Richard P. Feynman
The Meaning of it All
Foreword: About Richard
Feynman
Born in 1918 in Brooklyn, Richard P. Feynman
received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1942. Despite his youth, he played an
important part in the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos during World War 11.
Subsequently, he taught at Cornell and at the California Institute of
Technology. In 1965 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics, along with Sin‑Itero
Tomanaga and Julian Schwinger, for his work in quantum electrodynamics.
Dr. Feynman won his Nobel Prize for successfully
resolving problems with the theory of quantum electrodynamics. He also created
a mathematical theory that accounts for the phenomenon of superfluidity in
liquid helium. Thereafter, with Murray Gell‑Mann, he did fundamental work
in the area of weak interactions such as beta decay. In later years Feynman
played a key role in the development of quark theory by putting forward his
parton model of high energy proton collision processes.
Beyond these achievements, Dr. Feynman introduced
basic new computational techniques and nota
132
The Meaning of It All
tions into physics‑above all, the ubiquitous Feynman
diagrams, which, perhaps more than any other formalism in recent scientific
history, have changed the way in which basic physical processes are
conceptualized and calculated.
Feynman was a remarkably effective educator. Of all
his numerous awards, he was especially proud of the Oersted Medal for Teaching,
which he won in 1972. The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, originally published in 1963, were described by a reviewer
in Scientific American as
"tough, but nourishing and full of flavor. After 25 years it is the guide for teachers and for the best
of beginning students." In order to increase the understanding of physics
among the lay public, Dr. Feynman wrote The
Character of Physical Law and Q.E.D.:
The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. He also authored a number of
advanced publications that have become classic references and textbooks for
researchers and students.
Richard Feynman was a constructive public man. His
work on the Challenger commission is well known, especially his famous
demonstration of the susceptibility of the O‑rings to cold, an elegant
experiment, which required nothing more than a glass of ice water. Less well
known were Dr. Feynman's efforts on the California State Curriculum Committee
in the 1960s where he protested the mediocrity of textbooks.
A recital of Richard Feynman's myriad scientific and
educational accomplishments cannot adequately
133
About
Richard Feynman
capture the essence of the man. As any reader of
even his most technical publications knows, Feynman's lively and multisided
personality shines through all his work. Besides being a physicist, he was at
various times a repairer of radios, a picker of locks, an artist, a dancer, a
bongo player, and even a decipherer of Mayan hieroglyphics. Perpetually curious
about his world, he was an exemplary empiricist.
Richard Feynman died on February
15, 1988, in Los Angeles.
Chapter II The Uncertainty of Values
WE ARE ALL SAD when
we think of the wondrous potentialities that human beings seem to have and when
we contrast these potentialities with the small accomplishments that we have.
Again and again people have thought that we could do much better. People in the
past had, in the nightmare of their times, dreams for the future, and we of
their future have, although many of those dreams have been surpassed, to a
large extent the same dreams. The hopes for the future today are in a great
measure the same as they were in the past. At some time people thought that the
potential that people had was not developed because everyone was ignorant and
that education was the solution to the problem, that if all people were
educated, we could perhaps all be Voltaires. But it turns out that falsehood
and evil can be taught as easily as good. Education is a great power, but it
can work either way. I have heard it said that the communication between
nations should lead to an understanding and thus a solution to the problem of
developing the potentialities of man. But the means of communication can be
channeled and choked. What is communicated can be lies as well as truth,
propaganda as well as real and valuable information. Communication is a strong
force, also, but either for good or evil. The applied sciences, for a while,
were thought to free men of material difficulties
32
The Meaning of It All
at
least, and there is some good in the record, especially, for example, in
medicine. On the other hand, scientists are working now in secret laboratories
to develop the diseases that they were so careful to control.
Everybody dislikes war. Today our dream is that peace
will be the solution. Without the expense of armaments, we can do whatever we
want. And peace is a great force for good or for evil. How will it be for evil?
I do not know. We will see, if we ever get peace. We have, clearly, peace as a
great force, as well as material power, communication, education, honesty, and
the ideals of many dreamers. We have more forces of this kind to control today
than did the ancients. And maybe we are doing it a little bit better than most
of them could do. But what we ought to be able to do seems gigantic compared to
our confused accomplishments. Why is this? Why can't we conquer ourselves?
Because we find that even the greatest forces and abilities don't seem to carry
with them any clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great
accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only
convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it. The
sciences do not directly teach good and bad.
Throughout all the ages, men have been
trying to fathom the meaning of life. They realize that if some direction or
some meaning could be given to the whole thing, to our actions, then great
human forces would be unleashed. So, very many answers have been given to the
33
The Uncertainty of Values
question of the meaning of it all. But they have all
been of different sorts. And the proponents of one idea have looked with horror
at the actions of the believers of another‑horror because from a
disagreeing point of view all the great potentialities of the race were being
channeled into a false and confining blind alley. In fact, it is from the
history of the enormous monstrosities that have been created by false belief
that philosophers have come to realize the fantastic potentialities and
wondrous capacities of human beings.
The dream is to find the open channel. What, then, is
the meaning of it all? What can we say today to dispel the mystery of
existence? If we take everything into account, not only what the ancients knew,
but also all those things that we have found, out up to today that they didn't
know, then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know. But 1 think
that in admitting this we have probably found the open channel.
Admitting that we do not know and maintaining
perpetually the attitude that we do not know the direction necessarily to go permit a
possibility of alteration, of thinking, of new contributions and new
discoveries for the problem of developing a way to do what we want ultimately,
even when we do not know what we want.
Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that
they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and
absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that
34
The Meaning of It All
they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them.
And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own
beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true.
So I have developed in a previous talk, and I want to
maintain here, that it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of
uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in
some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so
many times before in various periods in the history of man. I say that we do
not know what is the meaning of life and what are the right moral values, that
we have no way to choose them and so on. No discussion can be made of moral
values, of the meaning of life and so on, without coming to the great source of
systems of morality and descriptions of meaning, which is in the field of
religion.
And so I don't feel that I could give three lectures
on the subject of the impact of scientific ideas on other ideas without frankly
and completely discussing the relation of science and religion. I don't know
why I should even have to start to make an excuse for doing this, so I won't
continue to try to make such an excuse. But I would like to begin a discussion
of the question of a conflict, if any, between science, and religion. I
described more or less what I meant by science, and I have to tell you what I
mean by religion, which is extremely difficult, because different people mean
different things. But in
35
The Uncertainty of Values
the discussion that I want to talk about here I mean
the everyday, ordinary, church‑going kind of religion, not the elegant
theology that belongs to it, but the way ordinary people believe, in a more or
less conventional way, about their religious beliefs.
I do believe that there is a conflict between
science and religion, religion more or less defined that way. And in order to
bring the question to a position that is easy to discuss, by making the thing
very definite, instead of trying to make a very difficult theological study, I
would present a problem which I see happens from time to time.
A young man of a religious family goes to the
university, say, and studies science. As a consequence of his study of science,
he begins, naturally, to doubt as it is necessary in his studies. So first he
begins to doubt, and then he begins to disbelieve, perhaps, in his father's
God. By "God" I mean the kind of personal God, to which one prays,
who has something to do with creation, as one prays for moral values, perhaps.
This phenomenon happens often. It is not an isolated or an imaginary case. In
fact, I believe, although I have no direct statistics, that more than half of
the scientists do not believe in their father's God, or in God in a
conventional sense. Most scientists do not believe in it. Why? What happens? By
answering this question I think that we will point up most clearly the problems
of the relation of religion and science.
36
The Meaning of It All
Well, why is it? There are three possibilities. The
first is that the young man is taught by the scientists, and I have already
pointed out, they are atheists, and so their evil is spread from the teacher to
the student, perpetually... Thank you for the laughter. If you take this point
of view, I believe it shows that you know less of science than I know of
religion.
The second possibility is to suggest that because a
little knowledge is dangerous, that the young man just learning a little
science thinks he knows it all, and to suggest that when he becomes a little
more mature he will understand better all these things. But I don't think so. I
think that there are many mature scientists, or men who consider themselves
mature‑and if you didn't know about their religious beliefs ahead of time
you would decide that they are mature‑who do not believe in God. As a
matter of fact, I think that the answer is the exact reverse. It isn't that he
knows it all, but he suddenly realizes that he doesn't know it all.
The third possibility of explanation of the phenomenon
is that the young man perhaps doesn't understand science correctly, that
science cannot disprove God, and that a belief in science and religion is
consistent. I agree that science cannot disprove the existence of God. I
absolutely agree. I also agree that a belief in science and religion is
consistent. I know Many scientists who believe in God. It is not my purpose to
disprove anything. There are very many scientists who do believe in God, in a
con
37
The Uncertainty of Values
ventional way too, perhaps, I do not know exactly
how they believe in God. But their belief in God and their action in science is
thoroughly consistent. It is consistent, but it is difficult. And what I would
like to discuss here is why it is hard to attain this consistency and perhaps
whether it is worthwhile to attempt to attain the consistency.
There are two sources of difficulty that the young
man we are imagining would have, I think, when he studies science. The first is
that he learns to doubt, that it is necessary to doubt, that it is valuable to
doubt. So, he begins to question everything. The question that might have been
before , Is there a God or isn't there a God" changes to the question
"How sure am I that there is a God? " He now has a new and subtle
problem that is different than it was before. He has to determine how sure he
is, where on the scale between absolute certainty and absolute certainty on the
other side he can put his belief, because he knows that he has to have his
knowledge in an unsure condition and he cannot be absolutely certain anymore.
He has to make up his mind. Is it 50‑50 or is it 97 percent? This sounds
like a very small difference, but it is an extremely important and subtle
difference. Of course it is true that the man does not usually start by
doubting directly the existence of God. He usually starts by doubting some
other details of the belief, such as the belief in an afterlife, or some of the
details of Christ's life, or something like this. But in order to make this
question
38
The Meaning of It All
as sharp as possible, to be frank with it, I will
simplify it and will come right directly to the question of this problem about
whether there is a God or not.
The result of this self‑study or thinking, or
whatever it is, often ends with a conclusion that is very close to certainty
that there is a God. And it often ends, on the other hand, with the claim that
it is almost certainly wrong to believe that there is a God.
Now the second difficulty that the student has when
he studies science, and which is, in a measure, a kind of conflict between
science and religion, because it is a human difficulty that happens when you
are educated two ways. Although we may argue theologically and on a high‑class
philosophical level that there is no conflict, it is still true that the young
man who comes from a religious family gets into some argument with himself and
his friends when he studies science, so there is some kind of a conflict.
Well, the second origin of a type of conflict is
associated with the facts, or, more carefully, the partial facts that he learns
in the science. For example, he learns about the size of the universe. The size
of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle that whirls
around the sun. That's one sun among a hundred thousand million suns in this
galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies. And again, he learns about the close
biological relationship of man to the animals and of one form of life to
another and that man is a latecomer in a long and vast,
39
The Uncertainty of Values
evolving drama. Can the rest be just a scaffolding
for His creation? And yet again there are the atoms, of which all appears to be
constructed following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it. The stars are made
of the same stuff, the animals are made of the same stuff‑but in some
such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive.
It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe,
beyond man, to contemplate what it would be like without man, as it was in a
great part of its long history and as it is in a great majority of places. When
this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter
are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as
matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to
sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting. It usually ends in
laughter and a delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom
in the universe is, this thing‑atoms with curiosity‑that looks at
itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these scientific views end in awe and
mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so
impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's
struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.
Some will tell me that I have just described a
religious experience. Very well, you may call it what you will. Then, in that
language I would say that the young man's religious experience is of such a kind
that he finds the religion of his church inadequate to describe, to encom
40
The Meaning of It All
pass that kind of experience. The God of the church
isn't big enough.
Perhaps. Everyone has different opinions.
Suppose, however, our student does come to the view
that individual prayer is not heard. I am not trying to disprove the existence
of God. I am only trying to give you some understanding of the origin of the
difficulties that People have who are educated from two different points of
view. It is not possible to disprove the existence of God, as far as I know.
But is true that it is difficult to take two different points of view that come
from different directions. So let us suppose that this particular student is
particularly difficult and does come to the conclusion that individual prayer
is not heard. Then what happens? Then the doubting machinery, his doubts, are
turned on ethical problems. Because, as he was educated, his religious views
had it that the ethical and moral values were the word of God. Now if God maybe
isn't there, maybe the ethical and moral values are wrong. And what is very
interesting is that they have survived almost intact. There may have been a
period when a few of the moral views and the ethical positions of his religion
seemed wrong, he had to think about them, and many of them he returned to.
But my atheistic scientific colleagues, which does
not include all scientists ‑ I cannot tell by their behavior, because of
course I am on the same side, that they are
41
The Uncertainty of Values
particularly different from the religious ones, and
it seems that their moral feelings and their understandings of other people and
their humanity and so on apply to the believers as well as the disbelievers. It
seems to me that there is a kind of independence between the ethical and moral
views and the theory of the machinery of the universe.
Science makes, indeed, an impact on many ideas
associated with religion, but I do not believe it affects, in any very strong way,
the moral conduct and ethical views. Religion has many aspects. It answers all
kinds of questions. I would, however, like to emphasize three aspects.
The first is that it tells what things are and where
they came from and what man is and what God is and what properties God has and
so on. I'd like, for the purposes of this discussion, to call those the metaphysical aspects of religion.
And then it says how to behave. I don't mean in the
terms of ceremonies or rituals or things like that, but I mean how to behave in
general, in a moral way. This we could call the ethical aspect of religion.
And finally, people are weak. It takes more than the
right conscience to produce right behavior. And even though you may feel you
know what you are supposed to do, you all know that you don't do things the way
you would like yourself to do them. And one of the powerful aspects of religion
is its inspirational aspects. Religion gives inspiration to act well. Not only
that, it gives inspi
42
The Meaning of It All
ration to the arts and to many other activities of
human beings.
Now these three aspects of religion are very closely
interconnected, in the religion's view. First of all, it usually goes something
like this: that the moral values are the word of God. Being the word of God
connects the ethical and metaphysical aspects of religion. And finally, that
also inspires the inspiration, because if you are working for God and obeying
God's will, you are in some way connected to the universe, your actions have a
meaning in the greater world, and that is an inspiring aspect. So these three
aspects are very well integrated and interconnected. The difficulty is that
science occasionally conflicts with the first two categories, that is with the
ethical and with the metaphysical aspects of religion.
There was a big struggle when it was discovered that
the earth rotates on its axis and goes around the sun. It was not supposed to
be the case according to the religion of the time. There was a terrible
argument and the outcome was, in that case, that religion retreated from the
position that the earth stood at the center of the universe. But at the end of
the retreat there was no change in the moral viewpoint of the religion. There
was another tremendous argument when it was found likely that man descended
from the animals. Most religions have retreated once again from the
metaphysical position that it wasn't true. The result is no particular change
in the moral view. You see that the earth moves
43
The Uncertainty of Values
around the sun, yes, then does that tell us whether
it is or is not good to turn the other cheek? It is this conflict associated
with these metaphysical aspects that is doubly difficult because the facts
conflict. Not only the facts, but the spirits conflict. Not only are there
difficulties about whether the sun does or doesn't rotate around the earth, but
the spirit or attitude toward the facts is also different in religion from what
it is in science. The uncertainty that is necessary in order to appreciate
nature is not easily correlated with the feeling of certainty in faith, which
is usually associated with deep religious belief. I do not believe that the
scientist can have that same certainty of faith that very deeply religious
people have. Perhaps they can. I don't know. I think that it is difficult. But
anyhow it seems that the metaphysical aspects of religion have nothing to do
with the ethical values, that the moral values seem somehow to be outside of
the scientific realm. All these conflicts don't seem to affect the ethical
value.
I just said that ethical values lie outside the
scientific realm. I have to defend that, because many people think the other
way. They think that scientifically we should get some conclusions about moral
values.
I have several reasons for that. You see, if you
don't have a good reason, you have to have several reasons, so I have four
reasons to think that moral values lie outside the scientific realm. First, in
the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and
there
44
The Meaning of It All
have been practically no effects on the ethical
views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence.
Second, I already pointed out that, I think at least,
there are good men who practice Christian ethics and don't believe in the
divinity of Christ. Incidentally, I forgot to say earlier that I take a
provincial view of religion. I know that there are many people here who have
religions that are not Western religions. But in a subject as broad as this it
is better to take a special example, and you have to just translate to see how
it looks if you are an Arab or a Buddhist, or whatever.
The third thing is that, as far as I know in the
gathering of scientific evidence, there doesn't seem to be anywhere, anything
that says whether the Golden Rule is a good one or not. I don't have any
evidence of it on the basis of scientific study.
And finally I would like to make a little
philosophical argument‑this I'm not very good at, but I would like to
make a little philosophical argument to explain why theoretically I think that
science and moral questions are independent. The common human problem, the big
question, always is "Should I do this?" It is a question of action.
"What should I do? Should I do this?" And how can we answer such a
question? We can divide it into two parts. We can say, "If I do this what
will happen?" That doesn't tell me whether I should do this. We still have
another part, which is "Well, do I want that to happen?" In other
words, the first ques
45
The Uncertainty of Values
tion ‑ "If I do this what will
happen?" ‑ is at least susceptible to scientific investigation; in
fact, it is a typical scientific question. It doesn't mean we know what will
happen. Far from it. We never know what is going to happen. The science is very
rudimentary But, at least it is in the realm of science we have a method to
deal with it. The method is "Try it and see" ‑ we talked about
that‑and accumulate the information and so on. And so the question
"If I do it what will happen?" is a typically scientific question.
But the question "Do I want this to happen"‑in the ultimate
moment‑is not. Well, you say, if I do this, I see that everybody is
killed, and, of course, I don't want that. Well, how do you know you don't want
people killed? You see, at the end you must have some ultimate judgment.
You could take a different example. You could say,
for instance, "If I follow this economic policy, I see there is going to be
a depression, and, of course, I don't want a depression." Wait. You see,
only knowing that it is a depression doesn't tell you that you do not want it.
You have then to judge whether the feelings of power you would get from this,
whether the importance of the country moving in this direction is better than
the cost to the people who are suffering. Or maybe there would be some
sufferers and not others. And so there must at the end be some ultimate
judgment somewhere along the line as to what is valuable, whether people are
valuable, whether life is valuable. Deep in the end‑you may
46
The Meaning of It All
follow the argument of what will happen further and
further along‑but ultimately you have to decide "Yeah) I want
that" or "No, I don't." And the judgment there is of a different
nature. I do not see how by knowing what will happen alone it is possible to
know if ultimately you want the last of the things. I believe, therefore, that
it is impossible to decide moral questions by the scientific technique, and
that the two things are independent.
Now the inspirational aspect, the third aspect of
religion, is what I would like to turn to, and that brings me to a central
question that I would like to ask you all, because I have no idea of the answer.
The source of inspiration today, the source of strength and comfort in any
religion, is closely knit with the metaphysical aspects. That is, the
inspiration comes from working for God, from obeying His will, and so on. Now
an emotional tie expressed in this manner, the strong feeling that you are
doing right, is weakened when the slightest amount of doubt is expressed as to
the existence of God. So when a belief in God is uncertain, this particular
method of obtaining inspiration fails. I don't know the answer to this problem,
the problem of maintaining the real value of religion as a source of strength
and of courage to most men while at the same time not requiring an absolute
faith in the metaphysical system. You may think that it might be possible to
invent a metaphysical system for religion which will state things in such a way
that science
47
The Uncertainty of Values
will never find itself in disagreement. But I do not
think that it is possible to take an adventurous and everexpanding science that
is going into an unknown, and to tell the answer to questions ahead of time and
not expect that sooner or later, no matter what you do, you will find that some
answers of this kind are wrong. So I do not think that it is possible to not
get into a conflict if you require an absolute faith in metaphysical aspects,
and at the same time I don't understand how to maintain the real value of
religion for inspiration if we have some doubt as to that. That's a serious
problem.
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two
great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventurethe adventure into
the unknown, an unknown that must be recognized as unknown in order to be
explored, the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain
unanswered, the attitude that all is uncertain. To summarize it: humility of
the intellect.
The other great heritage is Christian ethics‑the
basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the
individual, the humility of the spirit. These two heritages are logically,
thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all. One needs one's heart to follow an
idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the
modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God? More, one who
disbelieves in God? Is the modern church the place to give comfort and
encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far,
48
The Meaning of It All
haven't
we drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these
consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this
unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of
Western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually
unafraid? That, I don't know. But that, I think, is the best I can do on the
relationship of science and religion, the religion which has been in the past
and still is, therefore, a source of moral code as well as inspiration to
follow that code.
Today we find, as always, a conflict
between nations, in particular a conflict between the two great sides, Russia
and the United States. I insist that we are uncertain of our moral views.
Different people have different ideas of what is right and wrong. If we are
uncertain of our ideas of what is right and wrong, how can we choose in this
conflict? Where is the conflict? With economic capitalism versus government
control of economics, is it absolutely clear and perfectly important which side
is right? We must remain uncertain. We may be pretty sure that capitalism is
better than government control, but we have our own government controls. We
have 52 percent; that is the corporate income tax control.
There are
arguments between religion on the one hand, usually meant to r~present our
country, and atheism on the other hand, supposed to represent the Russians. Two
points of view‑they are only two points of view‑no way to decide.
There is a problem of human
49
The Uncertainty of Values
values, or the value of the
state, the question of how to deal with crimes against the state‑different
points of view‑we can only be uncertain. Do we have a real conflict?
There is perhaps some progress of dictatorial government toward the confusion
of democracy and the confusion of democracy toward somewhat more dictatorial
government. Uncertainty apparently means no conflict. How nice. But I don't
believe it. I think there is a definite conflict. I think that Russia
represents danger in saying that the solution to human problems is known, that
all effort should be for the state, for that means there is no novelty. The
human machine is not allowed to develop its potentialities, its surprises, its
varieties, its new solutions for difficult problems, its new points of view.
The government of the United
States was developed under the idea that nobody knew how to make a government,
or how to govern. The result is to invent a system to govern when you don't
know how. And the way to arrange it is to permit a system, like we have,
wherein new ideas can be developed and tried out and thrown away. The writers
of the Constitution knew of the value of doubt. In the age that they lived, for
instance, science had already developed far enough to show the possibilities
and potentialities that are the result of having uncertainty, the value of
having the openness of possibility The fact that you are not sure means that it
is possible that there is another way some day. That openness of possi‑
120
The Meaning of It All
will arise because we have almost free energy when
we get to controlled fusion. And in the near future the developments in biology
will make problems like no one has ever seen before. The very rapid
developments of biology are going to cause all kinds of very exciting problems.
I haven't time to describe them, so I just refer you to Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World, which gives some
indication of the type of problem that future biology will involve itself in.
One thing about the future I look to with favor. I
think there are a lot of things working in the right direction. In the first
place, the fact that there are so many nations and they hear each other, on
account of the communications, even if they try to close their ears. And so
there are all kinds of opinions running around, and the net result is that it's
hard to keep ideas out. And some of the troubles that the Russians are having
in holding down people like Mr. Nakhrosov are a kind of trouble that I hope
will continue to develop.
One other point that I would like to take a moment
or two to make a little bit more in detail is this one: The problem of moral
values and ethical judgments is one into which science cannot enter, as I have
already indicated, and which I don't know of any particular way to word.
However, I see one possibility. There may be others, but I see one possibility.
You see we need some kind of a mechanism, something like the trick we have to
make an observation and believe it, a scheme for choosing
121
This Unscientific Age
moral values. Now in the days of Galileo there were great
arguments about what makes a body fall, all kinds of arguments about the medium
and the pushes and the pulls and so on. And what Galileo did was disregard all
the arguments and decide if it fell and how fast it fell, and just describe
that. On that everybody could agree. And keep on studying in that direction, on
what everyone can agree, and never mind the machinery and the theory
underneath, as long as possible. And then gradually, with the accumulation of
experience, you find other theories underneath that are more satisfactory,
perhaps. There were in the early days of science terrible arguments about, for
instance, light. Newton did some experiments which showed that a light beam
separated and spread with a prism would never get separated again. Why did he
have to argue with Hooke? He had to argue with Hooke because of the theories of
the day about what light was like and so on. He wasn't arguing whether the
phenomenon was right. Hooke took a prism and saw that it was true.
So the question is whether it is possible to do
something analogous (and work by analogy) with moral problems. I believe that
it is not at all impossible that there be agreements on consequences, that we
agree on the net result, but maybe not on the reason we do what we ought to do.
That the argument that existed in the early days of the Christians as to, for
instance, whether Jesus was of a substance like the Father or of the same substance as the
122
The Meaning of It All
Father, which when translated into the Greek became
the argument between the Homoiousion and the Homousians. Laugh, but people were
hurt by that. Reputations were destroyed, people were killed, arguing whether
it's the same or similar. And today we should learn that lesson and not have an
argument as to the reason why we agree if we agree.
I therefore consider the Encyclical of Pope John
XXIII, which I have read, to be one of the most remarkable occurrences of our
time and a great step to the future. I can find no better expression of my
beliefs of morality, of the duties and responsibilities of mankind, people to
other people, than is in that encyclical. I do not agree with some of the
machinery which supports some of the ideas, that they spring from God, perhaps,
I don't personally believe, or that some of these ideas are the natural
consequence of ideas of earlier popes, in a natural and perfectly sensible way.
I don't agree, and I will not ridicule it, and 1 won't argue it. I agree with
the responsibilities and with the duties that the Pope represents as the
responsibilities and the duties of people. And I recognize this encyclical as
the beginning, possibly, of a new future where we forget, perhaps, about the
theories of why we believe things as long as we ultimately in the end, as far
as action is concerned, believe the same thing.
Thank you very much. I enjoyed myself.
Index
Abject honesty, 106
Action
making choices, 44‑45 results of, 45
Adventure,
scientific spirit of, 47
Advertising
as perpetually insulting, 87 in television, 85
Age
heroic, 62‑63 unscientific, 59‑122
Alternative
theories, 69
Americanism Center,
Altadena, 99
Analogy
dangers in arguing from, 117 work by, 121
Ancients
and imagination, 10
Anecdotes,
82‑83
Answers,
insistence on, 66
Arabian
scholars of science, 115
Arguing from analogy, 117
Art, modern, 55
Atheists, 36, 40‑41
Atomic bomb, testing, 108
Atoms, 12,14
Authority, feelings toward, 61
Bacteria,
proteins of, 11‑12
Beliefs
in existence of God, 38 religious, 43
Bible,
predicting phenomena, 94‑95
Biology, science of, 53‑54,
62
Birch Society, 100
Boogie man, 103
Brain, imagination of human,
22
Brave New World
(Huxley), 120
California, real estate in, 96
Campaign promises, 66
Candles, 13‑14
Chance, 80‑81
124
Index
Change, experiencing, 67
Chemical
History of a
Candle (Faraday), 13‑14
Chemistry, 15
Christ, nondivinity of, 44
Christians,
121‑22 ethics, 44, 47‑48
Christian Science, 93‑94
Civilization, Western, 47
Coincidence, 82‑83
Commentators, 88‑89
Communication, 31
Conclusions
attaining, 65‑66 uncertainty of, 26
Conflicts,
43‑44 between nations, 48
Congressmen,
ratings of, 101
Constitution,
writers of, 49‑50
Contemplation
of universe, 39
Criminal detection, 118
Danger
from radioactivity, 107
Dan Smoot Report, The, 100
Danz lectures, vii, 61, 97‑98
Democracy, confusion of, 49
Deserts
buying land in, 95‑96 and water, 96
Detection, criminal, 118
Discipline, requirement of, in
scientific reasoning, 18
Discovering new things, 98
Doubt
freedom to, 28 its value in sciences, 28 learning to, 37 scientists dealing
with, 26‑27 turned on ethical problems, 40
Dream
of finding open channel, 33
Education, 31
Electricity, 13‑15
Encyclical of Pope
John XXIII, 122
Energy, free, 120
Ethical and moral views, 41
Ethical
aspects of religion, 41‑2
Ethical judgments, 120‑21
Ethical
problems, doubts turned on, 40
Ethical values, 43
Ethics, Christian, 44, 47‑48
Exception
tests the rule, 15‑16
Experience, religious, 39‑40
Extrapolations, 25
Facts learned in
. science, 38‑39
Faith
certainty in, 43
125
Index
healers,
93‑94 people believing in, 33‑34
Faraday, Michael, 13‑14
Farm problem, 65‑66
Federal Pure Food and Drug
Act, 97
Financial
arrangements, international, 118
Flying saucers, 75‑76
Freedom to doubt, 28
Free energy, 120
Free ideas and
Poland, 52‑53
Fusion, controlled, 120
Future
looking to, 119‑20 new, 122
Galileo, 121
Germany,
fear of resurgence of, 52
God
belief in, 36‑37 definition of, 35 existence of, 37‑38 moral values
are word of, 42 questioning existence of, 46‑47
Golden Rule, 44
Govern,
inventing a system to, 49
Government, limited, 57
Government
power, limit to, 50
Healers,
faith, 93‑94
Health
products, 97
Heaven,
science is key to gates of, 6‑7 Heritages, two, 47
Heroic
age, 62‑63
Homoiousions,
122
Homoousians,
122
Honesty
abject, 106 lack of, 106, 109‑10
Hooke,
Robert, 121
Human
beings; See also People imagination of brains, 22 physiology of, 12‑13
potentialities of, 3 1 proteins of, 11‑12 relationships among, 22
Huxley,
Aldous, 120
Hypnotism,
74‑75
Ideas
development of, 55 free, 52‑53 having permanence or constancy, 75 impact
of, 3‑4 judging, 64 new, 27, 114 old, 3‑4 truth of,21 Ignorance,
admission of, 34 Imagination, 10 of human brain, 22
126
Index
Imagination
(cont.) of nature, 10 in science, 22‑23
Independence
between ethical and moral views, 41
Indians, Navajo, 86‑87
Information, lack of, 98
Inheritance, psychoplasmic,
53
Inspiration, 42, 46‑47
Intelligence
of average television looker, 87‑88
Intelligent
questions, asking, 65
International
financial arrangements, 118
Inventions, nontechnological,
118‑19
Jesus,
121‑22
John Birch Society, 100
John XXIII,
Pope, 122
judgments ethical, 120‑21
ultimate, 45‑46
Khrushchev,
Nikita Sergeyevich, 55
Knowing,
living without, 27‑28
Knowledge
admitting lack of, 33 believers and nonbelievers, 92‑93
is dangerous, 36
Labels and health products, 97
Land
buying in deserts, 95‑96 and water, 96
Laws, old‑, 24
Life
internal machinery of, 11 meaning of, 32‑33
Living
without knowing, 27‑28
Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich,
53‑54
Mariner II voyage to
Venus, 109‑12
Matter, atoms of, 14
Mental telepathy, 71‑74
Metaphysical
aspects of religion, 41‑42
Middle Ages, 21, 115
Mind readers, 69‑70
Mind reading, analyzable, 71
M.I.T., fraternity at, 82
Modem art, 55
Moon,
propaganda and going to, 113
Moral
values, 120‑21 outside scientific realm, 43‑45 as word of God, 42
Moral
views, 41 uncertainty of, 48 unchanged,42‑43
127
Index
Motion, as not affecting Paralysis
weight, 24 of
everything, 103
principle
of, 102‑3
Nakhrosov, 55‑56, 120 using
method of, 105
Nations, conflict between, 48 Paranoia,
103‑4
Nature
imagination of, 10
rules that describe, 24
understanding
workings of, 15
Navajo Indians, 86‑87
New ideas, 27
Newspaper reporters, 88‑89
Newton, Sir Isaac, 121
Nontechnological
inventions, 118‑19
Nuclear testing, 106‑7
Objectivity of science, 18‑19
Observations, 15
game of making, 18
improving effectiveness
of, 71
as judge of truth of
ideas, 21
limitations of, 16
rough, 17
in Middle Ages, 21
Occurrences, one or two as
proof, 83‑84
Open channel,
maintaining, 57
Origins of universe, 12
Padgovney, 55‑56
People;
See also Human beings as not honest, 106 ordinary, 76, 85‑86 Polish, 51
radio religion, 94‑95
Phenomena, 106
Bible predicting, 94‑95
Philosophers, 20
Philosophy of science, 18
Physics
freedom for, 54 two schools of, 54
Physiology
of human beings, 12‑13
Point Four program, 7‑8
Poland and free ideas, 52‑53
Polish people, 51
Politics
disparaging of, 66 unscientific role of, 97‑98
Potentialities
of human beings, 31
Power
to do things, 5‑6 limit to government, 50
Prayers, individual, 40
Precision of statements, 25
Prediction, 23
Probability, 80‑81
128
Index
Problems farm, 65‑66 grappling with, 56‑57 what is probable, 77
Products, health, 97
Programs
Point Four, 7‑8
Ranger, 112‑13
Promises, campaign, 66
Propaganda and going to
moon, 113
Proportion, sense of, 105
Proteins of bacteria, 11‑12 of humans, 11‑12
Protocol of the Elders of
Zion,
106
Psychoplasmic inheritance, 53
Questions, asking
intelligent, 65
Radioactivity danger from, 107 protection
from effects of, 108‑9 unsafe level of, 107‑8
Radio religion people, 94‑95
Ranger program, 112‑13
Read, ability to, 116
Real estate in California, 96
Reasoning and positive
inventions, 18 scientific, 18
Relations among scientists, 21‑22
Relationships,
human, 22
Religion as answering all
kinds of questions, 41 ethical aspect of, 41 and
inspiration, 47 inspirational aspects of, 41‑42 metaphysical aspects of, 41‑42 radio people, 94‑95
Religious
beliefs, 43
Religious experiences, 39‑40
Reporters, newspaper, 8889
Resurgence of Germany, fear
of, 52
Rules to be checked, 23 and
consistency of science, 23 exception tests, 15‑16 powerfulness of, 20 specificity of, 19 testing
of, 19 that describe nature, 24
Russia backward country, 50 and
biology, 53‑54 development of ideas, 55 and
modern art, 55 not free, 53
129
Index
Sampling, statistical, 84, 89‑91
Science Arabian scholars of,
115 contents of, 9 development speed of, 62 doubt
as value in, 28 facts learned in, 38‑39 imagination in, 22‑23 key to gates of heaven, 6‑7 limitation of, 63 meaning of, 4‑5 as method, 15 as misunderstood, 36‑37 objectivity of, 18‑19 philosophy of, 18 practical
aspects of, 9 and religion conflict
between, 35 relation of, 34‑35 rules and consistency of, 23 and
society relationships, 7 and technology, 50 three
aspects of, 4‑5 uncertainty of, 1‑28 value of, 6
Scientific realm, moral
values as outside, 43‑45
Scientific
reasoning, 18
Scientists as atheists, 36 dealing
with doubt and uncertainty, 26‑27
relations among, 21‑22
Seaton, Mother, 77‑79
Society and science,
relations between, 7
Speech, parts of, 115‑16
Spinning of tops, 24‑26
S.P.X. Research
Associates, 102, 105
Statistical sampling, 84, 89
91
Stupidity, phenomena result
of a general, 95
Systems, traffic, 118
Technology applications of, 62 and
science, 50
Telekinesis, 68
Telepathy, mental, 71‑74
Television advertising in, 85 looker,
intelligence of average, 87‑88
Testing, nuclear, 106‑7
Theories, allowing for
alternative, 69
Thoroughness, concept of, 17
Tops, spinning, 24‑26
Traffic systems, 118
Troubles and lack of
information, 91
Truth of ideas, 21 writing,
56
130
Index
Uncertainties
admission of, 34 dealing with, 66‑67, 71 relative certainties out of, 98 remaining, 70‑71 of science, 1‑28 scientists dealing with, 26‑27 of values, 29‑57
Uncertainty,
67‑68
Universe
contemplation of, 39 origins of, 12
Unscientific
age, 59‑122
Values
ethical, 43
moral,
120‑21 uncertainty of, 29‑57
Venus
flying saucers from, 75 Mariner 1I voyage to, 109‑12
Vocabulary, 116
War, dislike of, 32
Water, and deserts, 96
Weight,
as not affected by motion, 24
Western civilization, 47
Witch doctors, 114
Words, as meaningless,
20
Writing truth, 56