#like fr why is it so hard for adaptations to just be faithful to the source material? It's not rocket science | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

katnissgirlsmakedo · 5 days

Note

fuckass book u say… what goes on…

hii abby i don’t even think you’ve been here to know what book i’m even talking about so i’m imagining you seeing that vague ass post and being like hm wonder what book beth read… only for me to tell you it was just call me by your name, known movie nobody on tumblr likes other than me <3 and i understand that no one here likes timmy due to the overexposure or whatever but you’re all really missing out because he really is that good. sorry i know this is the hates popular opinions website but sometimes an opinion is popular because it’s just right idk man….

ANYWAY. so we loved the book… well ok loved is a strong word. we had a fun yet tense time with the book… as we all know i like the movie a lot (clearly enough to put it in the timeless video twice never forget… and i stand by it i’d do it again and more) anyway so i am a big supporter of not getting to have real concrete opinions on things you haven’t seen/read/heard whatever. so my ass READ the text!!!! and i’m going to get into the adaptation process with helena’s ask later which none of you have seen but like. well it’s in my inbox and i’m going to talk so much about it i <3 discussing the adaptation process! i digress. the book was really good elio is SUCH a fucking freak to read about i adored him… he is literally like if nick carroway was alina starkov. he is utterly insufferable and also obsessed with that man. but in a way that is so teenage girl bipolar… the entire beginning he’s like UGH oliver is the WORST man on planet earth and he HATES me and i HATE him and somehow i’m still HORNY about it but he’s AWFUL and MEAN. and then he’s like oh wait actually i realized he’s just shy lol omg he’s just like meeeeeee fr!!!! it was crazy. And he really had me there for a minute i was like damn oliver sounds like he sucks remind me why this is a love story?…. i was like andré what are we doing… of course ultimately what he was doing was taking the reader into the character’s mind so we could experience the worst of what elio felt as well as the best. which was crazyyyyy you had to be there!! not that i’m recommending this book. well maybe i am. idk it’s hard to say. abby you’d probably like it actually i think you’d respect elio’s ever present horniness and loser energy about it. that was meant to sound friendly and loving i didn’t mean to insinuate that you’re a horny loser… but well i mean. um love you 😁🩷

i think overall i liked the writing and the only major things against it are that well. andré is still a man and as we know i rarely fuck with male authors. feels like every time i give a man a chance he lets me down and frankly. it happened again :/ must every fictional character going through a sexuality crisis get misogynistic with it? to be fair it wasn’t THAT bad i just didn’t like what he was doing with the female characters. it felt very like. you know how men just don’t see women as human beings? yeah. which is crazy because i looked it up and andré aciman has a wife. girl you HAVE to leave him i’m sorry but you need to there’s no way he’s the best you could do dear god… i understand that an author making certain characters less in a narrative doesn’t necessarily reflect how they feel about an entire group of people in real life. but i mean. i fear i just have very little faith in men. ALSO he wrote a sequel to this book. which first of all, call me by your name was published in 2007. and it’s sequel wasn’t even planned to be written until 2018. you’ll note that the film came out in 2017. capitalist ass…. anyway i read the plot summary of the sequel and it gave very Hates Women so. i’m sticking with what i feel. it also gave fanfiction a little ngl. it also made me hate elio’s dad more than i already did, which has always been a fair amount. but we mustn’t get into all that we don’t have the time. btw you’re not supposed to hate elio’s dad he’s supposed to be the jennifer garner love simon of this story. but i don’t like him and i never have even in the movie… but i do like him a bit more in the movie i’m mostly ambivalent about him in there but in the book i really didn’t care for him much. it’s not really hate so much as just dislike. but it’s enough to be worth noting!!

but i think the strongest thing about the book that really made it good was that it wasn’t so much a “love story” as it was one character’s reflection on intimacy in his life. a narrative being a Romance sort of posits that there are two characters of equal importance, but this is really just elio’s narrative and oliver exists only as an extension of elio. especially when you consider that the core part of their dynamic is that they’re so similar the edges between them blur. in a way you could read it entirely as a story about self respect and self love

but i digress. very jumbled ass post but what do you want from me you sent me a vague statement/question…..

#asks

6 notes · View notes

taiwanpuppetryproudthunderbolt · 4 years

Photo

interview 15

Richard Chamberlain - How he keeps the Faith in his Private Life

"Fame isn't the answer. The answer is allowing yourself to be who you are."

"I'm not interested in being a multimillionaire; I want to do the kind of work that interests me. When I was beginning, I wanted to do everything: films, TV, modern things, period things, classics, musical theatre, I wanted to make records and I also wanted to paint. I'm a medium with occasional goods. I took dance lessons, and I have discovered that you can't do everything, but I've done a lot of it."

In a company town, Hollywood, where a favorite indoor sport is to trash everyone, its almost impossible to find anyone with a sour word to mutter about Richard Chamberlain.

The erstwhile Dr. Kildare, perhaps unintentionally, has made a secondary career of winning friends. He is Mr. Nice Guy wherever you turn.

He is therefore going against casting in his current role of Father Ralph in the ABC-TV mini-series, The Thorn Birds. For those unfamiliar with the best-selling Colleen McCullough's supernovel, Fr. Ralph does just about everything a priest isn't supposed to from having money of his own - courtesy of the character played by Barbara Stanwyck - to not being obedient or chaste.

In fact, there are those who might consider him a bit of a rotter. Not so Richard. We're sitting in his offices at The Burbank Studios just a few months after he has finished production on this massive film. He is about to don another hat: that of executive producer on a TV movie for CBS, hence the office setting complete with a round black glass conference table and comfortable chairs. Only successful executive producers rate such perks. But enough business talk. We are here to discuss The Thorn Birds, how he feels about yet another blockbuster following his so-successful Shogun and his real life.

First of all, Richard doesn't believe that Father Ralph behaved in such a reprehensive manner. "He followed his destiny," he states. "That process brought him to a kind of humility he never would have found otherwise. He needed to do that. He needed to fall from grace. I'm not saying all priests do; Ralph was too in love with the image of a perfect priest, with the glamour," he explains.

Those sentences give one a clear indication of what makes Richard Chamberlain tick. He's a perfectionist, although certainly not a bore - far from it - but he does get inside the character he plays. That's what makes him such an outstanding actor.

For this part, he researched Catholicism with Father Terry Sweeney, a Jesuit priest. He visited a Jesuit novitiate and stayed over with the young novices. "I had never before been involved with organized religion, and I got the feeling of what it's like to be part of a group of people who put the love of God and humanity before personal happiness. It is unusual and rare. The novitiates I met are in the process of doing that," he learned.

The painstaking research aside, working in TheThorn Birds was a grueling six-month assignment. A large portion of the nine hours was filmed in the Simi Valley, north of Los Angeles, where an exact copy of the Australian Drogheda landscape has been built. And it was hot. Richard's priestly garb, donned in layers, must have been well nigh unbearable.

With a boyish grin, he acknowledges that it wasn't an actor's dream come true, commenting that the plastic collar cut into his neck a lot. Just another of the ordeals that an actor goes through for the sake of a great role.

And a great plum it is. "I wanted it when I first read the book four years ago. I salivated over the part; it was such a wonderful love story. I chased after the part for years. I told my agents I wanted to do it; at that time, it was to be a feature movie and it went through the hands of numerous producers. They had Robert Redford at the top of all their lists. So I waited it out, like I did with Shogun. When they realized it couldn't be a film and Warner Bros. decided on a mini-series, then I knew I was in a good position. The producers - David Wolper and Stan Margulies - wanted me - and it became a dream come true," he says comfortably.

The dream realized, Richard was in the same position as all other actors when a role is complete: he was out of a job. "I have the actor's habit of thinking once a job is over I'll never be hired again. I can get very anxious about not working. It doesn't go into anxiety attacks, but there is a sense of fickleness about the business. If I allow myself, I can worry a lot."

He didn't allow himself to this time. Instead he took off for two and a half weeks to his little house in Hawaii. He has what he describes as, "a place on the beach in the toolies where there is nothing to do except eat." Or so he says. It doesn't show on his trim waistline two weeks after he has returned.

"I had forgotten what it was like to spend a day doing nothing. I kept saying I must be doing something wrong, this can't be right. I had a vague guilty feeling. So I just lay there on the beach and I didn't do anything," he laughs. "I find it an incredibly healing experience to go there. It's a wonderful change from the madness around here," he motions to indicate Hollywood. "I'd like to go there more often. As it is, I get there twice a year if I'm lucky."

The house has a live-in caretaker who looks after the property while its famous owner is gone. It is also rented out, through an agent, so the tenants never know that they're sleeping in Richard Chamberlain's bed. Pity.

It would appear that Richard is indeed the golden boy we all envy, whose life has been comparatively uncluttered with the "stuff" that make most of us miserable. And looking at him, handsome, trim, relaxed, just a few flecks of gray in the beard and mustache he has grown for his next part, he reflects total peace and tranquility. He's sipping a cup of herb tea from a delicate Japanese cup, NOT imported from Japan as were many of his household furnishings. Shogun did leave an impression on him.

He admits of being happier with his life as it is today than in previous years.

"As I look back, one of my big motivations for working so hard in this business in the early times was to find for myself a kind of self-worth which I imagined I would see reflected from the world when I became famous. It didn't work." He laughs shortly. "Being well-known has worked in other ways, but it didn't make me particularly happy. When I first realized that wasn't gonna work, I found other ways to work on myself, through Gestalt therapy, and working with Dr. Brugh Joy (a world-renowned metaphysician who gave up his medical practice to work with groups at his establishment in California's Lucerne Valley. Richard brought the film rights to Dr. Joy's book, Joy's Way, three years ago, and has a contract to produce and star in the story for CBS. He hopes to get it under way later this year.)

"Fame isn't the answer. The answer is allowing yourself to be who you are. I grew up at a time when certain values were deeply impressed upon children: in school and at home. There was a certain image to be maintained and a certain goal to be achieved."

One must bear in mind that Richard was born and raised in the rarefied atmosphere of Beverly Hills, where most of his friends at school were super-rich. His own father was a first salesman for a market fixture company, and then took over the firm. But he still wasn't raised in an atmosphere of wealth.

He became interested in acting while he was in college, but recalls, "My family wasn't enthused about my going into show business. They'd seen me in some college productions," he laughs. "I did want to go to college, but in my senior year I made a decision to take the gamble and get into acting. They didn't say 'don't do it'; they were supportive and they helped me, even though they didn't say 'Oh boy, this is terrific'."

His career proceeded normally: he studied with noted acting coach Jeff Corey, he got minor roles in a dozen TV shows, and in 1961 he got really lucky with Dr. Kildare. By the time that show had finished its run - there were 132 one-hour shows between 1961 and '65 and 57 half-hour episodes the following year - Richard Chamberlain was a big star. So big, he wondered if he'd live down his reputation of being the noble young doctor who did everything including make house calls.

He did what was then considered a rash step: he moved to England and worked in repertory. "I went to England because I felt it the best place to go and study. I had this real powerful hunch that I should go there and study. I was attracted to British theatre and I had amazing luck."

Indeed. He got raves for his role in a six-part adaptation of Henry James' Portrait of a Lady on the BBC. He appeared in Hamlet, The Madwoman of Chaillot, Julius Ceasar, and played composer Peter Tchaikovsky in the Music Lovers opposite Glenda Jackson. There was more Shakespeare, other classics, and when he played Aramis in two versions of The Three Musketeers followed by Cyrano de Bergerac, no one made anymore jokes about the boyish Dr. Kildare. Richard Chamberlain had arrived, as a serious actor of the theater and films. Deservedly so.

He is, of course, delighted that he listened to that powerful hunch, as he terms it. "I always try to listen to my inner voice. That seems to be one of life's most ironic essences: that very soft little voice of intuition is so easy to ignore, yet it's so often accurate. I always choose my roles intuitively. They appeal to me for reasons I couldn't say. I always have an answer as to why I choose a role, but the answer really is that it has a magnetic quality. Now, as a producer, I know that I read scripts looking for ways to make scenes work, and ideas that come up seemingly from nowhere. They just spring into my mind. It's not an intellectual process. Oh, it is to some extent, but it is largely emotional and intuitive."

As noted, here is a man who is comfortable with himself and he doesn't have to prove anything anymore. He's done that. So, when asked how he can top the role of Father Ralph, he says easily, "I don't think in terms of topping things. Everything is different and real to me. My next movie, titled By Reason of Insanity is for my own production company. I play a man named John Balt, who murdered his wife, spent years in an institution in therapy and is now back in society as a contributing member. In fact, he wrote his own life story, which this is. This story goes into areas I've never touched upon, so it's a vast challenge.”

"After Shogun and Thorn Birds, I find my interests are turning back to more ordinary parts - not that the John Balt story is ordinary, it isn't. He's an ordinary man who gets caught in an incredible vortex. Yes, I have leaned towards larger-than-life roles and that might have something to do with the fact that I have a very romantic nature. I didn't find life terribly interesting when I was a little kid. I hated school and I didn't like sports. I didn't like anything that anyone else liked. I felt out of it. It isn't that I didn't have friends. I did. And I had a pretty good time, but I was always fascinated by adventure movies. Especially Errol Flynn. But the other night when I couldn't sleep I turned on an old Errol Flynn movie and it was boring. It didn't hold up. The Three Musketeers and that kind of swashbuckling does, but not the one that I saw," he mock mourns.

Every actor has a dream role, and Richard has played such variegated parts - has he played it already or is his dream part still in the future?

"I think John Balt is as fascinating a part as I'll ever get. What are dream roles? Roles that call for words like depth and complexity, people who want things passionately and have to overcome tremendous obstacles to get them. My theory about John is that he wanted wholeness in his life that he unconsciously felt wasn't there. I think murdering his wife was unnecessary, but who am I to say that? He was living a life complying to images. He had an image of manhood, an image of the writer, of the husband and father, and he never said 'Who am I, what kind of man am I, what kind of father, do I love my children?'"

"Who am I?" Richard repeats the question. "I'm beginning to get answers at long last. What I am is an ever-changing alive being, who is not an image, who is not consistent, and I'm beginning to allow myself to BE instead of trying to be consistent and trying to comply to images. Images such an American hang-up. And so here I am in a business where images are more powerful than almost anyplace else except sports. I have found that I have warmth and lovingness and creativity. I might have doubted that before. I'm much more comfortable with people, much more willing to speak my mind. I don't have to try to manipulate people into liking me. I don't. I thought that I did." He is very thoughtful now and seems to enjoy looking within.

What are his long-range goals these days after 20-plus years of a good and rewarding career?

"I've done some satisfying work in the theatre, and I'd like to do more but I find it difficult to find the time. I want to continue along the lines I've been pursuing. I really like what I've been doing. I like my mobility in TV, I want more emphasis in films. I think I'm ready for that."

"And I like my life. I've finally created a home that I really love. I've had several houses, but I just remodeled this one - in a quiet canyon street, and it's just perfect for me. It's slightly Oriental, slightly Japanese. I brought back a lot of stuff from Shogun."

And who lives in this perfect house?

Just Richard Chamberlain and his pals. "I have two dogs," he says with all the love in the world in his voice. "Two Dalmatians: Jessie the Bandit Queen and Billy Boy."

And what does Jessie steal to merit that colorful name?

"My heart," he says in a tone that any animal-lover can recognize.

And so, then, one knows that Richard Chamberlain, a really happy man, does indeed have it all.

http://www.richard-chamberlain.co.uk/online.htm

_ _

interview 32

Dick Diagnoses Dick His candid answers to 55 probing questions

_ _

0 notes

nolongerdani · 6 years

Text

Jesuits, autopsies, and French. A review of Smaller and Smaller Circles.

“Some things are better dealt within the cleansing light of transparency and openness rather than in the darkness of secrecy.”- Fr. Gus Saenz

Corruption is everywhere. Not just in the government. It can be in an entity which you consider holy, or an entity that is supposed to be part of your growth.

Smaller and Smaller Circles is a movie directed by Raya Martin and stars Nonie Buencamino, Sid Lucero and Carla Humphries. It’s an adaptation of the book of the same name. I’ve actually read the book before watching the movie, and I’d say that while the movie did its best to be faithful to the book, there were some minor tweaks, specifically to the storyline. Some events were altered; but these alterations are minor and would no way mess up the main point of the story.

Anyway, Smaller and Smaller Circles revolves around two Jesuits, Fr. Gus Saenz and Fr. Jerome Lucero who were investigating a series of killings at the Payatas dumpsite. The killings were geared toward small, thin boys that were aged eleven to fourteen with an eerie pattern on how they were killed. Apart from the main plot of the film, it has sub-plots on the corruption in the diocese, corruption in the government as well as power play which I’ll be delving on later through this post.

The movie, like the book, was fast paced, and the characters were actually how I imagined them to be. The cast was able to portray each of their characters well, especially the antagonists; they really made my eyes roll at the cinema, haha. The execution of the movie was really good, it was dark, mysterious, and uncensored at best, just what you’d expect in a well-made crime movie. Without reading the book, the movie was easily understandable. It was not hard to find the sub-plots of the film. In fact, they were as clear as day. And if you really analyze the circumstances you’ll come to understand why the serial killer did what he did.

Anyway, the sub-plots. The sub-plots reflect the themes of the film. Aside from the fact that it’s literally a crime drama, it’s also actually a social commentary. It portrays how power in the society comes into play and how corruption plays a role. The film was also able to use true to life situations to present these commentaries. The prime examples would be 1) Monsgr. Ramirez, the molester, and how he gets away with it because of his “rich and powerful” connections; 2) Atty. Arcinas’ suck up to Director Mapa of the NBI and his haste to make a name for himself; 3) Director Mapa’s thirst for power, willing to disregard procedures and through people under the bus for his benefit and of course, 4) Gorospe, the PE teacher who molested the killer. There is the subtle show of this sort of power play, and that’s shown in the case of Fr. Saenz’ struggle to keep the budget of the laboratory intact only to find out that it has been reduced and the one to provide it actually favors a group of rich people who seem to have a good connection with the priest he despised.

Such is the reality here in the Philippines. You can only go through with life if you have connections. You can get away with things if you have connections. And I think it’s a very sad reality. It’s a reality where people who have worked hard to get where they are now are being blindsided by those people who did nothing but have connections to go forward. Also the reality that people that are powerless cannot speak up when abused; which gives the abuser more power and the audacity to continue. And it’s these realities which the movie has shown so well.

All in all, Smaller and Smaller Circles was an excellent film. Since it’s an indie film, I expect it to have more quality than the mainstream Filipino films. I’d say it has reached my expectations. Definitely a must-watch.

#musings #review #movie

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years

Photo

Catholic Physics - Reflections of a Catholic Scientist - Part 7

Thoughts on belief, knowledge and faith---rational and irrational; my journey to faith, and on the "Limits of a limitless science" (to paraphrase Fr. Stanley Jaki). A discourse on the consonance of what science tells us about the world, and the dogma/teachings of the Catholic Church; you don't have to apologize for being Catholic if you're a scientist.

Are All Great Scientists Atheists?

"The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics." Galileo Galilei

"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order...This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God." Albert Einstein, as quoted in Cosmos, Bios and Theos.

"There can never be any real conflict between religion and science for the one is the complement of the other." Max Planck, ibid.

Reflecting on a snarky comment to one of my recent blogs ("the Catholic church seems to know with some certainty that we have souls (a nonsensical concept provided (sic) what we now know about neuroscience"), I can only conclude that evangelical atheists (including Richard Dawkins) learn about science from the popular media rather than from research--their own and that of others. From the comments of these evangelical atheists on Facebook and other blogs, I also conclude that they know little of the history and philosophy of science. The corollary to this ignorance is their opinion that you cannot be a good scientist if you are deluded by religious faith.

Let's put the kibosh to that opinion by relating the religious beliefs of eminent scientists. In the early history of science, great scientists--Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Pascal--all had a deep religious faith. But suppose the atheist responds, "That was then, this is now; we know more now to justify that believing in God is a delusion." My response to this canard is to cite the theistic credo of present day eminent scientists, many of them Nobel Prize winners. Most of these seem to be in the "hard" sciences, physics and chemistry, rather than in biology or medical sciences. If any of you readers have ideas about the reason why physicists are more likely to be theists than are biologists, I'd like to hear them.

Most of the information given below is drawn from Cosmos, Bios and Theos, by Henry Margenau, Yale mathematical physicist (the * denotes member, National Academy of Science, Member. Research Council of Europe, , Fellow, Royal Society UK--see below) and Roy Varghese. I'll give a pertinent quotation and minimum background material for each scientist. Not all of the scientists listed in the book believe in some specific religion, or even a personal God. Many are deistic, believing in a Creator, but not necessarily a God immanent in the universe. Because of space limitations, not all of those interviewed will be listed here.

Professor Christian Anfinsen* (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, biochemistry of RNA, Johns Hopkins University): "I think that only an idiot can be an atheist! We must admit that there exists and incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."

Professor Werner Archer (Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, restriction enzymes and molecular genetics, University of Basel): "I do not think our civilization has succeeded in discovering and explaining all the principles acting in the universe. I include the concept of God among these principles. I am happy to accept the concept without trying to define it precisely. I know that the concept of God helped me to master many questions in life; it guides me in critical situations and I see it confirmed in many deep insights into the beauty of the functioning of the living world."

Professor D.H.R. Barton (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, conformational analysis in organic chemistry, Texas A&M University): "God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth"

Professor Ulrich Becker (High energy particle physics, MIT): "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."

Professor Steven Bernasek (Solid state chemistry, Princeton University): "I believe in the existence of God. His existence is apparent to me in everything around me, especially in my work as a scientist. On the other hand I cannot prove the existence of God the way I might prove or disprove a (scientific) hypothesis."

Dr. Francis Collins (Medicine, former Director of the Human Genome Project, Director, National Institutes of Health, author The Language of God ):"Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates.”

Professor Freeman Dyson (Theoretical physics, Princeton Institute for Advanced Study):"I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind." Taken from the Templeton Prize Award address, 2000.

Sir John Eccles (Nobel Prize, neurochemistry):"If I consider reality as I experience it, the primary experience I have is of my own existence as a self-conscious being, which I believe is God created."

Professor Manfred Eigen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, fast reaction kinetics, Director Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Gottingen): "...religion and science neither exclude nor prove one another."

Professor John Fornaess (Mathematics, Princeton Univ.):"I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe at all levels from elementary particles to human being to superclusters of galaxies."

Professor P.C.C. Garnham (Medical protozoology, University of London): "God originated the universe or universes...At some stage in evolution when proto-humans were sufficiently advanced, God created the human soul...By faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist."

Professor Conyers Herring (Solid state physics, Princeton University): "We live in a hard, real universe, to which we have to adapt. God is a characteristic of that universe--indeed a miraculous characteristic--that makes that adaption possible. Things such as truth, goodness, even happiness, are achievable, by virtue of a force that is always present, in the here and now and available to me personally."

Professor Vera Kistiakowsky* (Experimental Nuclear Physics, MIT and Mount Holyoke College):"I am satisfied with the existence of an unknowable source of divine order and purpose and do not find this in conflict with being a practicing Christian."

Professor Sir Neville Mott (Nobel Prize for physics, solid state physics, Cambridge University): "...we can and must ask God which way we ought to go, what we ought to do, how we ought to behave."

Professor Robert Neumann (nuclear and isotope chemistry and physics, Princeton University): "The existence of the universe requires me to conclude that God exists."

Professor Edward Nelson (Mathematics, Princeton University): "I believe in, pray to, and worship God."

Dr. Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize for physics for first observation of the universal microwave background radiation, Vice-President for Research, AT&T Bell Laboratories): "... by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.” (as cited in The God I Believe in)

Rev. Professor John Polkinghorne (Theoretical elementary particle physics, President, Queens College, Cambridge University): "I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer (indeed, an ordained Anglican priest), and I believe that God exists and has made Himself known in Jesus Christ."

Professor Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize for physics (elementary particle theory), Director, International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste): "Now this sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being--der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity--a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law."

Professor Arthur Schawlow (Nobel Prize for Physics [laser physics], Stanford University): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Professor Wolfgang Smith (Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics--theoretical work provided the key for solving the re-entry problem in space flight, Oregon State University): "If the physics of the last century prompted atheism, the physics of today is inciting at least the most thoughtful of its votaries to re-examine 'the question of God'"

Professor Charles Townes (Nobel Prize for physics, development of the MASER/LASER, University of California, Berkeley): "I believe in the concept of God and in His existence."

Professor Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize for physics, applications of symmetry principles--group theory--to quantum mechanics, Princeton University): "The concept of God is a wonderful one--it also helps us makes decisions in the right direction. We would be very different, I fear, if we did not have that concept."

A few remarks are in order to put this list in an appropriate context. First, only a small fraction of the listed scientists are practicing Christians, and of these, a smaller proportion are Catholic. Most are deists who believe in a Creator God, but not a personal God. Second, it is quite likely that the majority of scientists, including great ones, are atheists or agnostics (Steven Weinberg comes to mind as the most vocal of these). Nevertheless, if only a small proportion of scientists are believers, that shows that faith in atheism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a good scientist. Third, if one looks at birth-dates (not included here) the majority are old--and in fact may be dead--Cosmos, Bios and Theos was published in 1993. I can offer two explanations here: these older scientists matured in an age that was not as anti-religious as the present one and/or scientists gain a reputation only after a life-time of work (neglecting boy geniuses, theoretical physicists and mathematicians). Fourth, and this is puzzling, a significant plurality of the listed scientists are from Princeton University. Maybe this represents a selection bias on the part of the authors or is an indicator of more religious freedom at Princeton. Fifth, I'm sure I've omitted several eminent believers--two immediately come to mind, John von Neumann and Kurt Goedel, both formerly at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (what is in the air at Princeton?).

Finally, I will say that I find most of the remarks inspiring. And it shows me that faith is not ultimately an act of intellectual discernment, but grace given to us by the Holy Spirit. It is a gift, and we should not be scornful of those who have not received the gift.

From a series of articles written by: Bob Kurland - a Catholic Scientist

#catholic physics

0 notes