Быть настоящим учёным

Валерий Аллин
               «Но есть вещи запредельные. Большой художник проникает дальше,
                чем обычные люди. Он видит такие вещи, каких мы не видим. Это
                его преимущество, свойство гения, его отличие от таланта. Гений
                видит неоткрытые звезды» Даниил Гранин

               «Космическое религиозное чувство является сильнейшим и
                благороднейшим мотиватором научного исследования» А. Эйнштейн

Я в большой науке с 1987 года. Работал в СССР, Германии и США. Несколько раз основательно менял область работы. Встречал корифеев, включая нобелевских лауреатов, в каждой из них, но никогда не был с ними знаком настолько, чтобы в разговоре непосредственно выяснить их отличие от рядовых научных сотрудников. Конечно, были рассказы людей, близко знавших великих Павлова, Войно-Ясенецкого и др., но в основном о разнице мне приходилось только догадываться.

В большой науке очень мало плохих научных сотрудников – они здесь не удерживаются. Вот только гении среди них попадались крайне редко. Видел я их в основном во время их лекций. Что всегда поражало – их человеческая простота и исключительная ясность сказанного. При огромной значимости и сложности материала часовые лекции пролетали как будто мгновенно. Невольно складывалось впечатление, что и идеи так же легко приходили им в головы, а дальше обычный талант и невероятная, основанная на интересе, работоспособность доводили всё до логического конца. Через них говорил Бог, как он говорит через всякого гения.

Последнее долго бы оставалось моей догадкой, если бы мне не попались статьи Эйнштейна на тему «Наука и религия». Уж он-то знал, о чём говорил. К сожалению, на русский язык статья «Религия и наука» переведена (уверен, что намеренно) неудачно, а у меня есть время сконцентрироваться только на самых важных участках. Поэтому просто приведу уточнённые выдержки из двух наиболее важных статьей Эйнштейна на эту тему (статья «Религия и наука: непримиримые?» 1948 г. лишь повторяет основные мысли изложенные в статьях Эйнштейна «Религия и наука», 1930 г. и «Наука и религия» 1939 г.). Под цитатами есть эти же статьи на английском (как они изначально и были напечатаны), а в интернете - те самые не совсем правильные переводы на русский.


А. Эйнштейн «Религия и наука», 1930 г.:
«Все, что человечество делало, о чём думало, было связано с заботой об удовлетворении его важнейших потребностей и с утолением боли. Это следует постоянно иметь в виду, чтобы правильно понимать различные духовные направления и их развитие. Чувства и желания лежат в основе всех человеческих стремлений и достижений, какими бы возвышенными они ни были».

«Превращение религии страха в религию морали очевидно уже в иудейских священных текстах, и было продолжено в Новом завете. Религии всех цивилизованных народов, особенно народов Востока, по сути дела являются религиями морали. В жизни народа переход от религии страха к моральной религии - огромный скачок».

«Общим для обоих этих типов является антропоморфный характер концепции Бога. Только исключительно одарённым личностям и исключительно высоко развитым обществам удается подняться над этим уровнем. Но, естественным продолжением предыдущих является третья ступень религиозного опыта, хотя в чистом виде она встречается редко - я назову эту ступень космическим религиозным чувством. Тому, кто чужд этому чувству, очень трудно объяснить, в чем оно состоит, тем более, что для него не подходит антропоморфная концепция Бога.

Индивидуум ощущает ничтожность человеческих желаний и целей, с одной стороны, и возвышенность и чудесный порядок, проявляющийся в природе и в мире идей,- с другой. Он начинает рассматривать свое существование как своего рода тюремное заключение и желает воспринимать всю Вселенную как великое единое целое. Зачатки космического религиозного чувства можно обнаружить на более ранних ступенях развития [человечества], например, во многих псалмах Давида и у некоторых из пророков. Этот [космический] элемент, как известно (и особенно из превосходных трудов Шопенгауэра), имеется в буддизме.

Религиозные гении всех времен были отмечены этим космическим религиозным чувством, не ведающим ни догм, ни человекоподобного Бога. … во все времена мы находим людей, исполненных этим высочайшим религиозным чувством, только среди еретиков».

«Как же может космическое религиозное чувство передаваться от человека к человеку, если оно не приводит ни к сколько-нибудь завершенной концепции бога, ни к теологии? С моей точки зрения, пробуждение и поддержание этого чувства у тех, кто способен его переживать, - важнейшая функция искусства и науки».

«Итак, мы подошли к концепции отношений между наукой и религией, весьма отличающейся от обычной. Если эти отношения рассматривать в историческом плане, то науку и религию по очевидной причине придется считать непримиримыми антагонистами. Для того, кто всецело убежден в универсальности действия закона причинности, идея о существе, способном вмешиваться в ход мировых событий, абсолютно невозможна. Разумеется, если принимать гипотезу причинности всерьез. Такой человек ничуть не нуждается в религии страха. Социальная, или моральная, религия также не нужна ему. Для него вознаграждающий и карающий Бог немыслим по той простой причине, что поступки людей определяются внешней и внутренней необходимостью, вследствие чего перед Богом люди могут отвечать за свои деяния не более, чем неодушевленный предмет за то движение, в которое он оказывается вовлеченным. На этом основании науку обвиняют, хотя и несправедливо, в том, что она подорвала мораль. На самом же деле этическое поведение человека должно основываться на симпатии, образовании и общественных связях. Никакой религиозной основы для этого не требуется. Было бы очень скверно для людей, если бы их можно было удерживать лишь силой страха и кары и надеждой на воздаяние по заслугам после смерти.

Нетрудно понять, почему церковь различных направлений всегда боролась с наукой и преследовала ее приверженцев. Но, с другой стороны, я утверждаю, что космическое религиозное чувство является сильнейшим и благороднейшим мотиватором научного исследования».

«Только тот, кто сам посвятил свою жизнь аналогичным целям, сумеет понять, что вдохновляет таких людей и дает им силы сохранять верность поставленной перед собой цели, несмотря на бесчисленные неудачи. Именно космическое религиозное чувство - источник такой силы. Один из наших современников сказал, и не без основания, что в наш материалистический век серьезными учеными могут быть только глубоко религиозные люди»


Наука и религия. I. 1939 г.
«В течение прошлого и частично предыдущего столетия было широко принято считать, что между знанием и верой существует непреодолимое противоречие. Среди образованных людей превалировало мнение, что настало время, когда вера должна во всё большей степени заменяться знанием, что вера, не основанная на знании - это предрассудок, и с этим нужно бороться.

В столь категорической форме эта рационалистическая точка зрения формулировалась редко, а может быть и никогда, ибо для любого достаточно здравомыслящего человека ясно, насколько односторонней такая формулировка является. Но в той же мере ясно, что если хочешь добраться до сути дела, нужно выражаться четко и без обиняков»

«Слабость этой позиции, однако, в том, что убеждения, необходимые и определяющие для нашего поведения, и умения правильно реагировать на обстановку, нельзя найти ислючительно только на этой твёрдой научной почве.

Научный метод может научить нас только, как факты связаны друг с другом и обусловлены друг другом. Стремление к такому объективному знанию является самым высшим, на которое человек способен, и вряд кто-нибудь заподозрит меня в желании преуменьшить героические достижения человечества в этой области. Но в то же время ясно, что знание того, что есть, не является прямой предпосылкой к тому, что должно быть. Можно иметь самое ясное и полное знание о том, что есть, и в то же время быть не в состоянии вывести из этого, что должно быть целью наших человеческих устремлений. Объективное знание предоставляет нам мощные средства для достижения конкретных целей, но конечная цель сама по себе и средства её достижения должны прийти из другого источника. И вряд ли нужно доказывать, что наше существование и наша деятельность обретают смысл только после формулировки такой цели и соответствующих ценностей. Знание правды как таковой - это замечательно, но этого слишком мало для того чтобы служить путеводителем, так как оно не может доказать обоснованность и ценность этого стремления к знанию истины. Следовательно, здесь мы сталкиваемся с ограниченностью чисто рациональной концепции нашего существования.

Не следует, однако, предполагать, что научный образ мышления не играет никакой роли в формировании целей и в этической оценке. Когда кто-либо осознаёт, что для достижения цели были бы полезны определённые средства, средства сами по себе становятся в силу этого целью. Интеллект раскрывает для нас взаимоотношение средств и целей. Но разум сам по себе не может разъяснить смысл конечных фундаментальных целей. Выявить эти цели и сделать их основой эмоциональной жизни индивидуума, - именно в этом, как мне предствляется, состоит наиболее важная функция религии в социальной жизни человека. И если спросить, откуда проистекает авторитетность этих фундаментальных целей, поскольку их нельзя установить и обосновать просто из здравого смысла, можно только ответить: они существуют в здоровом обществе как прочные традиции, которые действуют на поведение, стремления и оценки людей, они с нами, они просто существуют как нечто живое без того, чтобы нуждаться в нахождении обоснования для их существования. Они пришли в мир не через демонстрацию, но через откровение, через посредство ярких личностей. Не следует пытаться оправдать их, нужно только просто и ясно ощущать их природу.

Высшие принципы наших устремлений и оценки даны нам иудейско-христианской религиозной традицией. Она ставит высокую цель, которую при нашей слабости мы в состоянии достичь только неполностью [inadequately], но которая даёт прочное основание нашим устремлениям и оценкам. Если отвлечься от её религиозной формы и взглянуть просто на её человеческую сторону, можно было бы, вероятно, сформулировать её так: свободное и ответственное развитие идивидуума, такое, чтобы он мог свободно и с радостью поставить свои силы на службу всему человечеству».

«Все средства будут не более чем тупым инструментом, если за ними не стоит живой дух».

«Наука - это вековое стремление путём систематического размышления привести воспринимаемые явления к возможно более всесторонним ассоциациям. Грубо говоря, это попытка постериорной реконструкции сущего путём процесса концептуализации. Но когда я спрашиваю себя, что такое религия, я не могу ответить на этот вопрос так же просто».

«Религиозно просвещённый человек представляется для меня человеком, который в максимально возможной для него степени освободил себя от пут эгоистических желаний и поглощён мыслями, чувствами и стремлениями, которых он придерживается ввиду их сверхличностного характера».

«В науке можно только удостовериться о том, что есть, но не о том, что должно быть. Религия, с другой стороны, имеет дело только с оценками человеческих мыслей и поступков. Она не может обоснованно говорить о фактах и взаимоотношениях между ними.

Например, конфликт, связанный с тем, что религиозные круги настаивают на абсолютной достоверности всего, что написано в библии. Это означает, что религия вторгается в сферу науки. Именно это происходило, когда церковь боролась против учений Галилея и Дарвина. С другой стороны, представители науки часто делали попытки добиться фундаментальной оценки человеческих ценностей и целей на основе научного метода и тем самым ставили себя в оппозицию к религии. Все эти конфликты происходили в результате фатальных ошибок».

«Наука может развиваться только теми, кто полностью впитал в себя стремление к истине и пониманию. Это стремление, однако, проистекает из сферы религии. К ней же принадлежит вера в возможность, что правила, пригодные для мира сущего, рациональны, то есть доступны разуму. Я не могу представить себе подлинного учёного без этой глубокой веры. Эту ситуацию можно выразить афоризмом: наука без религии хрома, религия без науки слепа».

«На ранних этапах духовной эволюции человечества человеческая фантазия создала по образу и подобию человека богов, которые, действуя по своей воле, должны были определять мир явлений или, во всяком случае, повлиять на него. Люди считали, что можно изменить предначертания богов в свою пользу посредством магии или молитвы. Идея Бога, как её подаёт религия, в настоящее время является сублимацией этой старой концепции богов. Её атропоморфный характер вытекает, например, из того факта, что человек обращается к божеству в молитве и просит его о выполнении своих желаний.

Никто, конечно, не будет отрицать, что идея существования всемогущего, справедливого и всеблагого личностного Бога способна дать человеку утешение, оказать ему помощь и направить его. Кроме того, в силу своей простоты она доступна даже для незрелого ума. Но, с другой стороны, в самой этой идее имеются решающие слабые стороны, которые болезненно ощущались на протяжении истории, начиная с её ранних этапов. Ведь если это существо всемогуще, тогда любое событие, включая все действия людей, все их чувства и устремления - это также Его работа. Как же тогда можно говорить об ответственности человека за свои деяния и мысли перед таким всемогущим Существом? Назначая наказания и награды, Он в известной степени судит самого себя, как же тогда это сочетается с благостью и справедливостью, которые ему приписываются? Главный источник современных конфликтов между сферами религии и науки лежит в этой концепции личностного Бога».

«Доктрина Бога как личности, вмешивающейся в природные явления, никогда не может быть в буквальном смысле опровергнута наукой, ибо эта доктрина может всегда найти убежище в тех областях, куда научное знание ещё не способно проникнуть. Но я убеждён, что такое поведение части представителей религии не только недостойно, но и фатально. Ибо доктрина, которая способна поддерживать себя только в потёмках, а не при ясном свете, по необходимости потеряет своё влияние на человечество, что нанесёт непредсказуемый вред прогрессу человечества. В своей борьбе за этическое добро, учителя от религии должны иметь мужество отказаться от доктрины Бога как личности, то есть отказаться от этого источника страха и надежды, который в прошлом дал такую всеобъемлющую власть в руки служителей церкви. В своих работах они должны будут посвятить себя тем силам, которые способны культивировать Божественность, Истину и Красоту в самом человечестве. Это, конечно, более трудная, но и несравненно более достойная задача. После того, как религиозные учителя осуществят этот процесс обновления, они, безусловно, признают с радостью, что научное знание возвеличивает истинную религию и делает её более мудрой».

«Путём понимания человек достигает далеко идущего освобождения от оков личных надежд и желаний и тем самым убеждается в скромном положении мышления по отношению к величию причины, воплощённой в сущем, которая в своей бездонной глубине недоступна человеку. Эта позиция, однако, как мне представляется, является религиозной в самом высшем смысле этого слова. И мне кажется, что наука не только очищает религиозные побуждения от шлака антропоморфизма, но также вносит вклад в религиозное одухотворение нашего понимания жизни».




Albert Einstein on Religion and Science

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

In this file:
Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Science and Religion I, Address: Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939
Science and Religion II, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941
Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? The Christian Register, June, 1948


RELIGION AND SCIENCE

The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.



SCIENCE AND RELIGION. I.

This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

1.

During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.

The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.

If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.

What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.

If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.

A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.



SCIENCE AND RELIGION. II.
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.




RELIGION AND SCIENCE: IRRECONCILABLE?

A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954.

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.

When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.

When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.


(http://val000.livejournal.com/211808.html)