According to Muslims, are Patanjali products halal

To home page

more information about faith and science


Knowledge - Belief - Doubt
Natural science and religion - theology (also Jewish tradition) - criticism of religion - creationism - evolution - cosmology - chaos research ...

compilation: joachim krause, Hauptstr. 46, 08393 Schönberg, tel. 03764-3140

A) a further collection of sources and quotations to the subject area "Natural Science - Philosophy - Religion" became in connection with a Textbook study created - please HERE click
B) You can find quotes from well-known scientists on the relationship between faith and science in the collection "When scientists talk about God ..." You're welcome HERE click

C) An extensive collection of Quotes from Charles Darwin from his books and letters you can find HERE:

D) You will find a collection of quotes by Ernst Haeckel from his books "Die Lebenswunder" and "Die Weltträthsel" HERE:

started: early 2005 (a few older "finds" at the beginning of the individual chapters)
completed as of January 2018

The latest entries can be found at the end of the individual subject areas marked in color

(You can also download the following collection of materials as a PDF file)

Click here directly on individual areas:

·         Natural science in general, knowledge, cognition

·        biology

·        evolution

·        physics

·        cosmology

·        Chaos research

·        Risk research

·        christiantheology

·        Jewish theology; Judaism

·        Islam

·        on the relationship between faith and science

·         Creationism, Intelligent Design

·         Religiosity, religions, (other) religions

·         Critical of faith: doubters, atheists, agnostics, Unitarians

·        Eugen Drewermann: Theology of Creation (quotations from 3 books)

Natural science in general, knowledge, cognition

·         Our intuition (our “ratiomorphic apparatus”) is shaped on a world of the middle dimensions, on the mesocosm. World of medium dimensions: medium distances and times, low speeds and forces, low complexity;
Laws of nature are (descriptions of) regularities in the behavior of real systems .;
some laws of nature are now recognized as only approximately or partially valid (Galileo's laws of fall, Kepler's laws of planets, Newton's law of gravitation);
In a certain sense, all natural laws that we know belong to the boundary conditions of this very cosmos .;
Random processes (why the moon exactly covers the sun during a lunar eclipse, why a child has the color of his mother's eyes but the color of his father's hair, why a free neutron now decays);
In 1875 a high school graduate asks physics professor Jolly in Munich whether he should study physics, Jolly advises against: there is nothing fundamentally new to discover there, the young man is studying physics and is the author of what is probably the greatest revolution that physics has ever experienced has, quantum mechanics, his name is Max Planck;
Cosmology is part of our culture like music - and like it is fun (Kippenhahn);
(Gerhard Vollmer: Why can we see the world ?, Hirzel Stuttgart 2003, pp. 21, 149, 151, 162, 173f, 284, 295)

·         all science is fallible, provisional, hypothetical;
Necessary criteria for assessing theories: freedom from circles, consistency, explanatory value, verifiability, test success; also desirable: simplicity, clarity, breadth, depth, gaplessness, precision, axiomatisability, applicability ...; see in more detail also p. 101;
All of these criteria are not sufficient to restore the once dreamed-of certainty of scientific knowledge, but they can nevertheless serve to mark scientific hypotheses as admissible and proven, even as reliable or trustworthy;
Even such a well-proven, so far never refuted and part of natural science as a whole, such as the energy law, could one day prove to be wrong. Assertions about the impossible are therefore always subject to possible error.
Biology does not provide moral norms. It would be wrong to want to ban all research because its results could possibly be misused one day. It can be said very clearly and succinctly what would be left of science: nothing. Mathematics is also used, and even the supposedly innocent prime numbers find practical and even military use in coding systems ... Norms cannot be derived from facts (the empirical sciences) ... naturalistic fallacy: solely from the fact that behavior is in which evolution has formed and thus proven, it does not follow, for example, that it is good or right. The natural is not automatically the right thing to do.
the presumptive nature of all factual knowledge, including scientific knowledge;
Knowledge of reality is an adequate (internal) reconstruction and identification of external objects .;
The real objects are projected onto our sensory organs, which are mostly on the surface of the body, using light, sound waves, chemical substances, thermal radiation or gravitational fields. Technical devices, observation and measuring instruments, telescopes, microphones, thermometers, compasses or Geiger counters, serve only to widen this projection "screen", to translate projection signals into those that our natural apparatus can process .;
Of course, our brain did not emerge as an organ of knowledge, but as an organ of survival .;
(Gerhard Vollmer: Biophilosophie, Reclam Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 38, 53, 55, 100, 108, 111, 128)

·         In spite of a large amount of reliable measurement data, natural sciences do not have complete knowledge of the origin and development of the universe. There are still huge gaps. The knowledge about our cosmos is reflected in a multitude of hypotheses and theories that try to describe the processes as precisely as possible. However, these theories are subject to strict criteria:
- Their statements must satisfy the fundamental laws of the micro- and macrocosm, particle physics, quantum physics and general relativity
- they must have the present appearance of the universe accessible to us in accordance with the observation and measurement results of the astronomers clearly and qualitatively and quantitatively explained;
A theory immediately loses its validity as soon as one of its processes turns out to be wrong on the basis of new findings or measurement results
(Lesch / Müller: Big Bang second act - On the trail of life in space, Bertelsmann Munich 2003, p.91)

·         Some of the views put forward are highly speculative and some will certainly prove erroneous; but in all cases I have given the reasons which led me more to one or the other point of view. .... incorrect views, which are to some extent supported by evidence, can do little harm, for everyone finds a salutary pleasure in testing their inaccuracy. And if this has happened, the way to error is blocked and often at the same time a way to truth is opened;
(Charles Darwin: The descent of man and selection in a sexual relationship, Reclam Leipzig undated, vol. II - p. 409)

·         Basic problems of mankind - still unsolved:
How did the universe come about?
Where does life come from?
What is consciousness
(GEO 9/1999 p.144)

·         Einstein: "Laws of nature are free inventions of the human mind.";
But they have to prove themselves, make accurate predictions and explain observations.
(bdw 12/2003 p.47)

·         ... research in the field of natural sciences, which has produced such significant results over the past centuries and thus promoted real progress for all of humanity
(Fides et ratio, encyclical from Pope John Paul II of September 14, 1998, Bonn, p.30)

·         that, as a rule, it is not the observations that turn out to be false in the development of the sciences, but almost always only the added explanation;
a stand-alone theory is more likely to be refuted; Theories gain certain degrees of certainty only with and within theories (system of earthly mechanics and gravitation from Galileo and Newton); mostly (isolated, not integrated into systems) “microtheories” are developed in order to attribute the status of scientificity to one's own observations;
Theory of everything? from our area of ​​experience (middle dimensions) two theoretical structures - on the cosmos and on the quanta, which have not yet been merged;
Are there eternal laws that (already) always work, or do they only come into reality at certain stages of development (physical earlier than biological)?
(Rupert Riedl: Zufall, Chaos, Sinn; Kreuz Stuttgart 2000, p.174ff.)

·         Laws of nature are not timelessly valid, tied to the existence of certain conditions, there is no law of nature without a scope,
(Dürr HP et al .: God, man and science, Augsburg 1997, p.51,)

·         Scientists keep reminding us that the "law" of cause and effect is an "article of faith";
Natural science: not ultimate truths, search for a deeper understanding of nature, no judgment, but “standard model” as the state of affairs currently accepted by most experts, approximate theories (work satisfactorily in some areas), effective theories (one can work quite well with them);
Werner Heisenberg: "Even in natural science, the object of research is no longer nature itself, but nature exposed to human questions";
Religion, art, philosophy, music, poetry, literature;
The arts and the humanities have expanded the boundaries of human experience and given us insights and explanations that are unmistakably true to the truth; they deal with the inexplicable, remote, unclassifiable, unpredictable, senseless, unique, unique, wonderful, absurd and irrational;
Hawking's theories: he doesn't even call it a theory, just a suggestion; it is a spectacular, wild fantasy
(Kitty Ferguson: God and the Laws of the Universe, Econ Düsseldorf 2002, p.29,47,67,120,169)

·         The natural sciences do not reflect nature, they do not show what is visible. They explain something we see (like an apple falling) by something we don't see (earth's gravity); The natural scientists install windows in the area of ​​the visible to give us the opportunity to see through nature within this framework.
(EP Fischer: The other education - what one should know about the natural sciences, Ullstein 2003, p.17)

·         Bacon: Knowledge is power - dialectical: I can submit to nature if I submit to nature beforehand (subject of subicere = submit);
the natural scientist (often) has to forbid sensual (apparent) access to the world, but then the description of the world is no longer meaningful; Split between sensual and conceptual knowledge: I see how the sun rotates, but I know that the earth rotates, both around itself and around the sun; It was only possible to prove the rotation of the earth around the sun in the middle of the 19th century (another place in the sky can be measured at different times of the year);
the materially given reality is characterized by four qualities, known as space, time, energy and mass, are closely related (Einstein), originate from the Big Bang; Antiquity and alchemists saw reality as determined by four elements: fire, water, air and earth, which were thought of as the states of a primordial substance (prima materia);
Revaluation of scientific values ​​around 1900 (165):
before 1900 after 1900 example
Objectivity Subjectivity Path of an electron
Uniqueness, ambiguity, nature of light
Steadiness discontinuity quantum of the effect
Vividness, inexplicability, spin of an electron
Determinateness indeterminacylocation of a photon;
(EP Fischer: The other education - what one should know about the natural sciences, Ullstein 2003, p.36,53,58,96)

·         Principle of actualism (in geology): Scientists assume that certain geological processes have always been controlled by the same chemical and physical laws (e.g. similarities in the deposition of sandstone) (167)
scientific method: five steps:
1st observation
2. Hypothesis formation
3rd experiment
4. Conclusion and theorizing
5. Publication of the results (530)
(Detlev Ganten et al .: Life, Nature, Science; Eichborn Ffm. 2003)

·         A theory is a set of systematically ordered statements about an area of ​​reality that has both an explanatory (explicative) and a predictive (prognostic) function.
A scientific theory is characterized by the fact that it can be refuted, at least in principle. It must contain a falsification criterion or it must be possible to derive one from it. (7)
The quality of a theory is measured not only according to the falsification criterion, also not exclusively according to the degree of validity (how many refutation attempts it has withstood), but also according to
- the explanatory content: how many already known facts it can absorb
- the plausibility: with how many proven or generally accepted theories it is congruent and
- the parsimonity: "frugality", i.e. how many additional assumptions it makes necessary. (9)
Research into history is an attempt to reconstruct unique events that have taken place in the past. There is no real testability for such reconstruction work. According to Popper's definition of science, the theory of evolution and historical research are to be regarded as metaphysics. (11)
A theory is refuted not by showing explanatory gaps, but only by showing contradictions (19)
(German Institute for Distance Learning at the University of Tübingen, distance learning natural sciences, evolution of the flora and fauna, 3rd theoretical basics, 1986)

·         Without Maxwell's equations in electrodynamics, we would have neither radio nor X-ray devices, without Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, neither GPS nor satellite weather images, and without the Schrödinger and Dirac equations in quantum mechanics, neither CD players nor nuclear spin and positron emission tomography for diagnosing diseases and for mapping brain activities. ...
With the help of natural laws, we describe, explain, forecast and change the world extremely successfully. ...
At least the following can be achieved by the laws of nature - and this is one of the secrets of the success of modern science:
- general applicability due to the high information content as general statements (in contrast to cumbersome, situation-specific individual statements with countless exceptions)
- Economical, redundancy-free description of experiences
- Systematization of observations
- Explanation of apparitions
- Forecast of future developments
- Understanding of our living space (world orientation)
- Embedding in theories, all of which also fulfill the points listed above ...

(bdw 12/03 p. 40)

·         naturalistic fallacy: in which it is wrongly deduced from the fact that something is natural that it is also (morally) legitimate (91)
(Detlev Ganten et al .: Life, Nature, Science; Eichborn Ffm. 2003)

·         Complementarity (from completum = the whole): means in general that a phenomenon (such as light) can be comprehensively and fully understood only through two aspects that both belong together and are contradicting, for every appearance there are explanations that are opposing are and still have equal rights, the complementary theories of a thing are always correct, but none of them alone captures the truth, they can only do that together;
the properties of electrons or photons remain undetermined until someone asks about them and does the corresponding experiment (182)
Relation of uncertainty (not: uncertainty relation from the back translation of uncertainty): when measuring the position of particles, photons must be used for observation, which push the particle to a different location or it has a different speed than before (182);
Life: reproduction, metabolism, reacting to the environment (274)
(EP Fischer: The other education - what one should know about the natural sciences, Ullstein 2003, p.179)

·         Metaphysics was initially a technical term for those writings of Aristotle, which were lined up "behind physics", and became the term for the philosophical discipline that asks about things that seem fundamental to us "beyond" what is physically accessible to us: after being and nothing, Becoming and passing away, essence and reality, truth and value, nature, soul, spirit and God;
Bertalanffy pointed out that death came into the world only with multicellularity, pain with the nervous system, fear with consciousness and worry with possession;
Science: technically, it is knowledge that is methodically acquired and organized through research, teaching and literature; associated with the desire to trace back what has been recognized and ordered to explanations;
Agreement to disclose the results
(Rupert Riedl: Chance, Chaos, Sinn; Kreuz Stuttgart 2000, p.16,24,168)

·         The classic formulation of the thesis of the freedom of values ​​in science goes back to Max Weber: “An empirical science cannot teach anyone what it should, only what it can” .;
Kosmos: "jewelry", something that was made, that someone must have made;
the order of the world can point to God, it is open to it;
Method of natural science: strictly separate the observer from the object, repeat processes as often as desired under precisely defined conditions, mathematical formulation of the laws, verifiable prognoses
(Dürr HP et al .: God, man and science, Augsburg 1997, p.26,34,41)

·         Three-phase rule: that new insights are initially hushed up, then fought down to the knife and finally taken for granted
(Rupert Riedl: Chance, Chaos, Sinn; Kreuz Stuttgart 2000, p.173)

·         (16) In the Middle Ages, the main question was: What is a thing for? In modern times one asks above all causally: Why is a thing the way it is? What is it like, what is it made of, and what laws does it obey? If you want to know what everything is, you have to know how everything has become .;
(28f) law of the uncertainty or indeterminacy relation formulated by Heisenberg. If you know where an electron is (location), you cannot know what it is doing (momentum) ... The position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured at the same time, as the measurement becomes blurred and therefore becomes "blurred". The exciting discovery: There is no physical certainty here, only statistical probability. The consequence: If it is impossible to measure the current state of an object precisely (in the classical sense), its future cannot be predicted exactly either. Chance is an element that is necessarily connected with quantum theory and that cannot be eliminated even by more precise observations.
For this reason Einstein, although he had prepared it with his ingenious light quantum hypothesis as early as 1905, led a persistent fight against quantum theory: “Quantum mechanics is very respectable. But an inner voice tells me that this is not the real Jacob after all. The theory delivers a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the old. In any case, I am convinced that he does not roll the dice. ";
(38f) In July 2004, however, Hawking explains ... that fluctuations at the edge of a black hole can cause information to leak out. ... In addition, he revised the view he had held for three decades that the alleged disappearance of matter and energy in the black holes can be explained by parallel universes next to our universe. No, the massive vortices that form when stars decay did not send the energy and matter they sucked into a parallel universe. Everything remains in our universe and survives in a squashed form the dissolution of the black holes. “There is no baby universe as I once thought.”;
(43) As early as 1935, in his influential book “Logic of Research”, Karl Popper had astutely analyzed the rules of the game for generating scientific hypotheses and theories and pointed out the limits of the inductive method in empirical sciences. His question: How does a researcher actually come from individual sets of experience to a system of theory? How do new scientific findings come about at all? Popper's astonishing answer: Especially not through verification, verification, but falsification, refutation. ...
Most scientific propositions are also not empirically verifiable ...
“Even the laws of nature cannot be logically traced back to elementary empirical principles.”;
(44) The old scientific ideal, absolutely certain knowledge, has proven to be an idol, or to put it positively: every scientific proposition is provisional; he can prove himself - but every test is relative .;
(49) Even for simple objects such as a table or bicycle, there is not just one, the physical, but several levels of explanation (including the functional, for example);
... Discussion about a “theory for everything”, which, if you look closely, is only a theory for everything physical and does little to help you understand Shakespeare, Handel or Newton .;
(50) In spite of all the complexity of reality, the various layers of reality will never be allowed to be explained as simply different realities. With all the multi-dimensionality of reality, one should not overlook the unity in the various dimensions ...
(hence dualism to be viewed critically);
(51) Whether physicist or philosopher .... every human being has to do with more than reason: with will and feeling, imagination and mind, emotions and passions that cannot simply be reduced to reason .;
(52) Scientific progress is by no means always human progress .;
(92) The microcosm as well as the macrocosm can ultimately only be described with images, ciphers, comparisons, with models and mathematical formulas. ...
The mode of reality of the core building blocks, the protons and neutrons, and especially the quarks, their ups and downs, is completely unexplained. The "flavors" or "" colors "associated with them were" primarily meant to be fun "(according to the" inventor "of the quarks, Murray Gellmann), but" they also serve as a kind of metaphor ".;
(148) "to define" means "to delimit"
(Hans Küng: The Beginning of All Things, Science and Religion, Munich 2005)

·         (450ff) A reproducible (or objective) statement is understood to be a statement that can be made repeatedly in an independent manner and by different people. In order to get to it, the strict validity of logic must be assumed. The following demands are made for this purpose:
Independence from the respective observer,
Independence from agreements,
Independence from beliefs and values ​​and from an ideology.
Ultimately, these demands cannot be justified, but only made plausible; they are the "rules of the game" in natural science. ...
Another important "rule of the game" (basic assumption, postulate) for the natural sciences is the principle of causality: every effect must be based on a cause and the same causes produce the same effects under the same conditions. ...
+ Watch
+ Compare
+ Experimentation (previously working hypothesis);
A hypothesis is usually a (thought) model that one makes of reality. ...
A hypothesis must be tested (agreement of the model with reality) and, if necessary, further refined. For this purpose, predictions are derived from the H. which can be verified experimentally. ...
Depending on the outcome of the experiment, the hypothesis is confirmed or recognized as false (falsified). A single objective statement. which is incompatible with the hypothesis leads to its rejection. On the other hand, an H. can never be definitively verified (i.e. its truth can be proven); Each confirmation only makes its correctness more likely ... A frequently confirmed H. has proven itself. ...
Since hypotheses can never be verified, the hypothetical character of all scientific knowledge follows from this. ...
If a hypothesis, developed step by step through observation, experiment and logical linking of the individual facts that have become known, allows the insertion of many objective statements without contradictions and if this is confirmed many times, it takes on the status of a theory. ...
By continuing to correct errors, we hope to move closer to the truth. However, we do not know when a hypothesis can be regarded as sufficiently proven to be called a theory. Theories are never final, but always correct according to the current state of knowledge. ...
As a rule, tried and tested theories are not overturned completely by new ones, but retain their validity within a limited framework (as a special case) (example: Newtonian physics is based on JK in the more comprehensive theory of relativity). ...
Science tries to combine the theories put forward in the various areas into a unit, the scientific worldview. This view of the world can only be a partial picture of the world, because non-objective statements (belief, values, ideology) are excluded by the method of the natural sciences. Besides, it can only be a preliminary picture, as there are always unresolved questions and all theories are subject to constant criticism .;
(456) The theory of evolution can lead to the following questions:
- What is the point of evolution?
- Why did evolution lead to humans, a being with a spirit, i.e. with the ability to think and act sensibly?
- What is behind what science describes as "coincidence"?
Such questions cannot be solved with the methods of natural science. Answers to these are left to personal belief .;
Biology cannot interpret free will and the meaning of being .;
(457) Biology and Ethics
The principle “Help as many people as possible to achieve the greatest possible happiness” (utility principle) is called the utilitarian principle .;
Another basic rule that can be assumed is the categorical principle (Kant): “Always act in such a way that your principles can be the basis of general legislation and that you humans (including yourself) are always at the same time as an end and never just as a means need. "
Max Weber:
Responsibility ethics: foreseeable consequences of an action are to be estimated and must be accounted for. Concrete actions are related to the experience, the knowledge gained, and can be changed.
Ethics of conviction: The decisive factor are the ethical principles that no longer need to be questioned by the individual once they have been accepted. Responsibility lies only before the conscience that has recognized these principles for itself .;
When discussing moral problems, biology can only explain what is the case from a scientific point of view. The justification of norms is a matter of ethics.
(Linder Biologie, textbook for advanced level, 21st edition, Metzler, Schroedel Verlag Hannover, 1998)

·         (143) That there are still gaps (in the evolution theory JK) and probably always will be, is no proof against their correctness. Only when a theory is found which explains the phenomena of the living world in a different way and better than the theory of evolution will the theory of descent become obsolete;
(146) A well-founded, complete argument against it (in the theory of evolution JK) is connected with certain difficulties: The theory of evolution is to a large extent also based on the assumptions that geology provides, because the fossils are found in geological layers, The dating methods that determine the time table of evolution are the dating methods used by geologists. However, these procedures are based on the assumption that the laws of nature that are effective today were effective a long time ago. The principle is called actualism or actuality principle and goes back to the English geologist Charles Lyell, who used it in Darwin's time to steer geology in new directions. For us, this principle is a matter of course today. But it is ... not provable. The actualism is an AXIOM, i.e. a sentence that is considered to be immediately understandable, but cannot be proven;
A theory is refuted when all the phenomena it tries to explain are better explained by another theory.
(Hoff / Miram: Materials for Upper Secondary School, Biology, Evolution, Schroedel Verlag Hannover 1993)

·         (221) In cosmology, "a mountain of theories is built on a molehill from findings" (Carr)
(Bill Bryson: A Brief History of Almost Everything, Goldmann Munich 2004)

·         (14) If at all, less deterministic laws such as those established by Kepler and Newton come into consideration when considering life processes. The vast majority of natural processes are based on probabilities. Both the basic evolutionary idea à la Darwin and the practical inheritance rules à la Mendel are of a statistical nature full of randomness and thus anything but defining or determining. ...
In life, no molecules run around on precisely ordered and precisely calculable orbits like the planets in the sky do. ...
(19) that human life can be characterized by attributes such as “unique” and “inimitable”, and that is precisely what the natural sciences in their traditional form do not deal with. Most of all, they care about regularities and repeatable observations ...
(438) Humans consist of molecules, cells and structures that are becoming more and more complex, but the forms and possibilities that they ultimately show cannot be explained solely from the (scientific JK) laws ...
the emergence of man is a dual - dialogical - process like the formation of man, which can be targeted in two ways - as biological development and as the acquisition of knowledge, which could be called the formation of people.
Living beings and their abilities can only be understood in the back and forth of the levels - consistently complementary and thus dialogical - from which the real world is built or can be built. and the higher you climb, the more important - besides causality - the historical moment;
(439) When the early representatives of the exact sciences formulated their goal in the early 17th century to use knowledge to gain power over nature, this also meant that people had to submit to the laws of nature (subiacere) in order to be able to use them .;
(448) People have developed primarily as subjects. This proud designation with the original meaning of submission indicates the essential fact that we cannot do what we like and rather depend on the things around us in the sense that they have contributed to our formation (evolution).
(Ernst Peter Fischer: The education of man - what the natural sciences know about us; Ullstein Berlin 2006)

·         (30) The number of species living today is estimated at two million. Around a hundred times as many, around 200 million, have already died out again. All species differ from one another in several characteristics. So there are so many traits in organisms that a complete phylogenetic explanation of dual functions cannot be hoped for for all traits. In this sense, evolutionary biology will always remain incomplete and sketchy.
(36) For the physicist, the subject of scientific interest is the laws of nature, for the biologist, on the other hand, the individual boundary conditions. What interests the physicist in a binary star system is what it has in common with other binary star systems or with other gravitationally bound systems. The biologist, on the other hand, is interested in what is special, individual and unique in his research objects; for him the typical, the striking, the “specific” of a biological species is not what connects it with other species, but what distinguishes it from all species.
(Gerhard Vollmer: The incompleteness of the theory of evolution, in: Kanitscheider, B. (Ed.): Moderne Naturphilosophie, Würzburg 1984)

·         (49) the fundamental scientific question, answer and precisionopenness
(Ulrich Lüke: The mammal by God's grace, evolution-awareness-freedom, Herder Freiburg2006)

·         With very rare phenomena, such as ball lightning, the natural scientists have a hard time. And for genuine individual phenomena - for example for my dream last night - they are simply not responsible. Their domain lies where something occurs over and over again under the same conditions or occurs again and again with many objects of the same type - animals, stars or elementary particles.
The ordering of these naked observational facts into regularities is then followed by the ordering of the regularities into theories and laws of nature ...A complex of phenomena that is assigned to a law of nature - more modernly formulated: can be explained by a fundamental scientific theory - has been tidied up to the maximum, so to speak .;
the question of whether there are many universes can hardly be answered within the framework of a science which still places any value on empirical testing of its theoretical models. Physicists who try anyway have to be told that what they are doing is not a natural science, but (at best) natural philosophy ... honestly refrain from such considerations, and be clothed in mathematical formalisms, the appearance of higher ones To give rationality;
Our scientific worldview must therefore always remain incomplete - precisely because it is a scientific one.
(VW Magazin city views ORDER p.22)

·         Kant: “Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment "
(Spiegel 20/06 p.185)

·         (8) EP Fischer:
Current knowledge knows boundaries at all times, against which it purposefully runs, without being able to specify whether they - as a “boundery” - have to be overcome or - as a “limit” - can only be ascertained;
Additional restrictions today: ethical and economic limits;
Devices that are too expensive in high-energy physics: if there are theories that can no longer be tested experimentally, the possibility of evaluating them “scientifically” disappears;
(Spectrum of Science Dossier "Limits of Knowledge", 2002)

·         (68) Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895): "The tragedy of science - the killing of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
(121) Mendel: genes as “atoms of inheritance”; Perhaps it was not until 1900 that the scientific world was really ready to imagine a world made up of separate (discrete) parts - Planck's quantum hypothesis
(Ludwig Schultz, Hermann-Friedrich Wagner (Hrsg.): The world behind things, WILEY-VCH Weinheim, 2006)

·         (45) the astrologer Cardano suspects that his way of revealing the methods does not necessarily have to be useful for science, because “what everyone knows, therefore loses value in our eyes, even if it is very valuable in itself . That is the reason why the priests like to leave their ceremonies in the dark: if they were not covered with the veil of mystery they would be considered worthless ”.
(99) Alexander von Humboldt: "The most dangerous worldview is the worldview of people who have never looked at the world."
(106) When Gauss was studying, mathematics was still incorporated into the philosophy faculty in Göttingen in 1795;
(212) Quantum physics: In the innermost part of the world there are no realities, only possibilities, and they only take on their current form when an external intervention - an observation - takes place.
(223) Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not usually assert itself in such a way that its opponents are convinced and declare themselves informed, but rather by the fact that the opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation with the truth from the outset is made familiar. "
(Ernst Peter Fischer: Leonardo, Heisenberg & Co., Piper TB Munich 2004)

·         (Limits of scientific knowledge)

"Beginning, origin"

The question of the beginning and origin is of course not a scientific question. Many people are fascinated by the four great questions about the origin of the universe, life, man and consciousness, but this fascination is based more on the religious connotations of these questions than on an interest in the answers that our sciences give to them. Because, to be precise, the sciences give no answer to this. And there are reasons for that. Each of these entities - the universe, life, man, consciousness - exists as such at the level of its origin only in the context of the philosophical or religious question, but not in the context of a scientific reality ...
Anyone who speaks of the origin of the universe means that there was a time when the universe began. This expression presupposes that time exists outside the UNIVERSE, that there is an absolute, as it were divine time. Physics teaches us, however, that space, time and matter are inextricably linked ... For physicists it makes no sense at all to speak of a beginning or origin of the universe in the temporal sense; they can only describe the changes in the already existing universe. A temporal “zero point” is just a convention that is introduced for the sake of easier mathematical treatment.
Scientific research into the origin of life focuses on the conditions that enabled it to arise. Since life is defined by the ability to reproduce, that is, by an ability that already presupposes life, we can draw our own conclusions from what it contains vicious circle only liberate by turning to the physical and chemical properties of the basic building blocks of life. Are there simple molecules at the beginning of life? Can biology ultimately be traced back to chemistry? If this question is answered in the affirmative, the question of the origin of life shifts to another subject, chemistry. But then does the concept of life still have any meaning at all?
The last two original questions concern the essence of man ...
If we want to answer the question about the origin of humans in the course of evolution (at which point in development did they break away from the lineage of our close relatives, the great primates?), We need to know which criterion allows us to really speak of a human being .
The question of the origin of consciousness, on the other hand, (at which point in individual development does a human being have a consciousness that defines its humanity and gives it its uniqueness?) Only makes sense if we can state exactly what “consciousness” means. ...
Science is in its element when it comes to analyzing and understanding changes; the question of the origin of things out of nothing, the creatio ex nihilo, on the other hand, forms a limit beyond which science is unable to provide any answers.

Creation "
... Even if the models of cosmology foresee a state for the most distant past of the universe, which is characterized by such a density and such extraordinary properties that one describes it with the term SINGULARITY adopted from mathematics, there is nothing to suggest this point in time , beyond which the familiar concept of time no longer has any validity, to be equated with an emergence from nothing. The singularity is not a creation process either. We must leave the use of this term to the metaphysicians and theologians and limit science modestly, but also happily, to the area of ​​transformations, about which the last word has not yet been said.

"Hypothesis, theory"
... The great upheavals in the history of science force researchers to be very careful with the concept of truth. Because the building of the world is not them a priori If you discover them, you have to admit that the scientific discourse about the world provides at best a theoretical explanation that claims validity for the moment, but can be refuted at any time by new observations and EXPERIMENTS.
Even if a theory ... represents a general view of the world in which scientific methods are applied, it is still a hypothesis that has been raised to the rank of a theory because it is so comprehensive and so many subject areas are in its Frame can move. These comprehensive theories include Darwin's theory of evolution, the theory of the expanding universe, and the standard model of quantum physics ...

"Singularities in Astrophysics"
In astrophysics, as in general in physics, one speaks of a singularity when quantities (such as density, charge, pressure, temperature, etc.) occur in the mathematical formula that is supposed to represent reality, which occur at a point in SPACE or in the TIME assume infinite values. No physical reality can correspond to these mathematical results, because in physics only measurable, i.e. finite, quantities are known. The singularity therefore points to a lack of correspondence between theory and reality and can therefore be extremely fruitful, because it denotes a point where the theory is inadequate and the mathematical representation is all too summarily compared to reality. ...
(in models describing the cosmos there are states) ... that the density of matter and energy becomes infinitely great; Such a state has no physical meaning in the universe and cannot actually occur in the universe. It is a singularity; For the mathematician it does not belong to SPACE-TIME, to which all other states belong ...

Even if some like to say that nothing is impossible, there are many impossible things in the sciences, even if it is only due to the fact that every science has to delimit its subject area precisely. Since sciences never combine the totality of knowledge about the totality of all objects, by delimiting their subject area they always also determine that area about which they are unable to say anything with their methods. This includes, for example, all questions relating to the origin of things.

There is often a tendency to define the scientific procedure in terms of the “verifiability” of its conclusions. Any information that is confirmed by observation and experiment is said to be scientific. This view implicitly means that scientific discourse describes the reality of the world around us as objectively and passively as possible.
Karl Popper rejected this idea, since for him there is no scientific knowledge in which the REALITY of the world is merely reflected. Indeed, all scientific knowledge is a hypothesis made by our minds, which we subject to various tests so that the outside world refutes or confirms it. If nature says “yes”, it is mostly just a “maybe yes”. If, on the other hand, it says “no” - that is, it refutes the hypothesis - this is done categorically.

(If a theory does not pass a test, however great its explanatory potential may be - it has to be given up - bdw 12/03 p.48).
(Thesaurus of the Exact Sciences, Two Thousand One Publishing House, Frankfurt / Main, 2001)

·         Galileo said that one had to limit science to things that could be proven with "sensory experience and the necessary demonstrations".
(Stillman Drake: Galilei, Herder Spektrum Meisterdenker, Freiburg n.d. ISBN 3-926642-38-6, p.72)

·         (1) monistic epistemology ... as the only two safe ways I called "experience and thinking - or empiricism and speculation" and emphasized that these two equal methods of knowledge complement each other, that they lead us to the truth through reason alone . On the other hand, I had rejected two other, well-trodden paths that supposedly lead directly to deeper knowledge, namely "Mind and Revelation", as misleading; both oppose "pure reason" by demanding belief in miracles .;
(2ff) Gustav Kirchhoff (discoverer of spectral analysis): "The task of science is to describe the movements occurring in nature, and to describe them completely and in the simplest possible way." This instruction only makes sense if the term "description" is given a completely different meaning than is usual, i.e. if the "complete description" also contains an explanation. For all true science for millennia has not been based on simple knowledge through the description of the individual facts, but on their explanation through the causing causes. Of course, their knowledge always remains more or less imperfect or even hypothetical ...;
The striving for the greatest possible accuracy and objectivity of the observation often overlooks the important part that the subjective mental activity of the observer has in its result; the judgment and reasoning of his brain is neglected compared to the sharpness and clarity of his eyes. In many cases the means of knowledge has become an end. When reproducing what is observed, objective photography, which reproduces all parts of the picture equally, is valued more highly than subjective drawing, which only emphasizes the essential and leaves out the inessential; and yet in many cases ... the latter is much more important and correct than the former. ...
In the modern struggle for the theory of descent, the attempt has not seldom been made to experimentally prove or disprove the emergence of new species. It was completely forgotten that the concept of species or species is only relative and that no natural scientist can give a satisfactory absolute definition of this concept. It is no less wrong to try to apply the experiment to historical problems where there are no preconditions for its success. ... The certainty of the knowledge that we gain empirically through observation and experiment is only possible directly in the present. In contrast, in researching the past we have to rely on other methods of knowledge that are less reliable and accessible, on history and tradition. ...
Nevertheless, innumerable gates of error always remain open here, since these documents are mostly incomplete, and since their subjective interpretation is often as dubious as their objective truth content.
(156) the impossibility of justifying historical events “exactly” at all
(5ff) Kant asserted, as is well known, that only part of our knowledge is empirical and is gained a posteriori, ie through experience, whereas another part of knowledge (e.g. the mathematical theorems) is a priori, ie through the inference of “Pure Reason “, Regardless of all experience. This error then led to the assertion that the beginnings of natural science are metaphysical and that by means of the innate “forms of perception: space and time” man can recognize part of the phenomena, but not understand the “thing in itself” behind it fortune. ... Kant's critical "epistemology" lacked the physiological and phylogenetic foundations that were only gained 60 years after his death through Darwin's reform of the theory of evolution ... He regarded the human soul with its innate properties of reason as a ready-made being and did not even ask about its historical origin ... he did not think that this soul could have developed phylogenetically from the soul of the most closely related mammals. The wonderful ability to gain knowledge a priori originally arose through the inheritance of brain structures that were acquired slowly and gradually in the vertebrate ancestors of humans (by adapting to synthetic connection of experiences, of knowledge a posteriori). The absolutely certain knowledge of mathematics and physics, which Kant declares to be synthetic judgments a priori, originally arose from the phyletic development of the power of judgment and can be traced back to constantly repeated experiences and conclusions a posteriori based on them.
(21) When physiology began to develop independently around the middle of the 18th century, it explained the peculiarities of organic life through the assumption of a special life force (vis vitalis);
(22) Lamarck's theory of descent (1809) was hushed up, as was his fundamental principle: "Life is only an intricate physical problem";
(23) In common parlance, “miracles” are understood to mean very different ideas. We call a phenomenon wonderful if we cannot explain it and understand its causes. But we call a natural object or a work of art beautiful or wonderful when it is extraordinarily beautiful or great, when it exceeds the usual boundaries of our imagination. We do not speak of the miracle in this transferred relative concept, but in the absolute sense in which a phenomenon exceeds the limits of the laws of nature and is generally inexplicable for human reason.
(28) In philosophy (in the Middle Ages) the authority of Aristotle remained predominantly; it was made to serve its purposes by the ruling Christian church .;
(35) In my opinion, an "ensouling" of the atoms is a necessary assumption for the explanation of the simplest physical and chemical processes (e.g. mass attraction, chemical elective affinity JK);
(36ff) naturalism; monism
In Spinoza's strictly monistic sense, the concepts of God and nature coincide for us (Deus sive Natura). We do not know whether there is an area of ​​the “supernatural” or a “spirit realm” beyond nature.
(37) Art and science ... our imagination strives for the production of uniform (closed? JK) structures, and when it ... encounters gaps, it tries to fill them in with new formations. Such independent products, which supplement the gaps in the circles of ideas ... we call hypotheses if they are logically compatible with the facts established by experience, on the other hand myths if they contradict these facts;
(39) Natural science ... regards its objects ... as really existing things, the properties of which are recognizable to us through our senses ... and our organs of thought ... to a certain extent. We are critically aware that both kinds of cognitive organs - including the knowledge gained through them - are imperfect and that perhaps completely different properties of the organisms exist which are inaccessible to us .;
(Ernst Haeckel: Die Lebenswunder, Alfred Kröner Verlag Stuttgart 1906)

·         (11) the now largely proven "cosmological theorems":
1. The universe (universe or cosmos) is eternal, infinite and unlimited.
(120) the knowledge (knowledge of the outside world JK) always remains incomplete and unsatisfactory, unless the imagination complements the insufficient combinatory power of the cognitive understanding and ... links distant knowledge to a coherent whole. This creates new general conceptual structures that first explain the perceived facts and satisfy the "causality need of reason." The ideas that fill in the gaps in knowledge or take their place can be called "belief" in a broader sense. However, in science only those hypotheses may be admitted which lie within the human faculty of knowledge and which contradict unknown facts. ...
The explanation of a larger series of connected phenomena by assuming a common cause is what we call theory. In theory too, as in hypothesis, belief (in the scientific sense!) Is indispensable; for here, too, the poetic imagination completes the gap which the understanding leaves open in the knowledge of the connection between things. The theory can therefore only ever be viewed as an approximation to the truth; it must be admitted that it can later be supplanted by another, more well-founded theory.
(Ernst Haeckel: The World Riddles, Alfred Kröner Verlag Stuttgart, 1899)

·         (16) Scientific research is a path to knowledge. It arises from our curiosity for ourselves, for the world and for the universe .;
(18) Max Perutz, Nobel Laureate: "A discovery is like falling in love and at the same time reaching the summit of the mountain after a strenuous ascent, it is an ecstasy that is not caused by drugs, but by the revelation of a facet of nature, that has never been given to anyone before. ";
Science looks for natural causes for natural phenomena. As a result, it is limited to the investigation of structures and processes that can be observed and measured directly or indirectly, whereby technical devices such as microscopes often expand our senses. ... It can neither be refuted nor proven scientifically whether supernatural beings such as angels, gods or spirits are responsible for storms, rainbows, diseases and healing processes; such explanations are beyond the limits of science;
Far-reaching general conclusions can sometimes be drawn from empirical research; such a kind of logic is called induction .;
(19) Hypotheses are preliminary answers to a question - that is, tentative explanations. Usually these are more than just guesswork. (Example: flashlight does not light up; hypothesis: battery is empty);
(22) Compared to a hypothesis, a scientific theory has a much wider scope; a comprehensive explanation supported by a large amount of evidence (JK findings); in everyday use we rather equate the term THEORY with speculations or hypotheses;
Scientific theories are of course not the only way to gain knowledge about nature. ... Science and religion are two fundamentally different approaches to dealing with natural phenomena. Art is yet another possibility ... The textbook biology describes life from a purely scientific point of view ...;
Research results are useless unless they are shared with a larger group of peers. Only those who publish can get a response to their results ... Insistence on evidence, control experiments and independent confirmation ...
Scientists first of all doubt all claims .;
Science is based on observations and measurements that can be confirmed by others, and its ideas (hypotheses and theories) must be verifiable by repeatable observation and experiment;
(23) Findings on a scientific basis always have a provisional status, in contrast to religious dogmas. ...; Scientists do not allow theories to become dogma (520)
Normally something is no longer considered “true” in the natural sciences as soon as a clear finding speaks against it .;
(Neil A. Campbell / Jane B. Reece: Biologie, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag Heidelberg Berlin, 6th edition, 2003)

·         Cosmos researcher Alexander Vilenkin;
our observable universe is only a tiny part of a much larger uni- or multiverse: And elsewhere, the physical conditions need by no means be identical to ours. The values ​​of some fundamental constants could vary
(bdw 11/2007 p.54ff)

·         With the discovery of quantum mechanics, modern physics has given chance a new place - it discovered “pure” chance: not the limitations of the scientist, but the fundamental indeterminability of certain processes was suddenly behind chance. Whether light is a particle or a wave, that became a question of consideration. The decay of a radioactive atom? Impossible to say when it will take place. Statistical statements replace clear results. For a determinist like Albert Einstein this was unbearable: “The theory delivers a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the mystery of the old. In any case, I am convinced that the old man does not roll the dice. ”;
In any case, 100 years ago the world became more open again, it seems, and we owe that to chance .;
Physics professor Peter Hägele: The pure coincidence of physics is not a knowledge gap, but a limit of knowledge. What lies behind it is open to interpretations that cannot be scientifically verified. And one of them is belief in God.
(chrismon 9/06 p.46)

·         (9) With regard to the carrier of knowledge, namely the human spirit, all sciences can be regarded as humanities; but in view of their objects all sciences are concerned with nature .;
(12) "Only what is good for something can be misused." (Montaigne, Essais II, 6)
(15ff; Contribution by the President of the Leibniz Society and the Secretary General of the Leibniz Association :)
The goal of scientific endeavor is to gain and preserve knowledge, it is about finding the answer to a certain question. If, to put it more specifically, the solution to a problem related to human existence is to be found, two prerequisites must be met: First, knowledge of the methods of the subject and their application (such as analysis or measurement methods in the natural and engineering sciences, critical source study and rule-based interpretation in the historical sciences as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in the social sciences .;
Blaise Pascal (17th century): “We can only look beyond our ancestors because we stand on their shoulders”;
Isaac Newton: Being and knowing is a shoreless sea. The further we advance, the more immeasurably what lies ahead of us expands; every triumph of knowledge includes a hundred professions of ignorance;
While the consideration of individual objects of science led to the development of subjects or disciplines, for example history (past), medicine (sick or injured person), biology (animals and plants) or theology (God and man) , the approach of the methodical approach results in the division of the sciences into natural sciences (external perspective, based on observation with description, experiment and proof) and humanities (internal perspective, based on empathy with description and interpretation). Natural science was seen as the descriptive and explanatory science, while the humanities were defined as the understanding and interpretive science (hermeneutics). It is interesting to note at this point that in the Anglo-Saxon culture only the natural sciences as science