These three aspects of religion are interconnected,
and it is generally felt, in view of this
close integration of ideas, that to attack
one feature of the system is to attack the
whole structure. The three aspects are connected
more or less as follows: The moral aspect,
the moral code, is the word of God – which
involves us in a metaphysical question. Then
the inspiration comes because one is working
the will of God; one is for God; partly one
feels that one is with God. And this is a
great inspiration because it brings one's
actions in contact with the universe at large.
So these three things are very well interconnected.
The difficulty is this: that science occasionally
conflicts with the first of the three categories
 – the metaphysical aspect of religion.
For instance, in the past there was an argument
about whether the earth was the center of
the universe – whether the earth moved around
the sun or stayed still. The result of all
this was a terrible strife and difficulty,
but it was finally resolved – with religion
retreating in this particular case. More recently
there was a conflict over the question of
whether man has animal ancestry.
The result in many of these situations is
a retreat of the religious metaphysical view,
but nevertheless, there is no collapse of
the religion. And further, there seems to
be no appreciable or fundamental change in
the moral view.
After all, the earth moves around the sun
 – isn't it best to torn the other cheek?
Does it make any difference whether the earth
is standing still or moving around the son?
We can expect conflict again. Science is developing
and new things will be found out which will
he in disagreement with the present-day metaphysical
theory of certain religions. In fact, even
with all the past retreats of religion, there
is still real conflict for particular individuals
when they learn about the science and they
have heard about the religion. The thing has
not been integrated very well; there are real
conflicts here – and yet morals are not
affected.
As a matter of fact, the conflict is doubly
difficult in this metaphysical region. Firstly,
the facts may be in conflict, but even if
the facts were not in conflict, the attitude
is different. The spirit of uncertainty in
science is an attitude toward the metaphysical
questions that is quite different from the
certainty and faith that is demanded in religion.
There is definitely a conflict, I believe
 – both in fact and in spirit – over the
metaphysical aspects of religion.
In my opinion, it is not possible for religion
to find a set of metaphysical ideas which
will be guaranteed not to get into conflicts
with an ever-advancing and always-changing
science which is going into an unknown. We
don't know how to answer the questions; it
is impossible to find an answer which someday
will not be found to be wrong. The difficulty
arises because science and religion are both
trying to answer questions in the same realm
here.
On the other hand, I don't believe that a
real conflict with science will arise in the
ethical aspect, because I believe that moral
questions are outside of the scientific realm.
Let me give three or four arguments to show
why I believe this. In the first place, there
have been conflicts in the past between the
scientific and the religious view about the
metaphysical aspect and, nevertheless, the
older moral views did not collapse, did not
change.
Second, there are good men who practice Christian
ethics and who do not believe in the divinity
of Christ. They find themselves in no inconsistency
here.
Thirdly, although I believe that from time
to time scientific evidence is found which
may be partially interpreted as giving some
evidence of some particular aspect of the
life of Christ, for example, or of other religious
metaphysical ideas, it seems to me that there
is no scientific evidence bearing on the golden
rule. It seems to me that that is somehow
different.
Now, let's see if I can make a little philosophical
explanation as to why it is different – how
science cannot affect the fundamental basis
of morals.
The typical human problem, and one whose answer
religion aims to supply, is always of the
following form: Should I do this? Should we
do this? Should the government do this? To
answer this question we can resolve it into
two parts: First — If I do this, what will
happen? – and second – Do I want that
to happen? What would come of it of value
 – of good?
Now a question of the form: If I do this,
what will happen? is strictly scientific.
As a matter of fact, science can be defined
as a method for, and a body of information
obtained by, trying to answer only questions
which can be put into the form: If I do this,
what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally,
is: Try it and see. Then you put together
a large amount of information from such experiences.
All scientists will agree that a question
 – any question, philosophical or other
 – which cannot be put into the form that
can be tested by experiment (or, in simple
terms, that cannot be put into the form: If
I do this, what will happen?) is not a scientific
question; it is outside the realm of science.
I claim that whether you want something to
happen or not – what value there is in the
result, and how you judge the value of the
result (which is the other end of the question:
Should I do this?) – must lie outside of
science because it is not a question that
you can answer only by knowing what happens;
you still have to judge what happens – in
a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason
I think that there is a complete consistency
between the moral view – or the ethical
aspect of religion – and scientific information.
Turning to the third aspect of religion – the
inspirational aspect – brings me to the
central question that I would like to present
to this imaginary panel. The source of inspiration
today – for strength and for comfort – in
any religion is very closely knit with the
metaphysical aspect; that is, the inspiration
comes from working for God, for obeying his
will, feeling one with God. Emotional ties
to the moral code – based in this manner
 – begin to be severely weakened when doubt,
even a small amount of doubt, is expressed
as to the existence of God; so when the belief
in God becomes uncertain, this particular
method of obtaining inspiration fails.
I don't know the answer to this central problem
 – the problem of maintaining the real value
of religion, as a source of strength and of
courage to most men, while, at the same time,
not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical
aspects.
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands
by two great heritages. One is the scientific
spirit of adventure – the adventure into
the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized
as being unknown in order to be explored;
the demand that the unanswerable mysteries
of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude
that all is uncertain; to summarize it – the
humility of the intellect. The other great
heritage is Christian ethics – the basis
of action on love, the brotherhood of all
men, the value of the individual – the humility
of the spirit.
These two heritages are logically, thoroughly
consistent. But logic is not all; one needs
one's heart to follow an idea. If people are
going back to religion, what are they going
back to? Is the modern church a place to give
comfort to a man who doubts God-more, one
who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church
a place to give comfort and encouragement
to the value of such doubts? So far, have
we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain
the one or the other of these consistent heritages
in a way which attacks the values of the other?
Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration
to support these two pillars of western civilization
so that they may stand together in full vigor,
mutually unafraid? Is this not the central
problem of our time?
I put it up to the panel for discussion.
