Werner Heisenberg vs. the New Atheists

Despite the desperate rants of the “new atheists,” many of history’s greatest scientists were Christians. Many of them even claimed that their belief in God motivated their research, or that God’s existence was confirmed by their findings.

Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of quantum mechanics. Having plumbed the depths of reality, he declared that God was waiting.

Before I got banned the second time from Twitter, I had made a meme with a picture is an obvious duffus that said, “This guy thinks he’s smarter than me because he doesn’t understand what I’m saying.”

If I made that meme again I’d use this guy’s picture.

This New Atheist looks a lot like DW in a bad disguise. Alter ego, perhaps?

I hate satanists more than atheists.

I drooled from laughing

He also stated these things before humanity had achieved an understanding of DNA and it’s overwhelming confirmation of the theory of evolution.
It’s easy to quote scientists from the past to flatter your silly assumptions about a Jewish Sky Despot.

David should win a Nobel prize in philosophy

I have no doubt that Heisenberg was a towering intellect who contributed hugely to science.

However, that does not mean that the man is in some special position of facts when it comes to all matters, including religion.
I looked at his profile on Wikipedia, where he is described as having been a “…a devout Christian…”.
I have some sympathy for deism - the idea that there might be some sort of entity that has a creative or sustaining role in the Universe, but I have ZERO time for theism, where we get into the far more specific beliefs involving that deity having a special relationship with humans who might respond to things like prayer or concepts like sin and stuff like that.

I think that a young person being raised with a particular religious faith is probably quite likely to find the teachings of that specific faith to be convincing, if for no other reason than the mind of young is supple, primed to accept knowledge being provided from ones elders and does not yet have the tools of scientific skepticism with which to counter its claims. Furthermore, it is well known that information contrary to a belief is often protected by compartmentalization.

I find it bizarre that someone like Heisenberg would find a particular religious belief - Christianity - one of possibly thousands of human religions - to have a special evidential support over other religions. I’d be very interested to be able to bring him back and present to the scientific community his justifications for why Christianity is grounded in fact where the many, many other religious are somehow ‘not’! What would Heisenberg hold up as evidence for Christianity over other religious beliefs? The Bible? What value should we accord one book? Would that ‘cut the mustard’ if he applied it to providing evidence for the existence of a new type of fundamental particle, for instance? Why/Why not? Okay, so what other evidence could he provide? We must remember that at no point could Heisenberg retreat to soft, fuzzy assertions that by definition are located within himself and his own mind. He would need to provide the sort of evidence that other scientists could then go out and reproduce. Does Christianity posit that something like prayer actually works? Well, if that was to be considered as evidence, we can then test that. Designing an experiment to test prayer would not be impossible. Beforehand, we could each agree on a specific thing to pray FOR. Ideally, the object should be something physical that we can measure, quantify and that is something very specific. We’re aiming for reproducability here. Does prayer work?

Next, we could move onto another central concept of Christianity - perhaps we could investigate claims such as God exists and can hear our thoughts or our prayers? That sounds terribly subjective and imprecise. Where does the deity exist? Is it located within a particular ‘place’ that we could probe, where we could potential scan using technology? What is it precisely that believers suggest is being ‘intercepted’ by this deity in order to make the ‘hear our thoughts’ or something like that work? Are those thoughts potentially scrambled by interference, or is the deity able to overcome such Earthly considerations?

One of my biggest problems with any particular religious belief, including Christianity - is how darned SMALL it all is.

The Universe is such an immense, complex, beautiful and interconnected thing. We have learnt a lot using science, using naturalism, by continuually revising our ideas in the face of new evidence or contrary findings. We can now apply our instruments to see the Universe as apparently was only millions of years after its formation (or what we currently think of as its formation or origin) in the Big Bang. That is amazing. We now know that most star systems seem to have at least one - and possibly several planets. Scientists had suspected that exoplanets would exist, but proving it has been a big deal. If there are planets elsewhere, than it stands to reason that occasionally; just on statistic grounds, there will exist planets capable of hosting and supporting the sort of carbon, water-loving life that lives here on Earth. Now, we don’t know whether life exists outside of Earth. We literally have no idea. But it seems plausible if the life here is not an utter fluke.

So it seems possible to me that life - even intelligent life - may be everywhere in the Cosmos. Vast distances apart sure, maybe still, numerically vast. So… what does that mean for a religion like Christianity that seems so utterly, so incredibly HUMAN!? Has anyone ever worried that their religion seems a bit too … ‘close to home’? I mean, I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar by a long-shot, but I’ve not read - or heard others attest - to the bible containing anything that couldn’t have been written up by humans living in what we now call the Middle East a few thousand years ago… I mean, if you really want to impress upon people the incredible, worldspanning nature of a religion, you must have a FAR wider story to tell.

And now I’d like to discuss one of the biggest problems I have with ANY claim about ‘gods’ or ‘deities’ of ANY kind.
Infinite regress.
That’s my problem.

Let me explain. We are very accustomed to thinking of events in terms of prior causation. As a domestic example, the coffee mug of my wife given to her by her mother, shattered on the kitchen tiles due to prior causation; in this case the overexertion of force provided by my arm as I moved it across the table surface. I imparted the mug with momentum which ultimately resulted in the mug leaving the table and then experiencing the gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/s2 for the fraction of a second it took to fall less than a metre to the tiled floor, with the force being sufficent to shattered the cup’s structure. That’s a simple, every day example of an event having a cause that can readily be pointed at. Let’s now go back in time. What caused my arm to use excessive force in moving the cup towards my wife across the table? I’d suggest my brain is the cause. Specifically, in the black box of what we know of consciousness and mental states and our desire to ‘do’ something, the specific electrical impulses of my brain were sufficient to instruct my body to move a limb, my arm, applying a force as well.
Let’s go back further. What caused my brain state to change and what caused that impulse to push the cup? Here I’m on less stable ground, but of course I’ve got no reason to move away from any scientific explanation. If I had a better understanding of the chain of events between a ‘thought’ and an action, I’m sure we could write down a reasonable chain of causation.

But what about a deeper story, say the formation of the Milky Way galaxy? Cosmologists and Astronomers have studied our galaxy for decades and while it’s actually quite difficult to study (because we’re within it), we can look at other galaxies that we think resemble ours and we can make educated guesses about our own. We know a lot about how galaxies can evolve over vast periods of time, we know about the lifecycles of the various types of stars, we know about objects and phenomena within galaxies like clusters, like nebula, like the various deaths of stars like black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, everything in between. We think that galaxies like ours have an age of 75% of the age of the Universe. But what caused the creation of the Milky Way? I’m no scientist, but based on what little I do know, perhaps the galaxy and many like it owe its existence to the subtle differences in temperature and density that resulted after the Big Bang and subsequent Inflation? Maybe those clumpy bits, on huge scales, were enough to cause the sort of gravitational attraction in certain regions of space that were enough to attract local gas and dust and provide the early seeding of groupings of future stars, groups that would subsequently swell to gigantic communities of stellar objects spanning enormous distances but nontheless bound gravititaitonally to the central core. Going back further, what is responsible for creating the remarkably smooth - but not ENTIRELY smooth background radiation from the Big Bang and after Inflation? I have no idea. Asking a scientist, they might say that this is the Unvierse we have and perhaps had conditions been different, we wouldn’t be here to ponder because it wouldn’t have been able to form planets, stars, galaxies and wouldn’t have been able to give rise to thinking beings like ourselves.

Okay,so let’s posit that a diety, say ‘God’ created the Universe, perhaps using the Big Bang as the mechanism.

Who created God?
No, seriously.
Does God need a creator? I’d have thought so, otherwise we have an uncreated creator. But if we’re allowing that, why not apply Ockham’s Razor and simply assert the Universe needs no creator?

I’m not trying to be a dick or tease, I’m literally trying to get at the heart of the problem with ‘infinite regress’, meaning that every time we try to go for an ‘ultimate cause’ of something, we end up with a problem whereby we either have to take something on faith (deeply unsatisfying and no better than a ‘guess’) or seek yet a deeper explanation.

That atheist looked like you lmfao

But was he an Christian though?

“Spends his life peeling back layers of Nachos” :rofl:

This is brilliant and hilarious.

Savage level in this vid is super natural

Atheists owned
Plus is that David

Werner lived in a period where fashion meant an elegant costume and eloquence was very appreciated in the high society and among educated people,when fact values more than feeling,when people changed their worldview to fit the facts,not the facts to fit the worldview,when people questioned bad science, not when those who question “science” are called uneducated

Pure gold video

If Yahweh knew more than ancient men who didn’t understand the universe, he might’ve had less trouble making people believe in him.

LOL!! imagining a fake atheist as a strawman? that’s low and pathetic :joy: didn’t you guys already imagine a fake victory when you conjured up an invisible skydaddy? :joy:

simplest of maths prove atheism wrong once again

Wait, that’s you!