>>121983809That's still not a convincing reason for the existence of a god, though. That's starting with "I don't know, therefore god", going through "I know, therefore no god", and ending back up at "I don't know, therefore god".
I'm fine with people being religious, but there aren't convincing logical arguments for the existence of a god, only for belief itself. Belief in a god is fine because it brings people comfort and security, brings people together into meaningful communities, and fills that hole of wonder and fear of the unknown that humans naturally have. That's fine. Religion will always exist because human psychology has developed in a way to naturally foster it. People need to have something to believe in to make their lives meaningful, and religion is an easy fit.
>>121983851No he didn't. He was deeply religious, but for the most part he just asserted that religion and science don't need to contradict one another, that religion was the foundation of ethics, and the pictured quote. He never said you'd find god by answering the questions (or that there was even an answer to the questions), just that "auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott". It doesn't imply that answering questions finds God, just that the path of natural sciences leads you to God. It's ambiguous exactly what he meant. He did say "Where no guiding ideals are left to point the way, the scale of values disappears and with it the meaning of our deeds and sufferings, and at the end can lie only negation and despair. Religion is therefore the foundation of ethics, and ethics the presupposition of life", which does say that when you don't have meaning available, religion is where one should turn.
Either way, it's silly that people keep trying to justify their religious beliefs by quoting the few famously religious geniuses. Your religion is justified by the meaning it brings to your life, and it needs no further support. Scientists aren't theologians or ethicists.
