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