Max Planck about religion and science


Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In earlier times, the scientist, wanting to tell the wide circle of individuals, consisting not only of experts about a topic related to their work, was forced, in order to arouse the students to have some interest, to associate, where possible, their arguments primarily from a visual, taken from life performances. He was supposed to do with examples of the art of meteorology or biology, and based on them to clarify the methods by which science is trying to move from a specific individual issues to the knowledge of the General laws. Now is not the case. Accurate method, which is used by science, proven over many years so fruitful that now allows you to approach less obvious issues than the above, and has been successfully applied to problems of psychology, epistemology, and even General philosophical issues, examining them from scientific point of view. You can probably say that at the moment there is no any abstract question of human culture, which would not be somehow connected to science issues.

So it shouldn’t come as too audacious attempt of the naturalist to speak here, in the Baltic States, characterized persistent will to culture, about the subject, the value of which for the whole of our culture more and more evident as its development and which, no doubt, will be crucial in the upcoming her fate.



“Now tell me how you feel about religion?”


If any so just said the words in Goethe’s “Фауfсте” personally affect even the most spoiled listener, arousing in the depths of his soul a secret tension, it is this timid question innocent girls who care about their happiness, addressed to her beloved, who is for her the highest authority. Because this is the same question that for centuries internally disturbs countless people thirsting for spiritual peace and at the same time seeking to know.

Faust, somewhat embarrassed by the naive question, as if defending himself, says: “I don’t want anyone to deprive him of his senses and his Church.”

It is hardly possible to find a better epigraph to what I would like today to tell you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. I in no way would not want even the slightest bit to try to shake the ground under the feet of those who are in harmony with their conscience and who have found lasting support that is most important to us in life. It would be irresponsible for those who are so firm in its religious faith. that it can not affect scientific knowledge, and to those who are refusing to deal with religion and is satisfied with the ethics dictated by the immediate feeling. But these people, probably. form a minority. Because it is too impressive lessons of history of all times and peoples, which teaches us that naive, anything to have such a perservance belief that religion gives to its adherents, gives you the most powerful incentives to work, and in politics no less than in art and science.

This naive faith, and we dare not be deceived, now you’re not even in the widest sections of the people; it cannot be revived retroactively by reasoning and prescriptions. For to believe means to accept something for the undeniable truth. However, the knowledge of nature, continually feels the right way, led to the fact that for a person, at least a little familiar with the natural Sciences, now it is simply impossible to accept the veracity of the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, wonders of nature, which, as a rule, served as important props, podkreplyalisj the truth of their religious doctrines, and which formerly, without any critical analysis was seen simply as facts.

To those who are really serious about their faith and to whom unbearable, if it runs into contradiction with his knowledge, is a matter of conscience: can he, while remaining honest, to identify themselves as a religious community, including in the teaching of the faith in the wonders of nature?

Some time, many still were able to maintain a certain balance, not reaching the extremes and limited recognition of only some miracles that are not considered particularly important. However long on this position, it is impossible to resist. Step by step faith in the miracles of nature must yield to firmly and steadily developing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it will come to naught. Today our younger generation, which, as you know, obviously critical of the ideas of the past, do not accept the imposition of her teachings, which, in its opinion, are contrary to nature. And it was the most spiritually gifted of the young men called in the future to take a leading position, which is often characteristic of the desire to achieve the realization of their religious thoughts, the most sensitive touch of such inconsistencies. The more sincere they seek to reconcile their religious and scientific beliefs, the more they suffer.

Under these circumstances, should not be surprised that the atheist movement, declaring religion a deliberate deception and invention of power-hungry priests, and which the pious belief in a higher power over us meets only words of ridicule, hard uses scientific knowledge, continuing, supposedly in Union with him, all the more rapidly to exert a corrupting influence on all sections of the people throughout the land. I don’t need to elaborate on that with the victory of this movement are victims of the destruction would be not only the most valuable treasures of our culture, but what is even worse – the hope for a better future.

So the question Gretchen addressed her chosen one, to which she has a deep trust, acquires a profound significance for anyone who wants to know whether the progress of natural science has resulted in the degradation of true religion.

The answer of Faust, made it with all the precautions and with maximum delicacy, can not satisfy us, for two reasons: first, note that this response form and contents designed on the understanding of the illiterate girls, and thus cannot influence neither our minds nor on our imagination and feelings, and secondly – and more important – one must consider that these are the words of Faust, overwhelmed with passion and in Alliance with Mephistopheles. I’m sure that saved Faust, as he appears in the end of the second part, the answer to question Gretchen’s different. But my guesses will not dare attempt to penetrate the mystery, which he took away with him the poet. Rather, I will try from the point of view of a scientist, educated in the spirit of exact researches of nature to highlight the question – is it possible to combine (and how successfully) the true religious consciousness from scientific knowledge, or, in short, – whether the person who received science training, to be truly religious man?

With this aim, let us first consider separately two particular questions: 1) what are the requirements of religion to the faith of their followers and what are the signs of a true religion? 2) what are the laws taught us by science, and what truths it considered to be immutable? The answers to these questions will give us the opportunity to resolve compatibility and if so, to what extent the demands of religion with the demands of science and so can religion and science coexist without coming into conflict with each other.



Religion is the relationship of man with God. It is based on godly fear of unearthly powers, which human life is subordinated and which has in its power our welfare and misery. Find in their aspirations acceptance of this power to gain her favor – that constant desire and ultimate goal of religious man. Because the only way he can feel sheltered from dangers (foreseeable and unforeseeable), threatening him in this life, and the only way he will be able to achieve the pure happiness associated with internal peace in your soul that can only be guaranteed with solid Union with God and absolute faith in His omnipotence, in His willingness to help. In this sense, the root of religion – the consciousness of the individual.

But its value extends beyond the consciousness of the individual. Religion is not so much inherent in each individual, how many claims on efficiency and the value for the larger community, for nation, race, and – ultimately – for all mankind. Since God reigns equally over all countries, He is subject to the whole world with all its treasures and horrors, and there is no such field or in the realm of nature or in the realm of the spirit, which He, being omnipresent, constantly could not penetrate.

Therefore, the practice of religion unites its adherents in the vast Union, setting before them the task to reach mutual understanding on the basis of religion, find a General expression for their faith. But this is only possible if the content of religion takes a certain external form, which, because of its clarity, is suitable for understanding. It is quite natural that when there is a large difference between peoples and their living conditions this visual form in different parts of the world varies greatly and that is why in the course of history there have been many forms of religion. But perhaps the closest of all religions is the idea of God as personality PLI anyway, how about someone, who is like unto the man. Nevertheless, the attributes of God there are different views. Every religion has its own specific mythology and their rituals, which have more highly developed religions brought to the finest details. This gives rise to certain visual symbols designed for religious worship, is able to directly affect the power of the imagination of wide layers of the people, thus awakening their interest in religious issues and bringing them to an understanding of the nature of God.

Thus, the worship of God, through the systematic compilation of mythological stories and preservation of ceremonial rituals, has acquired a superficially symbolic. For centuries, the importance of such religious symbols increased by the transfer of traditions from generation to generation and regular education in a religious spirit. The incomprehensible Holiness of the Godhead as it gives the sanctity of comprehensible symbols. Hence significant incentives for the arts. Indeed, the art received a strong impetus to the development, placing itself at the service of religion.

But here, perhaps, it should be noted the distinction between art and religion. The main value of a work of art in itself. And although, as a rule, they owe their origin to external circumstances and in accordance with this often gives rise to distracting associations, yet, basically, it dominates itself and doesn’t need to correct perception in any interpretation. This is particularly clear in the case of the most abstract of all arts – music.

However, the religious symbol is always directed beyond itself. Its meaning is never exhausted by them, no matter how honorable position he may occupy a position that gives it age and pious tradition. It is very important to emphasize in view of the fact that the attitude of certain religious symbols for centuries subject to inevitable fluctuations due to the development of culture. Taking care of any true religiosity, it is important to stress that these oscillations do not affect the true meaning of these symbols is the fact that behind and above them.

Just one example of the many specific examples: one winged angel for centuries was considered the most beautiful incarnation of the image of servant and messenger of God. Now modern anatomical and scientific imagination difficult for some to find beauty in this symbol, for the simple reason that this winged creature is physiologically impossible. However, this circumstance in no way should not affect their religious consciousness. They need only refrain from trying to ruin a godly mood of those who view the winged angel brings joy and consolation.

However, a much more serious danger inherent in the reassessment of the value of religious symbols on the part of atheists. One of the most favorite tactics of this movement, aimed at undermining any true religiosity, are attacks on the anciently-established religious customs and manners, contempt and mockery of religious symbols as something hopelessly outdated. Similar attacks on the symbols of faith they think they can hurt the religion itself, and they’re getting easier, the more specific and distinctive, this symbolism and these customs. Not one religious soul has become the victim of such tactics.

Against this danger there is no better protection than to understand what a religious symbol, no matter how he is worthy of worship, never is an absolute value, but is always a more or less perfect indication of Higher, not directly available to perception.

In such circumstances, perhaps it is clear that throughout history religion has constantly had the idea to limit the use of religious symbols or even completely eliminate them, viewing religion more as a matter of abstract reason. However, even brief reflection shows that this idea is completely unfounded. Without symbols it would be impossible, and mutual understanding in any communication between people. This applies not only to religious, but any human communication. Even language itself is nothing other than a symbol for the expression of thought, i.e. something more than the language itself. Of course, even a single word itself can stir some interest, but, strictly speaking, the word itself is just a sequence of letters, serving to denote a concept that determines its value. For the same concept in principle, no matter submitted to it or in other words, whether it is expressed in a particular dialect. When translating words into another language Express the concept remains.

Or another example. A symbol of respect and honor, covered with glory regiment is his banner. It is believed that older it is, the higher is its value. And the standard-bearer honors for himself the highest duty in any case not to drop the flag in battle, at least to cover his own body, even if it means sacrificing his life. And yet the flag is a symbol, a simple piece of colored matter. The enemy can capture him, to drag in the mud or break, but that he is unable to destroy something high, is a symbol of what this banner. The regiment will retain their honor, will win a new flag and may properly avenge the shame.

Just as in the army and in General in any community, which is facing high challenges in religion absolutely necessary symbols and Church ritual. They represent the highest and most worthy of reverence, being turned to the sky of imagination. However, we should never forget that even the most sacred symbol has a human origin.

If this truth were taken into account at all times, humanity would have avoided endless suffering and pain. Because the cause of the terrible religious wars, cruel persecutions of heretics, with all their sad consequences in the end you should look for in a collision known counter-statements, each of which has a certain justification. The conflict arose only because of a common invisible idea, for example, the idea of the omnipotence of God was confused with not matching her visible means of expression, i.e. due to differences in Church denominations. Perhaps, there is nothing more sad than to see two violently warring opponents each committed, fully convinced and inspired by the justice of their cause, dedicated to the eradication of its best forces, including self-sacrifice. How much could be build, if it were possible to unite these precious forces in the sphere of religious activities instead seek to destroy each other.

A deeply religious man, claiming his faith in God through honoring him with familiar religious symbols, at the same time not attached to them, realizing that there may be other equally religious people for whom the sacred are other similar characters, similar to how a certain concept remains adequate to itself, in whatever language it was expressed.

But the signs of a truly religious consciousness that is not limited. For now there is another – already a fundamental – question: nokota whether a Higher Power behind religious symbols and giving them a value, only in the soul of man; but, then, she dies with him or it is more? In other words: God lives only in the soul of the believer or He rules the world whether you believe in It or not? Here’s the point where opinions finally and fundamentally different.

It is impossible and will never be possible to explain in a scientific way, i.e. based on logical fact-based conclusions. On the contrary, the answer to this question is wholly a matter of religious belief. A religious man is responsible, that God existed even before man appeared on Earth, and that He was from the beginning held in his omnipotent hands of believers and unbelievers that He sets on high, beyond human understanding, and will sit there and then when the Earth with all that therein is, has long turn into ruins. To truly religious people can identify all those and only those who profess this faith and who, permeated by it, feels protected by Almighty God from all dangers of life, honoring Him and trusting Him boundlessly.

Here is the main contents of those truths, the recognition of which religion requires its adherents. View now, along these requirements with the requirements of science, particularly natural science, and if you get along, how?



In approaching the consideration of what laws teaches us science and what truths in it are considered to be immutable, we simplify your task and nevertheless fully reach our goal, if you consider the physics, the most exact of all natural Sciences. It in the first place could contrast the results of their research to the tenets of religion. Therefore, we have to wonder what kind of results in the field of knowledge came a physical science, including studies of modern times, and what are the limitations of religious faith could arise from this?

It is hardly necessary to say that in the process of historical development of science the results of physical research and the resulting presentation was not changed randomly, but only continuously improved and refined. Thus, the results obtained to date, can with high reliability to be true.

What is the basic meaning of these results? First of all I must say that all the results obtained by the physics, are based on measurements and all measurements are made in space and in time, and the magnitude of the measured value varies in extremely wide limits. A rough idea of the distance separating us from those regions of the cosmos, of which we have heard at least some data can be obtained if we consider that the light passing distance from Earth to the moon in about a second, reaching us, overcoming the appropriate path, through many millions of years. On the other hand, physics has to deal with such small quantities of space and time, to visualize where you can use the ratio of the magnitude of a pinhead to the whole globe.

On the basis of various dimensions revealed that without exception, all physical phenomena can be reduced to a mechanical or electric processes caused by the movements of certain elementary particles, such as electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons, and the mass and charge of each of these elementary particles are expressed precisely defined and very small quantities. These values can be expressed more precisely than will more advanced measurement methods. These small values, the so-called universal constants are, in some sense, unchanged form the building blocks from which the building is constructed of theoretical physics.

What, in fact, we must now ask, is the significance of these constants? Whether they are ultimately the invention of human genius, or do they also possess real meaning, not dependent on human intellect? The first proponents of positivism, at least, of its extreme forms. According to them, there’s no other reason than the measurements on which it is based, and the physical hypothesis makes sense only insofar as it is confirmed by the measurements. However, since each dimension implies the presence of an observer, from the point of view of positivism the content of a physical law is absolutely impossible to separate the observer and the act loses its meaning, if only to try to imagine that the observer is not, and for him and his dimension is something different, real and not dependent on the measurement.

From a purely logical point of view to argue against such an approach is impossible, and yet upon closer examination, it is necessary to recognize not effective enough. The fact that this ignores one fact, which is crucial for the deepening and development of scientific knowledge. No matter how free from predvaritelnyj conditions may seem positivist approach, he is, if you do not wish to fall into irrational solipsism, should be based on one fundamental assumption, namely, that every physical measurement is reproducible, i.e. that the result does not depend on personality measures, as well as the place and time of measurement, as well as from other surrounding circumstances. But this implies that something that is critical for measurement results is outside observer, and it is needed leads to the question of the existence of real causal relationships, independent of the observer.

Of course, you need to recognize that the positivist approach has a peculiar value, because it helps to visually clarify the meaning of the physical laws, to separate empirically empirically proven from the unproven, to remove emotional prejudices, relying only on long-standing customary views, and thereby pave the way for progressive scientific research. However, to drive on this road, positivism lacks the necessary mobilizing of energy. Although it can eliminate some of the obstacles in the way of knowledge, but still not able to productively build, since its activity is mostly focused on criticism and his eye is back. To advance forward the need for creative search of new connections of ideas and problems which are not derived from only one of the measurements, and beyond their limits that is denied in principle by the positivism. Therefore, positivists all directions met with hostility by the introduction of the atomic theory, and with it, the above universal constants. This is understandable, as the validity of these hypotheses is a clear evidence of the nature of reality, independent of any human measurements.

Of course, the consistent positivist in our days would call the universal constants only invention that proved extremely useful because it makes possible accurate and complete description of the results of various measurements. However, there is hardly a real physicist who will treat seriously such approval. The universal constants were not invented for reasons of expediency – physics was forced to accept them as an inevitable consequence of the coincidence of the results of any special measures, and – most important – we know that all future measurements will lead to the same constants.

Summarizing, we can say that physical science requires making assumptions about the existence of a real and independent from us, which, however, we are not able to perceive directly, but only through the prism of our senses and mediated by their measurements.

Continuing to develop this assumption, we will have to change our perception of the world. The subject of observation, observing “I“will no longer be the center of thinking and take for granted him a very modest place. And really, how pathetic and small, how powerless we human beings must seem, if we remember that the Earth on which we live, there is only a tiniest speck of dust in the endless space of the cosmos, i.e. nothing and how strange, on the other hand, should we seem that we, tiny creatures on arbitrarily small planet, able to understand let not the essence, but at least the presence and size of basic blocks of the whole huge universe.

But the miracles do not end. The undoubted result of physical research is that these basic building blocks of the universe are not chaotically piled separate, not connected to each other in groups and stacked all on a single plan. In other words, all processes of nature reigns universal, to a certain extent knowable to us law. Mention in this context only one example: the principle of conservation of energy. In nature there are different types of energy: energy of mechanical motion, gravity, heat, electricity, magnetism. Together all forms of energy constitute the energy supply of the world, the value of which is unchanged. No process in nature can neither increase nor decrease it. All occurring changes in fact are only in vzaimoporozhdeniya energy. For example, if energy losses of motion due to the friction occurring equivalent amount of thermal energy.

The principle of conservation of energy applies to all areas of physics – both classical and quantum theory. Despite numerous attempts to refute the significance of this principle for the processes occurring at the atomic level, and to ascribe to the action of this law in respect of the specified processes only statistical in nature, accurate test in each of the heretofore known cases have shown the futility of such efforts. Thus, there is no reason for refusing recognition of this principle absolutely exact law of nature.

On the part of positivists often hear critical objection: the astonishing efficacy of such principle, it should not surprise you. The mystery is easily explained by the fact that the laws of nature prescribed by the man himself. Claiming it’s even referenced on the authority of Immanuel Kant.

That the laws of nature not invented by man, but rather that their recognition forced upon him from outside, we probably have already said enough. From the beginning, we just could imagine the laws of nature, as well as the values of universal constants, quite different from reality. As for the reference to Kant, there is a clear misunderstanding. For Kant did not teach that people just prescribes nature its laws, he taught that man, in formulating the laws of nature, and adds something from herself. Otherwise, as you might imagine that Kant, in his own words, never felt such a sense of awe as before a starry sky? After all, before the contribution from himself, himself invented, usually do not feel the deepest reverence. The positivist such reverence alien. For him the stars are not that other, how we perceive the complexes of optical sensations. Everything else, in his opinion, is useful, but in principle arbitrary and neobyazatel Supplement.

Now, however, let’s leave positivism aside and watch the further course of our thoughts. After all, the principle of conservation of energy is not the only law of nature but merely one of many. Although it is valid in each individual case, it is clearly not sufficient to calculate in advance the course of natural process in all its details, as it still leaves open an infinite number of other issues.

There is another much more universal law, a feature of which is that it gives a definite answer to every meaningful question concerning the flow of natural process. This law, as well as the principle of conservation of energy, has not lost its importance in modern physics. However, the greatest miracle is to be considered the fact that an adequate formulation of this law, is each an open-minded person the impression that nature is ruled by a reasonable, pursuing a specific goal will.

Let us illustrate this particular example. As is well known, a beam of light incident at an angle to the surface of the transparent body, for example, water, is deflected from its direction entering the body. The reason for this deviation lies in the fact that the light in the water spread slower than in the air. Such a deviation, or refraction, occurs in atmospheric air, because the lower and denser layers of atmosphere the light travels slower than in the higher. When the beam of light from the star enters the eye of the observer, its trajectory, except for the case when the star is at the Zenith, will possess more or less complex curvature due to the difference in refractive index in different layers of the atmosphere. This curvature is completely determined by the following simple law: all trajectories that lead from the star to the eye of the observer, light always chooses the just one for the passage of which he, given the differences of velocities in different layers of the atmosphere, requires less time. In other words, the photons forming a beam of light, behave like intelligent beings. From all available to them the curves they always choose the one that most quickly leads them to the goal.

This law is perfectly generalizable. After all, what do we know about the laws governing processes in physical systems, we can characterize the flow of any process in detail, arguing that of all the conceivable processes that translate the system in a specific state to another state, realized that the integral of a certain size, taken in time (so-called Lagrange function), is of minimal value. In other words, if you know the expression of the Lagrange function, it is possible to completely predict how the process will proceed in reality.

Indeed it is not surprising that the discovery of this law, the so-called principle of least action, which was later called the elementary quantum of action, has led to the indescribable delight of its author Leibniz, just as soon and his successor, Maupertuis. These researchers felt that they were able to find in it a tangible sign of the Highest manifestation of Mind, the Almighty, dominant over nature. In fact the principle of least action enters into the notion of causality entirely new idea: Causa efficiens (reason, which stretches from the present into the future and represents a later state due to earlier) is added Saya finalis, which, conversely, makes the future, ie the purpose to which definitely seek the prerequisite of the processes that lead to this goal.

If we restrict the field of physics, both approaches are only different mathematical expressions of the same content and to what would be to wonder which one is closer to the truth. The use of one or another depends on practical considerations. The main advantage of the principle of least action is that it does not require for its formulation in a specific reference system. Therefore, this principle is also perfectly suitable to convert coordinate systems. But we are now interested in broader issues. We just wanted to say that the development of research in theoretical physics has historically demonstrably led to the formulation of physical causality which possesses a pronounced teleological character. However, due to this regularity of nature is not introduced something new or meaningful – even more so – is contrary to them. Rather, it was a different form, but in essence identical approach. Apparently, in biology there is something similar to what we observed in physics, however, the difference of both approaches there was much more sharp forms.

In any case, to sum up, we can state that, in accordance with all. teach accurate science in all areas of nature in which we human beings on our tiny planet, play only a negligible role, dominated by a certain pattern, independent of the existence of the thinking of mankind, but nevertheless to the extent that it is generally amenable to perception by our senses, allowing for the formulation of the corresponding appropriate behavior. It is, therefore, the rationality of the world order, which are subject to nature and humanity, but its true essence is and will be for us unknowable, as we learn about her only through our specific perception through the senses, which we can never fully disable. However, the huge advances of scientific knowledge allow us to conclude that, continuing to work without ceasing, we are at least closer to the unattainable goal. These successes strengthen hope for a continuous deepening of our understanding how controls the nature of the ruling it the Almighty Mind.



After we met the requirements our approach to the highest problems of ideological nature, on the one hand, religion and the natural Sciences, let’s see how these requirements vzaimozavisimost. From the outset it is clear that this test could apply only to such areas where religion and science collide. There are vast areas where they do not touch each other. In particular, science is alien to all problems of ethics, just as religion has no value the value of the universal physical constants. At the same time, religion and science collide in the question of the existence and nature of a Supreme Power, dominating the world. The answers they give here, to a certain extent comparable with each other. As we have seen, they do not contradict each other, and assertions that, first, there is a reasonable order of the world, independent of man, and, second, that the essence of this order benefit to observe directly and can only indirectly know the lip to assume its presence. For this purpose, religion enjoys a kind of symbol, and the exact Sciences – with their measurement-based perception. In other words, nothing prevents us to identify (and our desire for knowledge, need and a common Outlook, even demands it), two universally applicable and yet mysterious forces – the world order of science and the God of religion.

Thus, the Deity to which religious people trying to get closer with religious symbols, is equivalent, in essence, that which manifests itself in the laws of nature, the power of the researcher to a certain extent, receives a vision with the help of their senses.

In this match it should, however, note one fundamental difference.

The religious person God is given directly and primarily. From It, by His Almighty will comes all life and all phenomena both physical and spiritual world. Although He is unknowable by reason, but nevertheless directly manifests itself through religious symbols, putting his Holy message in the souls of those who, believing, and trust Him. In contrast to the naturalist the primary is only the content of his perceptions and the output of these measurements. Hence, by the inductive ascent he tries to get closer to God and His order as to the higher, eternally unattainable goal. Consequently, both religion and science require faith in God, and for religion God is the beginning of all reasoning and science at the end.

For some, It means the Foundation, but for others – the top of the construction of any philosophical principles. This distinction corresponds to differences in the roles that religion and science play in human life. Science does a person need for cognition, religion – in order to act. The only strong prerequisite for knowledge is that perceived by our senses, and the assumption of the existence of a world having its own laws, is a prerequisite to fruitful problems. For practical activities this way is not suitable, since we can’t postpone our decisions until holes while knowledge will not be complete or we will not become omniscient. Because many of the requirements and needs of our lives often force us to make instant decisions and to confirm their beliefs. And we can’t help a long discourse, and you only need a certain and clear indication that we can obtain through the direct connection with God. She alone can give us internal support and sustainable peace, which we must regard as the Supreme benefit of life; if we are God, against his omnipotence and omniscience, we assign more attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him fully able to give the person who is seeking comfort and a reliable sense of happiness. From the standpoint of natural science against this view, have nothing to say, because ethics, as we have stressed, does not fall within its competence.

Wherever you look, we will never meet contradictions between religion and science, but, on the contrary, we find complete agreement just in decisive moments. Religion and science do not exclude each other, as some now think, or fear, but rather complement and determine each other. The most direct proof of the compatibility of religion and natural science, even under the most critical view of things is probably the historical fact that the deep religiosity was imbued with just the greatest scientists of all time – Kepler, Newton, Leibniz. To the beginning of our cultural era classes in the natural Sciences and religion have been in the same hands. The oldest application of natural science – medicine – practicing priests and the place of research in the middle ages was mainly monastic kelp. Later, as the detail and ramifications of culture, the paths of science and religion began to diverge in accordance with the difference of the task that they serve. For how knowledge and skills can not be replaced ideological beliefs, so it is impossible to develop the right attitude to moral issues on the basis of purely rational knowledge. However, both these paths do not diverge, but are parallel meet at infinity in one and the same purpose.

For a proper understanding of this there is no better way than to continue efforts aimed at deepening understanding of the task and essence, on the one hand, scientific knowledge, with another – religious faith. Then it will become increasingly clear that even with the difference methods (science is mostly uses reason, religion by faith) the meaning of work and the direction of progress coincide.

Should be tirelessly and ceaselessly continue to fight against skepticism and dogmatism, unbelief and superstition, which together are religion and science, and televisiosi slogan in this struggle always read and would read: God!


A report read in may 1937 at the University of Dorpat.

Max Planck.Religion und Example.

Vortrag gehalten im Baltikum (Mai 1937) von Dr. Max Pfanck.

2te unverand. Auflage. Joh. Ambrosius Barth Verl. Leipzig,1938.


“Problems of philosophy”, № 8, 1990


<hr/>Max Planck, Religion and science // “Academy of Trinitarizm”, M., El № 77-6567, publ.23778, 29.09.2017


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here