We Physicists Are the Only Scientists Who Can Say the Word “God” and Not Blush

this whole concept of the creation as some kind of music very much reminds me of j.r.r. tolkiens book "the silmarilion" where the world was created by a creator using music. futhermore tolkien said that he always wanted to write myths etc. which is interesting because he also said that the reason why many people feel strongly drawn to these great storys (like legends etc.) is because they were written in a time where people stood in an better connection to god and these myths and legends therefore echoe the mind of god.

It would appear that this division is caused by Science presenting a different timeline which does not support religion, I'm speaking specifically about evolution. I stick to science because the scientific mindset is "we think this is what happened but we are always open to new evidence proving otherwise" where the religious mindset is "this is what happened, and if you don't believe it then you're evil or out of balance (however your religion may work)".

Contrary to what Pedro and some others said, I am glad that there is a distinction between science and religion. Religion spoils and limits, and science really needs to get free of religious balls and chains. And that applies to the Templeton Foundation which has nothing to do with science really. Templeton just wants to sneak out to get some credits and wants this horizon that divides science and religion to vanish, to become a thin line. I am glad that this is not happening. Thank you Bret and John for clearing things out.

I very much agree that part of the problem is a language barrier when it comes to science and religion. Here in western civilization, where Christianity prevails, God comes “pre-packaged” in a rather cut-and-dried, black-and-white, end-of-the-story kind of way. There is not much room for free thought, if you wish to proclaim yourself a believer. Sorry to say it but, to me, it’s almost like being strapped into some kind of mental straight-jacket. … For this reason, confined thinking, I believe many scientists shy away from any God references because they know they will likely be misinterpreted/misunderstood by the populace-at-large. Outside the box thinking is pretty much frowned upon by the religious community. In other words, “this is how it is and this is how you should think.” … Personally, I’d love to see some kind of reconciliation between science and religion because, to me, I see them as cut from the same cloth; they are two sides of the same coin. I see science as religion in its purest form.

The particle of god is between jupiter and mars u can see how the solar system emerging pure energy among the rays....

I'm not sure what you mean by science and humanists not speaking the same language anymore. Can you elaborate on that?

Spirituality is internal, the science of the soul, deeply profound, multifaceted, and intimately experiential. Science is external, infinitely complex, and the profound observance of all things. The only difference between the two is one is based upon faith, and one is based upon proven fact. One increases our connection to the unknown beyond death, and one increases our knowledge of all that we experience in life. Both are uniquely valued traits of the human condition. to show distinction between them is to merely differentiate the front from the back. One might call said separatism semantics. The best we can do is internalize what our experiences mean to us on a spiritual or soulful level and externalize what affected those experiences on a scientific level... and simply call it a day:)

The whole essay is one big use-mention error. The word "god" may sound big and impressive when Dr Kaku wants to talk in vague analogies, but it actually has meaning to a lot of people, and he should learn about it before he brandishes it about. Until he sees people denying his and other sciences in the attempt to please their god I fear Dr Kaku will continue misusing the word just to sound all mystical and deep.

sorry for my horrible punctuation.

put simply i think god is all of reality a collective and intricate network that we are part of and not insulated in any way you can call that my religion if you want but i see no scientifically methodical reasoning behind assuming he is a being with wishes and plans and created the universes/or universe in separation from him and oddly he has no creator for he is eternal i feel like thats an extra step.

I can't stop thinking about this because it relates to the continued progression and resulting existence of mankind. Humanism tends to lead people towards wanting something that is not natural, for everybody to be happy and live longer and more fulfilling lives. But that is just not the way Nature works. Science is the observation and manipulation of Nature. The hardest thing for a type 0 civilization to understand is that you cannot exceed your maximum population density while still being a type 1 civilization without major consequences to your species and it's environment. And unfortunately for Human Beings, our environment is the entire planet. Humanism does everything to fight death and everything to make everyone equal. And while that is possible, it is not possible as a type 0 civilization as Michio Kaku calls it. This is why Religion is currently poisonous to continued human existence. When a population exceeds its maximum population density it devours all of its resources in such a short rate of interaction that those resources can't be replaced and the entire species dies as a result. And that is why there are hunting seasons. By thinning the population in an area, you ensure its continued existence. That sounds cruel and harsh, but nature is not sunshine, lollipops, rainbows, and unicorns. In case you haven't noticed or haven't been to the amazon jungle, or witnessed a hurricane; nature will tear your ace up. It's hard for us to accept that we must stop our exponential population growth in order to ensure our existence until we reach type 1 civilization status, but we must.

I can appreciate all of you that seek and yearn for something tangible and finite. Science, math, etc. give you that comfort and challenge of something you can strive to achieve and understand. Very good! But please do not belittle people who are genuinely seeking the one that Intelligently Designed this universe. It is possible, and if true is the most important thing we as humans could discover. Yes, there are a lot of people that have very rigid beliefs about their religion. It is in a box. But I prefer to believe that a designer, that I may never understand, could very well have created this universe. Started it up and cultivates it along. I see no conflict with Evolution in some form. It does not exclude a creator. I also think, respectfully, that some of you do not want limitations because then you may have to answer for true good and evil questions. If there is not a creator/designer/intelligent design then there everyone can make their own rules. No guilt. No consequences. God/Creator/Designer/whatever can (and does I believe) be in the Science. One does not exclude the other. Thank you for bravely bringing this subject out Dr. Kaku. Everywhere I look I see intelligent design, even in evolution.

I think what Dr. Kaku is refering to is kinda what Platonists and Gnostics called the "logos" (reason) of the universe. I would have to say that I find the view of the mind of god being spinoza's god extremely plausible and interesting. If you want to think a bit of our place in the universe and still have the idea of multiverses, look up biocosm/ the intelligent universe by James N. Gardner. His views are rather naturalistic and he gives a rather good explanation of human's role in the universe as a cosmic replicator. (Or in a way we are the RNA of the universe's baby.)

The various religions are like a group of individuals all of whom are totally blind, and each of them is trying to describe something that not one of them has ever seen....but each individual professes to believe that their description of this unseen object is the only correct one...this is arrogance. About 7 % of the US Academy of Sciences membership reported believing in a God of some sort. This poll was taken in 98 but other polls show fewer believers now. Absence of belief on reasoned analysis does not constitute arrogance. It is arrogant to believe that a God who made the truly vast universe, with over 100 billion galaxies in the known universe, each containing billions of stars and planets, would personally care about you and everything you do every minute. That he listens to prayers about a passing a test, having your favorite team win, and so forth. When there is an accident with many killed, except for a few, we hear that these people escaped miraculously, and that God listened to their prayers (but not presumably to those who died). THAT'S ARROGANCE. Many leading scientists are well aware of our limitations and the small place we have in space. They are fully aware of how much they don't know, but they seek to learn, prove and understand how the universe and it's parts work so insofar as it's possible....."an unexamined life isn't worth living"...and I hope we all agree....:)

Of course we are insignificant to a creator of the multiverse Larry. We are one of 1000s of intelligent races just within our very own universe. To make matters worse for our race, we are a type 0 civilization. There has never been anything wrong with the concept "religion." Now since everyone seems to have there very own definition of religion, I will take the time to define my word, "religion." Religion: The set of fundamental beliefs within a mandate to reach spirituality. There are multiple definitions for this word but to me all a religion is, is an evolved primate trying to understand a complex system of the world around them and an even more complex God conumdrum. Just as some people like to point out, who made God then? Well this is as difficult to think about for mankind as space is infinite and time loops around paradoxes. There are 4200 religions and counting, and every singe one of them is right and wrong at the same time. Let me explain in broader detail. Every single one of them is right as they all will lead a "good" hearted invididual to do morally and ethically correct actions that lead to positive reactions. This is Newton's 3rd law. The very definition of "Good" is also more complex then most homo sapiens can grasp. Now back to why every religion is wrong, which is quite insulting of a proclamation that I shall spend time to explain since I don't like to look like a big-headed jerk :). Each religion by itself is wrong as they each are just metamorphical attempts of explaining such a difficult concept as God. Each of them can you lead to you a very happy, positive existence but which one to pick!? Which one of these 4200 is right? Hence, ignorant, mean people (and I could use more colorful metaphors but why bash people online?) running amok killing American Indians and citing it is in the name of Jesus Christ. Of course this is just down right wrong, since Jesus himself would have been puking in a watering hole, if he had been there, from the downright disgusting, animalistic things being done to these poor people. This has been done countless times and continues today across the world. Ignorant, greedy men take and warp a good religion to their desires to gather whatever rewards they want. Terrorists themselves cite passages in the Koran when killing poor people that did nothing to them, metaphorical passages that Muhammad himself would once again be puking from revulsion in response to such atrocities. Once again there has never been any problem with any religion, its what mediocre minds do with it. The very principal of most religions says to be a civilized, righteous HUMAN not an animal. You truly can compare people to animals since we did evolve from them but since we are not animals (there isn't one animal on the planet that worships God by the way, in case anybody hasn't noticed) then it is necessary for us to be the best that we can be and strive to better each other and mankind. We must learn to coexist in order to evolve to new plateaus and peaks. "Only a life lived for others is a life worth while." -Albert Einstein

To prove that there is an intelligent designer, a God if you will? On one hand, we have science which says it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Atheists will say that there is an explanation for the beginning of the universe that doesn't require the use of a God character, we just don't have one yet. In the other hand is a hodge-podge of theistic beliefs (regardless of whether they believe in a kindhearted, vengeful or otherwise impassive and uninvolved deity) which say an omniscient and omnipotent being created our universe. They would say that something has to be the beginning point, something had to have started it all-what comes after that can be debated elsewhere. To this, an atheist may say it's foolish to explain a mysterious event such as the "coming into existence" of all things by introducing an even more mysterious element such as a God who has and will always exist though in what terms is very unclear (and not the issue of this thread!) I don't feel I've heard enough from either side (especially the atheists) on this ground. I want this to be a respectful debate about whether an atheist's view on this matter ("we don't yet know") is really more logical than the religious/theist's stance. I wonder if Michio Kaku reads any of this lol. Oh well.

I exist. Is that enough though? Something can't come from nothing. I exist. ------------------------------------------- Conclusion? I'd fill in the conclusion in a strict logical fashion. "I couldn't have come from nothing." There's a couple more steps required to get to "God exists." If you just filled that in with no extra thought, you'd definitely be making an unjustified leap. Now try this argument out. Something can't come from nothing. Everything exists. Everything couldn't have come from nothing. This seems to get us a little closer to the "God exists" conclusion. But is it fair for use to just plug different values into the arguments? What about our assumptions? I exist and everything exists don't seem too debatable. But what about this "something can't come from nothing?" What's that supposed to mean anyway? What's kind of cool to me is that we seem to be analyzing this very argument with our sciences. Cosmology and the origins of the universe test the assumption as used in the second argument. Evolution and the origins of life/man test the assumption as used in the first argument. It sort of shows the interactions between philosophy and science throughout history.

Allow me to clear common problems. Ecclesiastical texts cannot be used as valid sources to study the beginnings, they can only be used as valid (?) sources to study the shaping of Man's thoughts of the beginnings. The unearthing of such knowledge cannot be appreciated through such *****rd methods that disassociate from anything other than the Word; as such, this debate does not concern religious entities. To condescendingly regard them does not further the Atheist's point - this is a purely epistemological question. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. By Albert Einstein I like this quote. From this, we can see that scientific understanding of the universe (based on the views of participants in this thread) is, much like religious understanding of the universe, inherently flawed. Don't think of it as one point to another point, but rather, think of it as a circle in its entirety.

Lionheart- I applaud your intelligence and open mind. We have exactly as what you have defined, a bunch of humans following other people's thoughts. "We can't solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Albert Einstein. You have it exactly right, we take what we think we know and try to discover new information and data to help us in an understanding of whatever it is mankind lays it's eyes on. This usually works pretty good and as people assimilate more knowledge it helps them come to even greater realizations that we put our minds too. The fact of the matter is, we don't ever truly know anything. We just come to greater and greater comprehension of whatever the subject is. "True knowledge exists in knowing you know nothing and in knowing you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all." -Socrates. This analogous proclamation shows the nature of man and also how we always assume we know something about something, so to speak. Stay open minded and good things come. Despite the fact I look like a man of God, like I said before I have my own religion that is systematic to my criteria of what I believe to be God. Of course I don't have my whole life to design a new religion, so I have studied Abrahamic religions, Hindi, and Buddhism, and many of the ancient polytheistic religions of antiquity. Everyone has their own complex brain of 100s of billions neurons, each neuron holding possibly more than 1 GB. of information, according to one expert opinion. This means each brain of each human, by the time they die, can have more knowledge than all the computers of the world!!! We are far beyond any computer on the planet and will be for a long time. Keep your mind open, listen to lines of reasoning and use your imagination to fill in the gaps. I don't expect anyone ever to listen to me, I just like to take the time to speak my opinions :). If someone likes to debate with me, then I do so with an open mind and use a system of analysis that includes mannerisms and codes of conduct. This makes me more intelligent than any computer now, or to come in my lifetime. And so are you, whoever you are, that has taken the time to read this whole, boring, paragraph! If there is no God (and Stephen Hawking has taken the time to show us a universe where there was a universe before God, check it out! Great logical arguments!) then I have no one to thank for evolution and the very air I breathe and the keyboard I am typing on right now and the hands and neural routing for them. If there is a God, then I so choose to swear fealty to my creator and thank him time and time again for my so precious existence. Whoever you are reading this, you make your choice. And please take EVERYTHING you come across into consideration before ruling out the existence of something greater than all of us. And for everyone dependent on one type of analysis of the universe, i.e. philosophy, science, mathematics, faith, well I have to tell you I know how dependent I can get on one of these great ways of understanding our universe, so I think it's safe to assume that everyone relies on each of these differently, and that being said, maybe, if I may be so bold, its high time you took up one of these four great tools of universal comprehending approaches that you may not be using currently, however avidly.

A great way to unite reason to a belief in God is Deism. As Thomas Paine wrote in his very important book, The Age of Reason, "In Deism our reason and our belief are happily united." Progress! Bob Johnson www.deism.com

The thing is, the Bible clearly says that we must not worship idols. The last 100 years has progressed so fast that many children, and even adults, start worshiping these "idols", when in fact they are just science discoveries. This would become extraordinarily progressive once we start calling the string theory, "the mind of God". This can not, and will not, fit with the teachings of the Bible.

@Erin Grooms I don't wish to argue with you because we all believe in our own beliefs. But all I was doing is providing my opinion on why the Humanists have separated from the scientists.

Einstein has become something of an idol to most scientists and that isn't a bad thing. It is good to have our heroes. But he was human and humans can be wrong every now and then so i don't take everything that Einstein said as sacrosanct. Pure logic can disprove many of our wildest ideas...forinstance....take the bending of a perfectly straight line....logic tells us that it cannot be bent unless something in the universe is bending it.....A PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE WOULD GO ON FOREVER IN TWO OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS...not talking here about the bending of an extremely powerful laser because a laser is a form of light and light can be bent as it passes through a particular medium....but in a perfect void there would be no medium to bend the straight line and if you were traveling in a perfect void in some kind of container that was "light fast" you would never come back to where you started...the universe is not a perfect void so it is possible that light would slowly curve as hypothesized....logically it follows that energy in whatever form was always here so i can not imagine how Lawrence Krauss get's something from nothing although i will keep an open mind and see if i can find his lecture...and to Erich...please don't assume that your God is male...if your God exists at all it could be anything and everything...."Our father who is in Heaven"|? the bible was written by men who definetly controlled society at that point in time....God may be female if she exists at all....too many assumptions based on such a stretch of faith....:(

Astounding... truly astounding.

Great discussion. Just jumping in with some random thoughts. :: Whether science or religion, neither is of much use if dominated by dogma. :: I get nervous when anyone speaks of "God" without their clear definition of "God" nearby to which I can easily refer, because most definitions of "God" that I DO know about describe mythical notions rather than expansive ideas that combine a possible Totality, or possible Force with a possible permeating Consciousness. :: If our society were not patriarchal, our science would be much different; and Mary Baker Eddy's place in transforming mythical religion/faith into something of scientific import would be acknowledged readily in our culture.

I love how people (no finger pointing here) assume the nature of God based off the interpretations of men from hundreds to thousands of years ago. These are stories, some may be true, others not, written by flawed individuals from a time period of bigotry and sexist views. Please think about the hundred monks (specifically their minds) employed by King James. Now think about the minds of even Jesus Christ's apostles. While you are at it, think about the minds of every other religious and/or spiritual women or men in history that you know of. All of them are homo sapiens: flawed, biased, opinionated. These are technicalities; it's the message that millions of people follow. If there is a GOD then its safe to assume that everyone who believes in Him (or Her, or It, whatever) are trying their best to interpret this universal consciousness in their own way. If there is a GOD then maybe it's high time scientists should start equating His possibilitiy into their theories before throwing Him out like He's the plague of irrational thoughts. Issac Newton, Galileo, Archimedes, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Albert Einstein: all men of God. May not be the atypical God that other men followed, but they chose to believe in something other than themselves, something sooooooo great that we spend our entire lives trying to comprehend and interpret. A concept that few scientists are brave enough to include in their lives and sometimes subsequently their theories, let alone try to take on to figure out. Religion vis a vis spirituality, has never been a negative force to be reckoned with, it truly is the men and women that bend it to their will and misinterpret ideals and concepts, preached to them in their temples, churches, monasteries, etc. that have made religion look a lot uglier than it needs to be perceived. Albert Einstein, by far the greatest scientist of recent history, said this, and I shall reiterate time and time again since philosophical, analogous dictums can be read again and again until one day they click, "Science without religion is lame (as in limp not "dumb" or "boring"), religon without science is blind." Quite the proclamation isn't it? What did he see in his era that inspired him to say this? The Grandfather of Modern Physics saw something going on back then, in an almost prolific way. I perceive religion and science spreading even farther apart than back in the early 20th century when this higher genius (190 IQ so says the most optimistic psychologists) was alive. I spit out a lot of propositions and suppositions, but how many of them are biased and how many of them are true and how many of them are wrong. You decide, BigThinkers.

It seems to me that the bridge is held captive by arrogance and fear on both sides of the gap. On the one side, arrogance and fear that the genius of human thought and imagination is somehow diminished by considering an immanent creator; on the other, the arrogance and fear that acceptance of the revelations of a personal God is somehow tainted by acceptance of human discovery and innovation. To stare into our mind-boggling universe with a few theories and/or beliefs held tightly in such defiant and conceited fists dulls our vision and dooms our quest for understanding to failure. We are blind until we are humble.

This topic has become extremely boring and out of hand. I think we have addressed all the important stuff at this point.

Until the latter part of the 20th century many if not most prominent scientific minds were utilizing science and mathematics to understand the world around them and in doing so they felt that they became closer to "god". I put this in quotations because, despite what many people assert, the idea of god is very subjective. Most of these men and women were going against the social norms of the day that, in general, were dictated by the religious faction in power so that over time the pursuit of scientific knowledge came to be associated with anti-religious beliefs. While I am not a believer in god, I also do not think that religion and science must 100% at odds. There are some inherent differences; most large-scale organized religions require the practicioner to have blind faith in messages supposedly sent by god but delivered by man, while science requires rigorous testing and independent verification before an idea is accepted. The general motivation behind both is that it is a great big universe out there and there is a lot more to it than I understand, so let me try to make some sense of it in the only way I know how. My personal view is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge through experimentation and mathematics is as close as we can come to a mystical or religious experience. The moment when an idea becomes more than just a thought in the mind and you can see a glimpse of the reality behind it is the closest thing to magic or a miracle that I have ever experienced, and I thank whomever for that, whether it be the universe, god, or my biological ancestors.

Lol you two completely derailed this topic into some crappy atheism vs theism belief. Just stop.

I always thought of the universe as vibrations. I also thought of the entire universe as a mind. String theory and the cosmic web just reinforce those opinions. So thank you Dr Kaku, for helping to justify a young childs understanding of reality :) Now I only had a group of 12" high robot ninjas having epic battles in my living room while tidying up any litter that gets dropped, my vision of the future will be complete.