Relda,

In short, Yes, you do have to try again.

Planck's opinion in this matter is conjecture, not a professional effort at science.

Many of the greatest scientists of *our* age are not religious. Some, like the late Feynman were arguably of the same stature as others you mention and were athiest.

Correcting for all those who were *really* in an age where you could be killed (tortured and killed) for saying otherwise, you are critically obliged to recognise that many athiest scientsts are just as good as religious ones, and that many religious ones were so under threat of death.

This in turn establishes that great scientific endeavour is independent of religiosity. ( by the way, this observation disproves by existing, Planck's speculation)

Given that it is not required, what is it? at worst, it is on average not completely inhibiting.

At best it might be like the tricks deBono suggests to aid in lateral thinking.

You do have a feint idea how science is done, don't you? or do you just read about it?

Rusty

Rusty,
I have a strong and healthy respect for Richard Feynman who states in his 1990 hook, The Character of Physical Law, that “Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons and electrons , while in daily life, we talk about men and history, or beauty and hope. Which is nearer to God -beauty and hope or the fundamental Iaws? To stand at either end, and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is a complete understanding, is a mistake.” This is little different from Shroedinger stating, in his astonishment, that “the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient… it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us….”

Many on this forum have made the mistake and have taken a walk off the pier Feynman so eloquently describes. The ‘atheism’ brand to which you refer in no way matches Feynman’s for its integrity or intellectual strength. The clichéd use of “lateral thinking” is too often bandied by smaller minds – unable to grasp the greater reality where the Scientific process (i.e. how it’s ‘done’) will never answer ‘the big’ questions. Wherever science does pretend the answers they “are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” (Shroedinger, Nature and the Greeks), unless you, naturally, are silly enough to expect this of science.

Sancho,
“Looking at the meal you've made of Schroedinger's cat...” On the contrary I think I’ve made more a ‘snack’ of his cat – from the amount scientific literature on the subject it takes more than just a ‘meal’ to explain this thought experiment or to gain any depth of understanding in QM (few have achieved it – perhaps one or two).

Incidentally, I’ve gained as much understanding on the subject as any amateur might, nevertheless, trusting it as valid theory but certainly not on my own expertise (or lack of).

Pericles,
You're still waiting for a simple answer to a simple question I guess...

The scientific ‘observations’ made in Galileo’s time were underpinned by prevailing perceptions, i.e. from a geocentric viewpoint, adopted from the ancient Greek and medieval philosophers. Medieval ‘scientific’ standards are abysmal if compared with our own current and more advanced theories. Geocentricity, however, appeared obvious and was easily observed as such - it was therefore taken as standard and verifiable ‘proof’, the same scientific standards as applied today but with a little more rigor and precision (one would hope). Scientific theory isn't static and, given what has traditionally underpinned its 'process', it will continue to be creative.

Galileo’s best seller in Italy, ‘Dialogue on the Two Principle World Systems – Ptolemaic and Coperican’, satirized the Pope, who in his infallible role couldn’t take a joke. This certainly didn’t help him at his trial.

>> Many on this forum have made the mistake
>> and have taken a walk off the pier Feynman so eloquently describes.
>> The ‘atheism’ brand to which you refer
>> in no way matches Feynman’s for its integrity or intellectual strength

what makes you think anyone here has devalued beauty or human feeling? what makes you think god owns the concept?

go to hell, you pompous, insulting little prat.

and for those who want to know what feynman *really* thought of religion:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/richard_feynman_tells_it_like.php

Oh, hi relda

>>Pericles, You're still waiting for a simple answer to a simple question I guess...<<

True. But I'm not holding my breath, so you can relax.

I presume that the two paragraphs that followed this observation of yours were just more rambling stuff you cut 'n' pasted from someplace. 'Cos they had nothing to do with the question, did they?

Maybe it isn't so simple a question after all.

Perhaps you are floundering about because you are actually unable to remember how you came to put the following words together:

>>The ambiguity of history is illustrated by the fact that the church was scientifically correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’.<<

I suspect it would be smarter, relda, if you simply admitted that you have absolutely no backing to your claim that "the church was scientifically correct", and that Galileo's explanations were "tacit knowledge."

Because, as you must surely realise by now, both are pure nonsense.

Incidentally, it takes a particular talent to misinterpret Feynman so perfectly. You must be very proud.

Squeers

(x +y)x = z

Yes, me ol' mate CJ is corrrect.

But that does reeeally mean he has an IQ of over 120!!

( :>/