Explore the wonderful quotes under this tag
Some things need to be believed to be seen.
Sep 24, 2025
For science, God is simply the stream of tendency by which all things seek to fulfill the law of their being.
But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, "How did it all begin?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." To the question, "How will it all end?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, "Why are we here?" and, to the question, "What moral instructions do you give us?", the science-god maintains silence.
Science brings men nearer to God.
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, Let Newton be! and all was light!
It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.
The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.
It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Then we shall... be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.
The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.
It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we - we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
A thought that sometimes makes me hazy: Am I - or are the others crazy?
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life.
The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, and religious scripture a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.
God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
For good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.
All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of science.
If people are good because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.
Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this complexity possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.
It was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.