Scientists are often known for their thoughts about God. Like their other pursuits, they are prominently independent about their worldviews of God. Max Born or Einstein, Feynman or Homi Bhabha (?) they have all shown us their independent views about God. It has got nothing to do with God as such. That is independent of the God’s existential truth the question of God or a creator is entertained into the list of things a scientist may think upon.
Scientists are an enlightened lot. They are creatively inspired to understand various works of nature, to seek a path of exploration to the inner truth of Universe and to comprehend the relationship of such human endeavor with the concurrent prospective and myth.
In understanding the relationship between epistemology and knowledge itself, in surmising the relationship between Philosophy and the process of learning they establish their own unique view of the world we live in and the world they imagine. Therefore among other things scientists have a prominent outlook towards a significantly insignificant question, the existence of a creator-master, one who has created and one who is the master of our Universe.
While the physical significance of such a God is out of the Scientists definition of the Universe and therefore any conceptualization that has to follow from his work, thought, view, opinion, learning he establishes an understanding of the Gods conceptualization elsewhere.
I came across, a few hours ago some remarks by an anonymous chap in some online content which describes one famed scientist’s views of God and how it was taken by an average God enthusiast or more appropriately compulsive God believer. Reactionary misunderstanding of scientific views is a pretty common affair on any internet discussion. (and my tweet of today, 15.5.2011: misunderstanding is the mother of confident ignorance)
Little do these folks understand that objecting someone else’s independent views is like not allowing another person his own personality, then it becomes easy to say “this is our independent view.” This is a 3rd rate response but pretty awesome when you can shut someone up.
SO this anonymous chap who I have no connection with says ”Why is it that the most learned people, the scientists are often not sure about their views, they are filled with doubts in their own thoughts, but from eternity the religious people have been propagating views that has no basis but they are so sure and hardened about everything”.
SO my idea is: well you just hit religion. This is why it’s called religion. It’s a hardened moth.
SO lets allow some room to the scientist guys to form their opinions and their ideas about what they think and what they have understood so far from their observations about these worldly affairs of God and its implications on our philosophical orientation.
NOT YET COMPLETE; to be written later