Editing Paul Dirac (section)

===Views on religion===
Heisenberg recollected a conversation among young participants at the 1927 [[Solvay Conference]] about Einstein and [[Max Planck|Planck]]'s views on religion between [[Wolfgang Pauli]], Heisenberg and Dirac. Dirac's contribution was a criticism of the political purpose of religion, which Bohr regarded as quite lucid when hearing it from Heisenberg later.<ref>[[Abraham Pais|Pais, A.]], ''Niels Bohr's Times: In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity'' (Oxford: [[Oxford University Press#Clarendon Press|Clarendon Press]], 1991), [https://archive.org/details/nielsbohrstimesi0000pais/page/320 p. 320].</ref> Among other things, Heisenberg imagined that Dirac might say:
<blockquote>I don't know why we are discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as to why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.<ref name="religion">{{harvnb|Heisenberg|1971|pp=85–86}}</ref></blockquote>

Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli, raised as a Catholic, had kept silent after some initial remarks, but when finally he was asked for his opinion, said: "Well, our friend Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is 'There is no God, and Paul Dirac is His prophet.{{' "}} Everybody, including Dirac, burst into laughter.<ref>{{harvnb|Heisenberg|1971|p=87}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Farmelo|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-TT_z4llWoIC&pg=PA138 138]}}, who says this was an old joke, pointing out a [[Punch (magazine)|''Punch'']] footnote in the 1850s that "There is no God, and [[Harriet Martineau]] is her prophet."</ref>

Later in life, in an article mentioning God that appeared in the May 1963 edition of ''[[Scientific American]]'', Dirac wrote:
<blockquote>It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental [[physical law]]s are described in terms of a [[mathematical theory of great beauty]] and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2010/06/25/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/ |title=The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature |last1=Dirac |first1=Paul |date=May 1963 |work=[[Scientific American]] |access-date=4 April 2013}}</ref></blockquote>

In 1971, at a conference meeting, Dirac expressed his views on the existence of God.<ref>{{harvnb|Kragh|1990|pp=256–257}}</ref> Dirac explained that the existence of God could be justified only if an improbable event were to have taken place in the past:

<blockquote>It could be that it is extremely difficult to [[Abiogenesis|start life]]. It might be that it is so difficult to start a life that it has happened only once among all the planets... Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance of life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10<sup>−100</sup>. I don't have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility. Under those conditions ... it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life. I would like, therefore, to set up this connection between the existence of a god and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god.<ref name="Kragh 1990">{{harvnb|Kragh|1990}}</ref></blockquote>

Dirac did not commit himself to any definite view, but he described the possibilities for scientifically answering the question of God.<ref name="Kragh 1990"/>