In the 1920’s quantum mechanics was created by three great minds: Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger, who all read from and greatly respected the Vedas. They elaborated upon these ancient books of wisdom in their own language and with modern mathematical formulas in order to try to understand the ideas that are to be found throughout the Vedas, referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as “Brahman,” “Paramatma,” “Akasha” and “Atman.” As Schrödinger said, “some blood transfusion from the East to the West to save Western science from spiritual anemia.”
Many atheist scientists like to forget that their forefathers were actually quite deeply religious.
Another example would be from the most famous physicist of all time Albert Einstein. Einstein states in his letter to Max Born, 3 March 1947, “Es gibt keine spukhafte Fernwirkung” which translates to “There is no spooky action at a distance.” He did not believe in magic. He believed in science and would regularly read the Bhagavad-gita. Einstein’s famous quote on the Bhagavad-gita is: “When I read the Bhagavad-gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.” He also wrote in his book The World as I See It, “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”.
My question then becomes, why are modern scientists so belligerent to religion when the great physicists of the early 20th century were very open to the topic? In the past 50 years very little new physics has been presented that is coherent, we are still going off of what people such as Bohr, Heisenburg, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein etc. came up with. Scientific discoveries come in waves, and we are currently not riding one.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
sigh, more appeals to authority
And for what it is worth: there have been lots of new physics in the last 50 years. And since we've been riding on Newton's coat-tails for about 350 years, do you think we should embrace all the crap he believed (like the philosophers stone)?
"we are still going off of what people such as Bohr, Heisenburg, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein etc. came up with. "
That's how science works. Do you think they started with zero scientific knowledge to get where they got?
The Vedas have nothing to do with science or the scientific method.
Very shallow thinking.
You'll need to do better Free Thinker.
The religious crap is extremely powerful to just vanished with current scientific discoveries. I think the discovery of alien life will somehow change the perspective of religious people.
With the same argument, we are constantly improving from the past, so maybe religion needs to be criticized to allow progress.
An other aspect is that scientists do not ignore ideas (even religious concepts) but wannabe scientists (graduates professors) do, just to show off and get a job.
Einstein was a scientist and so are many others.
Your comparison here FREETHINKING is a Generalization Fallacy which basically groups all scientists of today in 1 set.
Which is not the case.
Hoping you will help clear up the confusion I have concerning this post...
You've said that freethinking has engaged in a generalization fallacy by grouping all scientists into one set.
However, you also said that "scientists do not ignore...but wannabe scientists (...) do, to show off and get a job."
Help me understand how the latter is not a generalization fallacy as well. Perhaps you were being facetious and it just didn't read that way.
do you acknowledge that there are wannabe scientists or not?
people which say stupid arrogant things in public like; "aliens for sure do not exist"
I am not generalizing, but I am just stating the obvious, I am saying that wannabe scientists exist and there is ample evidence of those if you do some research.
Now mixing the wannabe scientist with all scientists of today is generalizing.
I am just pointing out that you should not mix the 2 in 1 set.
This is like saying, if an atheist is an anti theist, then all atheist must be anti theists. A generalization fallacy.
A scientist analyzes the data without ignoring it and thus he has a very humble approach, this is a basic concept.
This is irrelevant of his final decision on his opinion on a particular matter.
Even if they had been Hindu(Religiously), which I doubt they actually were, I would still find their opinions on religion nearly as compelling as you opinion on which brand of GFI outlet would provide the best product at the most reasonable price. Uh, scratch that, your opinion on GFI outlets would be vastly more interesting, maybe not compelling, but at least noteworthy.