Re: Re: Zero-sum - Greg

March 20, 2004

Hi Greg,

[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.]

Through all the irrational dealings with my nada/fada issues this provides a

sense of balance. Reading these I am filled with hope. Please keep sharing,

Carol

In a message dated 3/20/04 5:49:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

gbrown@... writes:

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/%7Elesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html

This section of the article 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.

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 '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.

Re: Zero-sum

>

> > LS,

> > You raise some very interesting points. I think one point you may

> > have overlooked, and perhaps b/c it is more a modern issue and not

> > so easily recognizable, is that there are people who are fanatics

> > who aren't religious fanatics but science fanatics. Meaning that

> > science is the new religion and if you do not adhere to their line

> > of thinking then you aren't worthy to breath the same air they

> > breath.

>

> I didn't bring up " science fanatics " bcs it was not relevant to the

> post. I don't believe Greg is a " science fanatic " . If you read Greg's

> posts over time, you'll get an idea of what his real issues are.

>

> I don't think science is the " new " religion. My late father was an MIT

> mathmetician, and very spiritual (how he ended up with nada is beyond

> me -- I think it must have been her seductive looks..) I read a lot of

> autobiographical works by scientists, and I notice an abiding awe of a

> " higher power " . What else can explain the mysteries they encounter?

>

> A friend of mine is an MD/PHD at Rockefeller University. He studies

> brain protiens and it seems mind numbingly boring. One day, at his

> lab, I asked him how he deals with it? He told me: " Every once in a

> while, God gives up a little secret, and that sustains me for the next

> year (or two) till the next one comes along. "

>

> fwiw.

>

March 20, 2004

I'm delighted that you found this Greg, and shared it with us. I was so very

moved when I first learned of Einstein's remorse over his research being used

to make bombs; he had envisioned that the people of the world would be able

to produce enough energy to feed the hungry, ect. Interesting irony in that

intentions having such promise were misused by powers beyond his control.

Thanks so much for these enlightening essays.

My own issues pertaining to my nada/fada using my seeking understanding

against me as a weapon are somewhat calmed in knowing this. Thanks, Carol

Carol

In a message dated 3/20/04 5:47:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

gbrown@... writes:

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/%7Elesikar/einstein/mysterious.html

Einstein on the Mysterious

The following paragraph is the conclusion to the essay " The World as I See

It, " which is taken from the abridged edition of Einstein's book bearing the

same title. In the abridged edition (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949),

the essay appears on pp. 1-5.

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental

emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who

knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good

as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if

mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of

something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest

reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason

in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that

constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I

am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and

punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious

in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also

beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for

the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the

eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality,

together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it

never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.