking, without a doubt. He was born in 1942, on the 300th anniversary of Galileo’s death. At 21, he was diagnosed with early-onset Lou Gehrig’s disease. He was given two years to live. Hawking was always upfront about his struggles with religion. In the last book he published before his death, he asserted that a complete understanding of science proved there was no need for a God. He conceded that the laws of the universe may have been created by some God-like power, but because of those laws, there was never a need for divine intervention. Hawking is quoted saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Essentially, according to Hawking, the creation of the universe was inevitable because of the conditions that it functions under. This differs slightly from Einstein’s theory. Both men asserted that there was a design the universe follows. Einstein asserts that God created that design, while Hawking states that the universe was self-created and is self-governed. Einstein allowed for the possibility of God or a God-like figure, while Hawking wrote it off entirely. Granted, that may be due to the fact that Einstein was born and raised Jewish, while Hawking doesn’t appear to have a religious background. Also, with a debilitating disease like ALS at such a young age, it seems impossible to blame Hawking for not believing in any sort of benevolent God.
Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are arguably two of the greatest scientific minds in recent history. Their scientific beliefs completely align, but they differ slightly in their religious convictions. Einstein was born into a religious family, and that background began to dissolve as he grappled with his understanding of the universe. Hawking, however, was not born into religion. Couple that with his early diagnosis of ALS, and it’s not a challenge to see why Hawking rejected a God-like figure. Both men believed in the concept of a purposeful universe, but they differ on how that universe came to be. Hawking argues that the universe is self-governed by predetermined laws. Einstein posits that there may be room for God to have a role in the creation of the universe. Who is he to decide? Hawking is more dogmatic in his beliefs. In Hawking’s mind, there is no reason for God to exist, therefore he does not. Both men have found ways to consider religion and science and make their own determinations of how much faith they put in each. Their similar understandings of the concrete, observable universe led them to different conclusions on religion and on God. If Hawking and Einstein can find individual ways to deal with the notion of God and science, anyone can.
Two of the most influential minds in science came to terms with their perceptions of God. Though their scientific beliefs were closely aligned, their religious ones varied. We will never know who was right, if either of them were. That was something they could agree on; that humans will not understand the greater structure. Something about the way in which our universe functions will always remain mysterious to humankind. And although science and concrete observation may be objective, our perception of the grander scheme is entirely individual.
For centuries, people who have observed and have attempted to interpret the natural world have been met with resistance from religious scholars. The heliocentric world was humanity’s accepted model, and evolution was thrown out in favor of creationism. However, as technology has continued to improve and new discoveries are made, we have realized that we can’t plausibly deny the evidence we’ve acquired. Now, it is up to personal interpretation to reconcile long standing religious beliefs with newly gathered scientific observation and evidence for theories we once refused to believe.
Albert Einstein is the biggest scientific household name. His theory of general relativity shaped our understanding of the universe. He was a Jewish German whose religious beliefs were a mystery for most of his life. That is, until he wrote a letter to a colleague in 1954 attempting to explain some of his beliefs. Though he was born Jewish, the work he conducted throughout his life gave him little reason to hold religious texts in any high esteem. In this 1954 letter, he called the Bible, “a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends,” or any human’s best guess. Though he may not have believed in widely spread religious ideals, he is also often quoted saying, “God does not play dice:” the idea that such an intricate and purposeful world could not have been created completely at random. Einstein didn’t limit himself to strictly adhering to popular religion. He adapted and contorted it to meet what he discovered over his lifetime. In the letter to his colleague, Einstein seems to declare himself an atheist; however, he has been quoted directly stating he is not so. His overall belief stems from the idea that human consciousness can never comprehend the full order of the universe. We can see a pattern, only dimly, but we will never be able to understand, “the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” We can study and think and bend over backwards trying to give the universe some greater meaning, but we will never be able to fully understand its grand scheme.
The greatest scientist who has been alive in my lifetime is Stephen Hawking, without a doubt. He was born in 1942, on the 300th anniversary of Galileo’s death. At 21, he was diagnosed with early-onset Lou Gehrig’s disease. He was given two years to live. Hawking was always upfront about his struggles with religion. In the last book he published before his death, he asserted that a complete understanding of science proved there was no need for a God. He conceded that the laws of the universe may have been created by some God-like power, but because of those laws, there was never a need for divine intervention. Hawking is quoted saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Essentially, according to Hawking, the creation of the universe was inevitable because of the conditions that it functions under. This differs slightly from Einstein’s theory. Both men asserted that there was a design the universe follows. Einstein asserts that God created that design, while Hawking states that the universe was self-created and is self-governed. Einstein allowed for the possibility of God or a God-like figure, while Hawking wrote it off entirely. Granted, that may be due to the fact that Einstein was born and raised Jewish, while Hawking doesn’t appear to have a religious background. Also, with a debilitating disease like ALS at such a young age, it seems impossible to blame Hawking for not believing in any sort of benevolent God.
Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are arguably two of the greatest scientific minds in recent history. Their scientific beliefs completely align, but they differ slightly in their religious convictions. Einstein was born into a religious family, and that background began to dissolve as he grappled with his understanding of the universe. Hawking, however, was not born into religion. Couple that with his early diagnosis of ALS, and it’s not a challenge to see why Hawking rejected a God-like figure. Both men believed in the concept of a purposeful universe, but they differ on how that universe came to be. Hawking argues that the universe is self-governed by predetermined laws. Einstein posits that there may be room for God to have a role in the creation of the universe. Who is he to decide? Hawking is more dogmatic in his beliefs. In Hawking’s mind, there is no reason for God to exist, therefore he does not. Both men have found ways to consider religion and science and make their own determinations of how much faith they put in each. Their similar understandings of the concrete, observable universe led them to different conclusions on religion and on God. If Hawking and Einstein can find individual ways to deal with the notion of God and science, anyone can.
Two of the most influential minds in science came to terms with their perceptions of God. Though their scientific beliefs were closely aligned, their religious ones varied. We will never know who was right, if either of them were. That was something they could agree on; that humans will not understand the greater structure. Something about the way in which our universe functions will always remain mysterious to humankind. And although science and concrete observation may be objective, our perception of the grander scheme is entirely individual.
PROCESS REFLECTION 2
I wish I could have made more progress on this before quarantine struck. I’m not very far at all into writing this paper, and I don’t have any time to now. I get up at 8 and I work until 6 every week day, and I don’t really want to spend my weekend doing the same thing. I need to find some time to work on this project and really do the best that I can on it. It’s something I’m passionate about, and it deserves more time than I can give it right now. All I’ve been able to do is read my sources and jot down some notes that pertain to my project. I’m really interested in my topic, but I can’t seem to find the time to devote to it. I will. I just haven’t yet.
RESEARCH COMPONENTS
Haught, John F. Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conservation. New York, Paulist, 1995.
Haught asserts that there are four basic ways to tackle the question of the relationship between religion and science: conflict, contrast, contact, and confirmation. People who believe in conflicting viewpoints think that science and religion are inherently irreconcilable. Contrast means that science and religion aren’t related because they seek to answer different questions. Contact looks at how scientific discoveries can shape religious views and attempts to find some common ground between the two fields. Confirmation is essentially the inverse of contact, that religious belief actually makes scientific discoveries stronger.
By understanding the fundamental ways in which science and religion can relate to each other, we can better identify and articulate the arguments of other authors. This is a template for further research.
Ferngren, Gary B. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. 2nd ed., Baltimore, Johns Hopkins UP, 2017.
Ferngren looks to historical sources to chronicle the history of the relationship between religion and science. He first looks at the nature of the motives of philosophers debating this question throughout history, and then he attempts to summarize their arguments and their reasons for believing them. Not only does this book consider Christianity, but other religions such as Islam and Judaism and how they play into the notion of “science and religion.” He first considers the perspective of the Church, then of historians, and then of scientists to get a well-rounded view of the supposed conflict of science and religion.
Being able to chronicle the evolution (pun intended) of the relationship between science and religion is helpful to better understand its origin. Not only does this book look at the nature of science and religion’s relationship, but also at the potential motives for the people who proposed those theories. The transparency is a good devil’s advocate (pun intended again) to allow me to see all sides of the equation.
EINSTEIN, A. Science and Religion. Nature 146, 605–607 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1038/146605a0
Einstein asserts that religion and science can be defined as seeking to answer the same question and therefore need no reconciliation. Controversy only stems from religious fanatics insisting on the inherent truthfulness and infallibility of the Bible. He says that only errors in judgement or thought process could cause rifts between religion and science, as they are actually perfectly reconcilable. Einstein offers a solution to my question! He says that there need not be a debate on how to put science and religion together, and they complement one another inherently.
Dennett, Daniel C., and Alvin Plantinga. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? New York, Oxford UP, 2011.
Historically, there has been long debate and struggle for power between scientists and theologians. Religion has long outdated the scientific method, and since science broke new ground in the understanding of the universe, there has been a struggle to prove that one way of understanding the world is more comprehensive than the other. The two disciples have been separated by what they seek to explain: science to nature, and religion to everything that transcends nature. Religion is seen as a consequence of someone’s childhood, and science an inherent fact.
Brooke, John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2014.
Henry Drummond proposed that Christianity and evolution had the same goal: to make more perfect humans. Their goals were to take unformed masses and mold them into complete humans. Therefore, they need no reconciliation. Both are a story of creation. Many of Drummond’s contemporaries were quick to dismiss his theory, but it isn’t entirely implausible. Hedley uses Drummond and others to compare the attempted reconciliations of Christianity and scientific theory.
Subject Matter Experts
Internal: DW would be an excellent internal expert. He is well versed in religious knowledge, and his expertise coupled with scientific expertise from elsewhere would be very useful. Mr. Clark could be another internal expert. He has knowledge about physics (and astronomy), and would be helpful to gain a scientific perspective on the matter.
External: Egil Asprem is a research fellow at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. He’s written three books about his work solving the problems of religion and science. He focuses on scientific naturalism, or the idea that every object is a part of nature and therefore subject to scientific inquiry.
Elaine Howard Ecklund is a Sociology professor at Rice, and she wrote a book, “Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think,” on how scientists view religion. She also founded the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice.
Haught asserts that there are four basic ways to tackle the question of the relationship between religion and science: conflict, contrast, contact, and confirmation. People who believe in conflicting viewpoints think that science and religion are inherently irreconcilable. Contrast means that science and religion aren’t related because they seek to answer different questions. Contact looks at how scientific discoveries can shape religious views and attempts to find some common ground between the two fields. Confirmation is essentially the inverse of contact, that religious belief actually makes scientific discoveries stronger.
By understanding the fundamental ways in which science and religion can relate to each other, we can better identify and articulate the arguments of other authors. This is a template for further research.
Ferngren, Gary B. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. 2nd ed., Baltimore, Johns Hopkins UP, 2017.
Ferngren looks to historical sources to chronicle the history of the relationship between religion and science. He first looks at the nature of the motives of philosophers debating this question throughout history, and then he attempts to summarize their arguments and their reasons for believing them. Not only does this book consider Christianity, but other religions such as Islam and Judaism and how they play into the notion of “science and religion.” He first considers the perspective of the Church, then of historians, and then of scientists to get a well-rounded view of the supposed conflict of science and religion.
Being able to chronicle the evolution (pun intended) of the relationship between science and religion is helpful to better understand its origin. Not only does this book look at the nature of science and religion’s relationship, but also at the potential motives for the people who proposed those theories. The transparency is a good devil’s advocate (pun intended again) to allow me to see all sides of the equation.
EINSTEIN, A. Science and Religion. Nature 146, 605–607 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1038/146605a0
Einstein asserts that religion and science can be defined as seeking to answer the same question and therefore need no reconciliation. Controversy only stems from religious fanatics insisting on the inherent truthfulness and infallibility of the Bible. He says that only errors in judgement or thought process could cause rifts between religion and science, as they are actually perfectly reconcilable. Einstein offers a solution to my question! He says that there need not be a debate on how to put science and religion together, and they complement one another inherently.
Dennett, Daniel C., and Alvin Plantinga. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? New York, Oxford UP, 2011.
Historically, there has been long debate and struggle for power between scientists and theologians. Religion has long outdated the scientific method, and since science broke new ground in the understanding of the universe, there has been a struggle to prove that one way of understanding the world is more comprehensive than the other. The two disciples have been separated by what they seek to explain: science to nature, and religion to everything that transcends nature. Religion is seen as a consequence of someone’s childhood, and science an inherent fact.
Brooke, John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2014.
Henry Drummond proposed that Christianity and evolution had the same goal: to make more perfect humans. Their goals were to take unformed masses and mold them into complete humans. Therefore, they need no reconciliation. Both are a story of creation. Many of Drummond’s contemporaries were quick to dismiss his theory, but it isn’t entirely implausible. Hedley uses Drummond and others to compare the attempted reconciliations of Christianity and scientific theory.
Subject Matter Experts
Internal: DW would be an excellent internal expert. He is well versed in religious knowledge, and his expertise coupled with scientific expertise from elsewhere would be very useful. Mr. Clark could be another internal expert. He has knowledge about physics (and astronomy), and would be helpful to gain a scientific perspective on the matter.
External: Egil Asprem is a research fellow at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. He’s written three books about his work solving the problems of religion and science. He focuses on scientific naturalism, or the idea that every object is a part of nature and therefore subject to scientific inquiry.
Elaine Howard Ecklund is a Sociology professor at Rice, and she wrote a book, “Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think,” on how scientists view religion. She also founded the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice.
PROJECT REFLECTION 1
I’ve read the first part of E.H. Ecklund’s book, Science vs. Religion, and I’ve listened to a podcast by Rhett McLaughlin about his own personal journey reconciling science with his childhood as an evangelical Christrian. I’d love to speak to Mr. Clark about his journey with religion, and to DW about his thoughts on the reconciliation of evolution and genetics with religious beliefs. The first question I would ask Mr. Clark would be if he considers himself religious. The first question I would ask DW would be if he would consider himself scientifically knowledgeable. I would want to cross reference these teachers’ fields of expertise with their personal values, or the values of religious fanatics and scientists. Externally, I’d love to email E.H. Ecklund about her book. I found the chapters I read interesting and compelling, and I want to ask her firstly what compelled her to write the book. And then I’d like to ask her about her personal religious history, and how her sociology background helped her tackle this topic. I need to do some more research on the established church’s view on evolution and scientific evidence, and I’d love to talk to someone who is dogmatic in their belief of creationism and intelligent design.