Notes

  1. . William James, The Will T o Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1987), p. 1.
  2. . Ibid., p. x.
  3. . Ibid.
  4. . The role of faith in scientific inquiry is rich in aspects, some of which have been given illuminating treatment in recent literature. Foremost to mention is the work by M. Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society (London: Oxford University Press, 1946; reprinted with a new Introduction by the author: University of Chicago Press, 1964). Some valuable contributions to the subject were made by noted physicists, such as H. Margenau, Open Vistas: Philosophical Perspectives of Modern Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 73–76; K. Lonsdale, I Believe: The Eighteenth Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lecture, 6 November 1964 (Cambridge: University Press, 1964); H. K. Schilling, Science and Religion: An Interpretation of Two Communities (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962).
  5. . T. H. Huxley, “On the Advisableness of Improving Natural Knowledge,” in Method and Results: Essays (New York: D. Apspleton & Co., 1894), p. 40.
  6. . See Lord Kelvin's presidential address in Report of the Forty‐first Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (held at Edinburgh in August, 1871) (London: John Murray, 1872). p. xciii.
  7. . Oliver Lodge, Modern Views of Electricity (London, 1889), pp. 382–83.
  8. . Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? translated by J. Murphy (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1932), p. 214.
  9. . Albert Einstein, “Clerk Maxwell's Influence on the Development of the Conception of Physical Reality” (1931), in The World as I See It (New York: Covici, 1934), p. 60.
  10. . Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (New York: Simon, 1938). pp. 312–13.
  11. . Albert Einstein, “Address to the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion” (1940), in Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 26.
  12. . A. S. Eddington, Science and the Unseen World: Swarthmore Lecture, 1929 (New York: Macmillan Co., 1930), pp. 73–74.
  13. . W. Heisenberg, “A Scientist's Case for the Classics,” Harper's Magazine, CCXVI (May, 1958), p. 29.
  14. . Willem De Sitter, Kosmos (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), p. 10.
  15. . L. Brillouin, Scientific Uncertainty, and Information (New York: Academic Press, 1964), p. 41.
  16. . On Wheeler's lecture, see W. Sullivan's report in the New York Times, February 5, 1967, sec. E, p. 5, cols. 3–5.
  17. . Robert Oppenheimer, The Constitution of Matter (Eugene: Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1956), p. 37.
  18. . R. A. Millikan, Science and the New Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930). p. 164.
  19. . On this point, see my work, The Relevance of Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 479–80.
  20. . Erwin Schrödinger, My View of the World, translated by C. Hastings (Cambridge: University Press, 1964), pp. 3–4.
  21. . Einstein, in a letter of April 23, 1953, to Mr. J. E. Switzer; see D. J. de Solla Price, Science since Babylon (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 15.
  22. . Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan Co., 1926), pp. 18–19. For a very valuable discussion of the import of the Christian doctrine of creation, see L. Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge (1959), (Doubleday Anchor Book reprint; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1965). Concerning the Christian origins of modern science, Gilkey's discussion needs updating. Modern historical research has clearly shown those origins to be medieval, a point that was ignored by Gilkey's principal source on this point, several articles by M. Foster, published in Mind between 1934 and 1936.
  23. . Bacon, Of the Dignity and Advancement of Learning, Book 3, chap. iv, in The Works of Francis Bacon, edited by J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath (new ed.; London, 1870). IV, 365.
  24. . On the impotence of the organismic concept of the physical world, see my Relevance of Physics (n. 19 above), chap. i.
  25. . J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, II.: History of Scientific Thought Cambridge: University Press, 1956). p. 581.
  26. . Galileo, Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, translated by Stillman Drake (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953), p. 328.
  27. . Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (n. 8 above), p. 214; see also his The Philosophy of Physics, translated by W. H. Johnston (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1936), pp. 122–23.
  28. . For a convenient source on these statements of Faraday, see H. Bence‐Jones, The Life and Letters of Faraday (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1870), II, 253, 417, 388.
  29. . It formed part of a program sponsored by the Gravity Research Foundation that for a number of years has awarded prizes to outstanding essays on various aspects of the problem of gravity.
  30. . H. Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951). p. 268.
  31. . Thus N. Wiener took pains to emphasize that the faith needed in scientific work has nothing in common with religious faith which he described as a set of dogmas imposed from outside (The Human Use of Human Beings [reprinted by Doubleday & Co., n.d.], p. 193). Religious faith was therefore rejected by Wiener as “no faith.” Such high‐handed, if not superficial, handling of the concept of religious faith proves only one thing. A scientist, however eminent, may easily dispense, when discussing topics outside his field, with the elementary scientific duty of securing for himself a fair measure of proper information in the matter.
  32. . There are, of course, differences between the attitudes of faith as acted out within the religious and the scientific framework, respectively. Those differences mainly derive from the role played by revelation and authority as normative factors within the community of the faithful. The rise and growing influence of science was most beneficial in reminding theologians and churchmen that those normative factors are restricted to moral and supernatural considerations and can never play a heuristic role in man's search for the regularities of the processes of nature.