Progress in Science and Religion
A Talk By
Freeman Dyson (2000)
On the Occasion of receiving the 2000 Templeton Prize.
First, a big thank you to Sir John Templeton
and the administrators of the Templeton Foundation for giving me this
undeserved and unexpected honor. Second, a big thank
you to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton for supporting me as a Professor of Physics while I
strayed into other areas remote from physics. Third, a big thank you to the editors and publishers of my books for giving
me the chance to communicate with a wider public. Fourth. a big thank you to my wife and family for keeping me from getting a swelled head. And
fifth, a big thank you to the Washington National Cathedral for allowing us to
use this magnificent building for our ceremonies.
Science
and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the
big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here.
Sir John Templeton has told its
clearly the purpose of his awards. They are prizes for Progress in Religion.
But it is up to us to figure out what Progress in Religion means. Roughly speaking. there have been
two main themes in the lives of the previous prize‑winners. The first theme is
practical good works, caring for the poor and sick, helping the dying to die
with dignity. Outstanding among the doers of good works were Mother Teresa and
Dame Cicely Saunders.
The second theme is scholarly study and teaching,
helping people who are committed to one religion or
another to approach God through intellectual understanding, explaining to the
uncommitted the logical foundations of belief. Outstanding among the scholarly prize‑winners
are James McCord and Ian Barbour. I am amazed to find myself in the company of
these great spirits, half of them saints and the other half theologians. I am
neither a saint nor a theologian.
To me, good works are more important than theology. We
all know that religion has been historically, and still is today, a cause of` great
evil as well as great good in human affairs. We have seen terrible wars and
terrible persecutions conducted in the name of religion. We have also seen
large numbers of people inspired by religion to lives of heroic virtue, bringing
education and medical care to the poor, helping to abolish slavery and spread
peace among nations.
The two
windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe.
Religion amplifies the good and evil tendencies of
individual souls. Religion will always remain a powerful force in the history
of our species. To me, the meaning of progress in religion is simply this, that
as we move from the past to the future the good works inspired by religion
should more and more prevail over the evil.
Even in the gruesome history of the twentieth century, I
see same evidence of progress in religion. The two
individuals who epitomized the evils of our century. Adolf Hitler and
Joseph Stalin, were both avowed atheists. Religion
cannot be field responsible for their atrocities. And the three individuals who
epitomized the good, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, were
all in their different ways religious.
One of the great but less famous heroes of World War Two
was Andre Trocme, the Protestant pastor of the village of Le Chambon sur Lignon
in France. which sheltered and saved the lives of five
thousand Jews under the noses of the Gestapo. Forty years
later Pierre Sauvage. one of the Jews who was
saved, recorded the story of the village in a magnificent documentary film with
the title, “Weapons of the Spirit.” The villagers proved that civil
disobedience and passive resistance could be effective weapons, even against
Hitler. Their religion gave them the Courage and the discipline to stand firm.
Progress in religion means that, as time goes on, religion more and more takes
the side of the victims against the oppressors.
Both
views tire one‑sided, neither is complete. Both leave
oat Essential features Of the real world. And both are
worthy of respect.
For Ian Barbour, who won the Templeton Prize last year,
religion is, an intellectual passion. For me it is
simply a part of the human condition. Recently I visited the Imani church in Trenton
because my daughter, who is a Presbyterian minister. happened
to he preaching there. Imani is an innercity church with a mostly black congregation
and a black minister. The people come to church, not only to worship god, but
also to have a good time. The service is in formal and the singing is marvelous. While
I was there they baptized seven babies, six black and one white. Each baby in
turn was not merely shown to the congregation but handed around to be hugged by
everybody. Sociological studies have shown that violent crimes occur less
frequently in the neighborhood of Imani church than elsewhere in the inner city. After the two hour service was over, the
congregation moved into the adjoining assembly room and ate a substantial lunch. Sharing the
food is to me more important than arguing about beliefs. Jesus, according to
the gospels, thought so too.
I am content to be one of the multitude
of Christians who do not care much about the doctrine of the Trinity or the
historical truth of the gospels. Both as a scientist and as a religious person,
I am accustomed to living with uncertainty. Science is exciting because it is
full of unsolved mysteries and religion is exciting for the same reason.
The greatest unsolved mysteries are the mysteries of our
existence as conscious beings in a small corner of a vast universe. Why are we
here? Does the Universe have a purpose? Whence comes our
knowledge of good and evil? These mysteries and a hundred others like them, are beyond the reach of science. They lie on the other
side of the border, within the jurisdiction of religion.
The
greatest unsolved mysteries are the mysteries of our existence as conscious
beings in a small corner of' a vast universe.
My personal theology is described in the Gifford
lectures that I gave at Aberdeen in Scotland in I985, published under the
title, Infinite In
All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The universe shows
evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is
elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the
laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own
consciousness.
The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the
laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert
substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities
according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested
by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The
universe as a whole is also weird with laws of nature that make it hospitable
to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and
God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our
comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world‑souls.
It
appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some
extent inherent in every atom.
So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds
that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking,
midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God.
Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of
God’s mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and
from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is
compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of
modem physics. I don’t say that this personal theology is supported or proved
by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific
evidence.
I do not claim any ability to read God’s mind. I am sure
of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky
and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around its, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the
universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity.
The principle of maximum diversity says that the laws of
nature, and the initial conditions at the beginning of time, are such as to
make the universe as interesting as possible. As a result, life is possible but
not too easy. Maximum diversity often leads to maximum stress. In the end we
survive, but only by the skin of our teeth. This is the confession of faith of
a scientific heretic. Perhaps I may claim as evidence for progress in religion
the fact that we no longer burn heretics.
That is enough about me. Let me talk now
about the great transformations of the world that we are facing in the future.
All through our history, we have been changing the world with our technology.
Our technology has been of two kinds, green and grey. Green technology is seeds
and plants, gardens and vineyards and orchards, domesticated horses and cows
and pigs, milk and cheese, leather and wool. Grey technology is bronze and
steel, spears and guns, coal and oil and electricity, automobiles and airplanes
and rockets, telephones and computers.
Civilization began with green technology, with
agriculture and animal breeding, ten thousand years ago. Then, beginning about
three thousand years ago, grey technology became dominant, with mining and
metallurgy and machinery. For the last five hundred years, grey technology has
been racing ahead and has given birth to the modern world of cities and
factories and supermarkets.
All
through our history, we have been changing the world with our technology.
The dominance of grey technology is now coming to an end. During the
last fifty years, we have achieved a fundamental understanding of the processes
occurring in living cells. With understanding comes the ability to exploit and
control. Out of the knowledge acquired by modern biology, modern biotechnology
is growing. The new green technology will give us the power, using only
sunlight as a source of energy, and air and water and soil as sources of
materials, to manufacture and recycle chemicals of all kinds.
Our grey technology of machines and computers will not
disappear, but green technology will be moving ahead even faster. Green
technology can he cleaner, more flexible and less wasteful than our existing chemical industries.
A great variety of manufactured objects could he grown instead of made. Green
technology could supply human needs with fatless, damage to the natural
environment. And green technology could be a great equalizer, bringing wealth
to the tropical areas of the world which have most of the sunshine, most of the
human population, and most of the poverty.
A great
variety of' manufactured
objects could be grown instead of made. Green technology could supply human
needs with far less damage to the natural environment.
I am saying that green technology could do all these
good things, bringing wealth to the tropics, bringing economic opportunity to
the villages, narrowing the gap between rich and poor. I am not saying that
green technology will do all these good things. “Could” is not
the same as "will". To make these good things happen, we need
not only the new technology but the political and economic conditions that will
give people all over the world a chance to use it.
To make these things happen, we need a
powerful push from ethics. We need a consensus of public opinion around the
world that the existing gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth are
intolerable. In reaching such a consensus, religions must play an essential
role. Neither technology alone nor religion alone is powerful enough to bring
social justice to human societies, but technology and religion working together
might do the job. We all know that green technology has a dark side, just as grey technology has a dark side.
Grey technology brought us hydrogen bombs as well as
telephones. Green technology brought us anthrax bombs, as well as, antibiotics.
Besides the dangers of biological weapons, green technology brings other
dangers having nothing to do with weapons.
Neither
technology alone nor religion alone is powerful enough to
bring social justice to human societies,
but technology and
religion working together might do the job.
The ultimate danger of green technology comes from its
power to change the nature of human beings by the application of genetic
engineering to human embryos. If we allow a free market in human genes, wealthy
parents will be able to buy what they consider superior genes for their babies.
This could cause a splitting of humanity into hereditary castes. Within a few
generations, the children of rich and poor could become separate species.
Humanity would then have regressed all the way back to a society of masters and
slaves. No matter how strongly we believe ill the virtues of a free market
economy, the free market must not extend to human genes.
No
matter how strongly we believe in the virtues of a free market economy, the free
market must not extend to human genes.
A few weeks ago I was attending Mass in St. Stephen's
church in England. In Princeton I am Presbyterian, but in England I am catholic
because I go to Mass with my sister. The reading from the gospel of St. Matthew
told of the angry Jesus driving the merchants and money changers out of the
temple, knocking over the tables of the money-changers and spilling their coins
on the floor.
Jesus was not opposed to capitalism and the profit
motive, so long as economic activities were carried on outside the temple. In
the parable of the talents, he praises the servant who used his master's money
to make a profitable investment, and condemns the servant who was too timid to
invest. But he draws a clear line at the temple door. Inside the temple, the
ground belongs to God and profit‑making must stop.
While I was listening to the reading, I was thinking how
Jesus’s anger might extend to free markets in human bodies and human genes. In the
time of Jesus and for many centuries afterwards, there was a free market in
human bodies. The institution of slavery was based on the legal right of slave‑owners
to buy and sell their property in a free market. Only in the nineteenth century
did the abolitionist movement, with Quakers and other religious believers in
the lead succeed in establishing the principle that the free market does not
extend to human bodies.
The human body is God’s temple and not a commercial
commodity. And now in the twenty‑first century, for the sake of equity and
human brotherhood, we must maintain the principle that the free market does not
extend to human genes. Let its hope that we can reach a consensus on this
question without fighting another civil war. Scientists and religious believers
and physicians and lawyers must come together with mutual respect to achieve a
consensus and to decide where the line at the door of the temple should be
drawn.
Like all the new technologies that have arisen from
scientific knowledge, biotechnology is a tool that can be used either for good
or for evil purposes. The role of ethics is to strengthen the good and avoid
the evil. I see two tremendous goods coining from biotechnology in the next
century, first the alleviation of human misery through progress in medicine,
and second the transformation of the global economy through green technology
spreading wealth more equitably around the world.
Like all
tire new technologies that have arisen from scientific knowledge, biotechnologv is a tool that can be used either for good or
for evil purposes.
The two great evils to be avoided are the use of
biological weapons and the corruption of human nature by buying and selling
genes. I see no scientific reason why we should not achieve the good and avoid
the evil.
The obstacles to achieving the good are political rather
than technical. Unfortunately a large number of people in many countries are
strongly opposed to green technology, for reasons having little to do with the
real dangers. It is important to treat the opponents with respect, to pay
attention to their fears, to go gently into the new world of green technology
so that neither human dignity nor religious conviction is violated. If we can
go gently, we have a good chance of achieving within a hundred years the goals
of ecological sustainability and social justice that green technology brings
within our reach.
I see no
scientific reason why we should not achieve the good and avoid the evil. The
obstacles to achieving the good are political rather than technical.
Now I have five minutes left to give you a message to
take home. The message is simple. “God forbid that we should give out a dream
of our own imagination for a pattern of the world.” This was said by Francis
Bacon, one of the founding fathers of modem science, almost four hundred years
ago. Bacon was the smartest man of his time, with the possible exception of
William Shakespeare. Bacon saw clearly what science could do and what science
could not do. He is saying to the philosophers and theologians of his time:
look for God in the facts of nature, not in the theories of Plato and
Aristotle.
I am saying to modern scientists and theologians: don’t
imagine that our latest ideas about the Big Bang or the human genome have
solved the mysteries of the universe or the mysteries of life. Here are Bacon's
words again: “The subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
subtlety of the senses and understanding.”
In the last four hundred years, science has fulfilled
many of Bacon's dreams, but it still does not come close to capturing the full
subtlety of nature. To talk about the end of science is just as foolish as to
talk about the end of religion. Science and religion are both still close to
their beginnings, with no ends in sight. Science and religion are both destined
to grow and change in the millennia that lie ahead of us, perhaps solving some
old mysteries, certainly discovering new mysteries of which we yet have no inkling.
“The subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety
of the senses and understanding". Francis Bacon
After sketching his program for the scientific
revolution that lie foresaw, Bacon ends his account
with a prayer: "Humbly we pray that this mind may be steadfast in us, and
that through these our hands, and the hands of others to whom thou shalt give
the same spirit, thou wilt vouchsafe to endow the human family with new mercies.”
That is still a good prayer for all of us as we begin the twenty-first century.
Science and religion are two windows that people look
through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand
why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the
same universe. Both views are one‑sided, neither is complete. Both leave out
essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble
arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when
either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims
universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims
to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are
equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science
and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance.
The media rarely mention the fact that the great
majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat
science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat
religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over
scientific questions. In the little town of Princeton where I live, we have
more than twenty churches and at least one synagogue, providing different forms
of worship and belief for different kinds of people. They do more than any
other organizations in the town to hold the community together. Within this
community of people, held together by religious traditions of' human
brotherhood and sharing of burdens, a smaller community of professional
scientists also flourishes.
The
great question for our time is, how to make sure that the
continuing scientific revolution brings benefits to everybody rather than widening
the gap between rich and poor.
I look out from the pampered little community of Princeton,
which Einstein described in a letter to a friend in Europe as "a quaint
and ceremonious village, peopled by demi‑gods on stilts". I look out from
this community of bankers and professors to ask, what can we
do for the suffering multitudes of humanity in the world outside.
The great question for our time is,
how to make sure that the continuing scientific revolution brings benefits to
everybody rather than widening the gap between rich and poor. To lift up poor
countries, and poor people in rich countries, from poverty, to give them a chance
of a decent life, technology is not enough. 'Technology must be guided and
driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich.
Scientists and business leaders who care about social justice should join
forces with environmental and religious organizations to give, political clout
to ethics‑ Science and religion should work together to abolish the gross
inequalities that prevail in the modern world. That is my vision, and it is the
same vision that inspired Francis Bacon four hundred years ago, when he prayed
that through science God would "endow the human family with new
mercies".
Science
and religion should work together to abolish the gross inequalities that prevail
in the modern world. That is my
vision.