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