Though I grew up with a strong religious background, in my youth I felt that physics had all the answers, and religion had to conform with scientific findings. During my phd studies in physics (NYU) and afterwards, for many years I wrote articles and gave lectures in various venues trying to show how Biblical statements did not in fact contradict science. In many cases part of the resolutions I offered involved the Bible's fundamental concern with human free willed moral choice, and I felt that quantum physics blazed a path forward via its flirtation with consciousness. I was influenced by the books written by Eddington (and Jeans), as well as by Davies, Eccles, deChardin (and later Penrose, etc), and felt that science and religion were very much in synch and would refer to "the alleged science-religion conflict".
However, after many conversations with scientific colleagues, I began to realize that very few believed in the existence of conscious awareness or what I'll write here as "Mind" (in distinction to "brain" or "neural currents" etc), disparaged the notions of it being in any way related to quantum aspects of reality, and certainly did not believe in a meaningful form of free will.
To me however the most fundamental truth is that awareness exists, indeed this is the only statement that can be made without requiring any 'proof'.
I believe this is what Descartes meant, and that he is misinterpreted and misunderstood: "By the very fact that I am aware, I know that awareness exists, and this is the most fundamental existent, and it is is the only existent whose existence is self-evident. Of course he also meant "Mind exists independently of brain and therefore of the physical senses, and so I can have a thought indpendent of the physicla external relaity, namely the thought "I exist", and so this thought is NOT dependent on whether there does inded exist an extrnal reality, ie I know I exist (ie that an awareness exits, the awarenss I call "I"), and that self-awareness is sufficient, there is no need of "proof" of that existence; after all, to whom will it proven, to me, but that already means I exist!
As a result of most physicists' complete blindness to this, I eventually understood that science not only did not have all the answers but indeed was totally missing the very essence of our reality - a realm explored instead by phiosophy, metaphysics, relgion etc - and ceased feeling that as a physicist I needed to be an apologist for the possibility that religion has any validity.
Today, years later, given the large inroads of atheism and post-religion culture, and due to the feeling among many in the scientific community as well as students that to be fully scientific involves a rejection of religion, in my opinion it is useful at this juncture to focus on what I see as the actual issue underlying most of the religion-atheism divide. Though it is a very non-politially-correct and controversial approach, I consider there to be a fundamental difference between two types of humans, those with non-physical Minds, and those without (perhaps they possess some other aspect we lack).
Many people are intimidated by the materialist declarations of those I suspect are the Mindless, leading to the belief that religion and spirituality are outdated or provably wrong or misguided, and that moral absolutism is a primitive untenable notion, and that individual responsibility for moral choices is impossible since logic and science cannot support it.
I believe that a renaissance of religion could follow if enough Minded people understood that the atheist materialism they are epxosed to is not the absolute truth it pretends to, and that in fact the most fundamental truths of our existence are deliberately excluded from science. Of course this exclusion led to great triumphs of physics and cosmology, but it is crucial that the Minded realize that there is yet another realm (inaccessible [as yet?] to science), a realm more fundamental, relevant and important to them than any scientific truths.
Over the decades I learned not to enter arguments/discussions when underlying the different point of view is a difference re the facts. When facts are ageed upon, and even perhaps interpretations of the facts, then one can perhaps usefully discuss or argue about policies - or even if policy is also agreed, argue about how to implement the policy or if strategy is agreed, ie argue about tactics. etc*.
The fate of my attempts at disseminating this idea
The proposal that humans are fundamentally different in this way would of course be considered highly controversial - especially because of certain ramifications, and it is not likely this notion can even be published (unless in an exceptionally-courageous journal).
After posting this idea online in various forums many years ago, it was eventually removed - presumeably censored - and when I myself included it on Wikipedia it appeared in various other online "encyclopedias", but then partially because it had not been a scholarly-published article and because these were entries of my own, it was eventually removed from Wikipedia (though it still appears here and there on the internet via reference to the notion, eg this comment referencing my older site (search for the word "mindless" on that page).
I feel that the idea deserves analysis, even if only among relatively limited circles, and even hope that some couragous publication will dare to publish it
Thanks very much,
Avi (Dr Avi Rabinowitz)
See also site-pages "survey", ethical & religious aspects, and physics & mind (all on the menu)