Year god was disabused from science

God disabused (physics and chemistry)
A visual synopsis of the years in which god was disabused from physics (1802), specifically in celestial mechanics, by Pierre Laplace (see: Napoleon Laplace anecdote), and chemistry (1885), specifically in general chemistry, by Johannes Wislicenus.
In knowledge, year god was disabused from science refers to years in which the various branches of science were made free from error, fallacy, or misconception in respect to god talk, belief in the existence of god, god theory, and or the hypothesis of god in general as a connective concept.

The years in which "god", as a functional concept, was jettisoned from physics (i.e. celestial mechanics) and chemistry, organic and general, were the years 1802, 1823 and 1885, respectively, the former by French physicist Pierre Laplace, and latter two by German chemist Johannes Wislicenus, as follows:

“I had no need of that [god] hypothesis.”
Pierre Laplace (1802), response to Napoleon why the divine was not found in his new celestial mechanics book (see: Napoleon Laplace anecdote)

“That [god statement] must disappear!”
Johannes Wislicenus (1885), order to his guide, during his orientation tour of the University of Leipzig, as the new chemistry professor successor to Hermann Kolbe, in reference to Kolbe’s Biblical quotation "God has arranged all things by measure and number and weight" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20) in large letters, above the periodic table chart of the chemical elements at the front of his lecture theater (Ѻ)

God, in sum, in the 19th century, was debarred (or disabused) from science, in the following fields: physics in 1802 (via Laplace | France), organic chemistry in 1828 (Wohler | Germany), physiology in 1842 (via the Reymond-Brucke oath | Germany), general chemistry in 1885 (via Wislicenus | Germany), psychology in 1895 (via Freud | Vienna), sociology in 1933 (Dirac | Belgum), thermodynamics in 1934 (via Blum | America), and biology in 1938 (Sherrington | America).

The following is a chronological listing of the various branches of knowledge wherein in god was disabused, thrown out, made superfluous, and or rendered obsolete, via methods such as a experimental disproof, a wave of the hand, among others, as shown:



Celestial mechanics
1802Pierre LaplaceUniverse (Kepler model)“I had no need of that [god] hypothesis.”

See also
Napoleon Laplace anecdote
2.Moral science
Morality (right from wrong) icon
1809Johann GoetheMoral symbols (cover labeled) 3“The moral symbols of the natural sciences, discovered and employed by Bergman [1775], are the elective affinities.”

See also
Moral symbols
3.Organic chemistry
Organic chemistry 100h
1828Friedrich WohlerOrganic synthesis (or urea) from inorganic components
Physiology (labeled)
1842Helmholtz school“[We pledge] to put in power this truth: no other forces than the common physical chemical ones are active within the organism. In those cases which cannot at the time be explained by these forces one has either to find a specific way or form of their action by means of physical mathematical method, or to assume new forces equal in dignity to the chemical-physical forces inherent in matter, reducible to the force of attraction and repulsion.”

See also
Reymond-Brucke oath
Evolution 100h
1859Charles Darwin I think no god (Darwin) 2Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits. I call this principle [by which we have descended], by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of ‘natural selection’. [On this assertion, the first objection has been a religious one]. We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act. I cannot persuade myself [however] that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.”
Thermodynamics (symbol)
c.1875Franz PiskoStated somewhere, according to German physicist Ludwig Buchner (1891), that the modern science of the thermodynamics of force and matter had displaced or supplanted god; the following quote is representative of this:

“And if the inscription on the ancient pyramid of Sais says, ‘I am all that is, that was, and that will be, no mortal man has yet removed the veil’, it might be replied thereto, that modern science has removed the veil and has discovered that force and matter were, are, and will be.”
Chemistry 100h
1885Johannes WislicenusPeriodic table (god quote)“That [god quote] must go!”
psychology 100h
1895Sigmund Freud “The intention is to furnish a psychology that shall be a natural science; that is, to represent psychical [mental] processes as a quantitatively, free energy [G] and bound energy [-TS], determinate states of specifiable material particles.”

See also
A Project for Scientific Psychology
9.Mathematicsc.1920David HilbertMathematics is a presuppositionless science. To found it I do not need god, as does Kronecker, or the assumption of a special faculty of our understanding attuned to the principle of mathematical induction, as does Poincaré, or the primal intuition of Brouwer, or, finally, as do Russell and Whitehead, axioms of infinity, reducibility, or completeness, which in fact are actual, contentual assumptions that cannot be compensated for by consistency proofs.”
— David Hilbert (c.1920), Die Grundlagen der Mathematik (Ѻ)
Physics 100h
1927Paul Dirac Dirac on god (Solvay conference, 1927) 2“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.

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.”

See also
God does not play dice
Government icon (god based)
1933Paul Dirac“Any further assumption implied by belief in a god which one may have in one’s faith is inadmissible from the point of view of modern science, and should not be needed in a well-organized society.”
12.Natural selection
Natural Selection (icon)Thermodynamics
1934Harold BlumNatural Selection (labeled)“Practically since its first definitive formulation by Darwin the concept of chance variation and natural selection has dominated the study of evolution, although frequent attempts have been made to replace or modify it. Probably most such attempts are provoked by a vaguely defined awareness of an insufficiency in the natural selection hypothesis, and the recognition of a directive factor in evolutionary processes which persists through successive generations. The latter concept which is commonly known as ‘orthogenesis’, is supported a by considerable amount of evidence (Leo Berg, 1926), but at present is not widely accepted among biologists.

The general reason for abandoning or neglecting this concept has been the failure, thus far, to demonstrate the existence of the necessary directing factor outside of the theological doctrine; and one may suspect that fear of leaning too closely to such doctrine has caused most biologists to ‘shy off’ from orthogenesis. It will be the aim of the writer to indicate the actual existence of a directing factor in evolutionary processes, while at the same time avoiding all necessity of invoking theological concepts.” [1]
Biology icon (labeled)
1938Charles Sherrington
(partial disabusement)
Bio (symbol) labeled 2“Deep down among human intuitions is one that spontaneous movement means life. Our kith and kin among the animals entertain it as well as we, though for them ‘life’ is, of course, an unconceptualized thought. We know from ourselves that the indirect field of sight will see what moves when it fails to see what does not move. Our horse may shy at a blown leaf on the roadway, not at a still one. The frog snaps at a fly that moves, but not at one which is still. The vine-tendril never lives so vividly as when at the cinema its clasping is speeded into visible movement. When the cardboard puppet dances it becomes thinkably alive, and Don Quixote’s irruption at the puppet-theater becomes intelligible.

The bio-logist knows this intuitive inference as native, even to a primitive mind. Movement accepted as spontaneous implies living. And the motion of the planets seemed to be spontaneous. Their movement told men that they were alive. All stars might be alive, but of them all the planets most so. The other stars were ‘fixed’, that is, relatively to each other did not move. When physics and chemistry, however, enter on their description of the perceptible, life disappears from the scene, and consequently death. Both are anthropisms. It is of no use asking physics and chemistry whether [something] is alive. They do not understand the word.”
physiology (genetics) 100h
1966Francis Crick “Let us abandon the world ‘alive’.”
Biology icon (labeled)
(General + Origin)
2009Libb Thims
(full disabusement)
Origin of life (nonsense)(add summary)

See also
Defunct theory of life
Life does not exist
Life terminology upgrades
Big bang (icon)
2012Stephen Hawking“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; the earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise [see: karman line]. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” [2]


Biology / Life origin | Disabusement
God has not, however, been disabused from “biology”, nor can it ever, as status quo remains, barring a scientific revolution; an issue, to say the least, which is a bit more complex. In short, one cannot simply disconnect or dismiss, with a wave of the hand, like Laplace or Wislicenus did, in their respective fields, god from “biology”, because the prefix ‘bio-”, itself, is a religious term, i.e. a “god term”, to put it plainly. Thus, to explain, via elaboration, e.g., while Helmholtz, Reymond, and Brucke, of the so-called Helmholtz school, the key figures behind the 1842 Reymond-Brucke oath, may make a vow or pact of allegiance, "signed in blood", as legend has it, to the side with the reductionism view that, unquestionably, only “physicochemical forces”, in opposition to any and all “life force” (or vitalism) theories, operate ‘in’ (or within) organisms; the three of them will still inconsistently “believe”, in logical contradiction to their own theory, that they are in fact “alive”, and likewise that they will “die” one day; the latter of which, i.e. life and death, being concepts not recognized by physics and chemistry; they are “anthropisms”, as Charles Sherrington (1938) put it; and these so-called foundationless anthropisms, invariably, come to us via the religio-mythology pipeline of cultural transmission; and hence, in turn, from god theory; and before that from the theory of “multiple gods”; and before that from a “plurality of spirits” theories of ancient times, etc.

See also
Top 100 atheists

1. Blum, Harold F. (1934). “A Consideration of Evolution from a Thermodynamic View-Point” (abs), presented at the 94th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jun 20, in: The American Naturalist, 69(723):354-69, Jul-Aug, 1935.
2. Hawking, Stephen. (2011). “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (Ѻ)(Ѻ), Discovery Channel, Aug 7.

TDics icon ns

More pages