综合英语.西方思想经典选读(常俊跃黄滔)_Text B Science and Religion（1 / 1）_综合英语.西方思想经典选读最新章节免费阅读无弹窗

Albert Einstein

Pre-reading

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist. He developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics). Einstein’s work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science. Einstein is best known in popular culture for his mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his “services to theoretical physics”, in particular his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, a pivotal step in the evolution of quantum theory.

Einstein published more than 300 scientific papers along with over 150 non-scientific works. Einstein’s intellectual achievements and originality have made the word “Einstein”synonymous with “genius”.

The following essay 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.

Prompts for Your Reading

1.How does Einstein define “science”?

2.What characterizes the aspirations of a religious person according to Einstein?

3.How does Einstein explain that science and religion are two realms clearly marked off from each other? And in what ways are they in reciprocal and interdependent relationships?

4.What is the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science?

5.Under what circumstances will scientific method fail us?

6.Does Einstein believe that the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could be refuted by science? Why or why not?

7.How can religious teachers recognize that religion can be ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge according to Einstein?

8.Where does science encounter its greatest success according to Einstein? In what way do you think science can emancipate people?

9.Einstein believes that “a humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason is religious, in the highest sense of the word”. How do you understand and interpret his words?

10.Einstein believes that “the path to genuine religiosity lies through striving after rational knowledge”. How do you understand and interpret his words?

[1] 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.

[2] 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 superpersonal value. 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 Buddha1 and Spinoza2 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify3 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 disposition4 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 sublimation5 of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic6 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.

[6] Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent7 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?

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] The more a man is imbued with8 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 exist 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.

[11] 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 stature9 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.

[12] 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 dross10 of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

[13] 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.

Notes

1.Buddha: 佛陀

2.Spinoza: 斯宾诺莎，荷兰哲学家

3.qualify: If you qualify a statement, you make it less strong or less general by adding a detail or explanation to it.

4.disposition: the way that one tends to behave or feel

5.sublimation: an unconscious process first described by Freud whereby an instinctive urge is transformed so that it is more socially acceptable

6.anthropomorphic: relating to the idea that an animal, a god, or an object has feelings or characteristics like those of a human being

7.beneficent: doing or producing good

8.be imbued with: be filled with

9.stature: intellectual or moral greatness

10.dross: something of poor quality or low value

Questions for Further Thinking

1.Einstein says that a religiously enlightened person has liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires. Do you think one has to believe in a religion to be religiously enlightened?

2.What has been your previous understanding of science and religion? What is the source of your perception?

3.Do you find Einstein’s elaboration on religion and religiosity hard or easy to accept? Why?

4.Einstein argues that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

5.Is it possible for a scientist to be great and not to follow any religion at the same time? Why or why not?

6.In this essay, where can you sense the “humble attitude” which Einstein speaks highly of ?

7.Einstein says that a priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission. What would you teach in the first class if you were such a teacher?

8.Einstein says “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be”. How do you comment on this? Does it shed any light on the principle of scientific discovery?

9.Both science and religion are approaches to spiritual evolution. What major phases have you experienced in your own personal spiritual growth? How does science and religion play their role in the process of your growth?

After-reading Assignment

Oral Work

1.The relationship between religion and science has long been a subject of study, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Work with your classmates and find out those major views about the relationship. Report your findings to your classmates.

2.Work with your classmates and make a list of names of scientists. What do they share in common? Work in groups and choose a spokesperson to organize and present the results of your discussion.

3.Study the acceptance speeches made by some Nobel Prize winning scientists. Can you find expressions or interpretations of the kind of religiosity as elucidated by Einstein in their speeches? Take note of these sentences or paragraphs and read them aloud to your classmates.

4.P. L. Berger says, “In science as in love, too much concentration on technique can often lead to impotence.” Does it echo Einstein’s interpretation of science? Share your thoughts with your classmates.

Written Work

1.For a scientist, scientific exploration can be an act of faith. For an author, writing can be an act of faith. What about you? Write an essay of about 400 words on the topic“______ is my act of faith”.

2.Do you agree or disagree with the idea that to achieve either individual or collective progress a certain degree of religiosity is necessary? Write an essay of about 500 words to explain your views.

3.Write an essay of about 400 words on the following quote by Edward Teller: The science of today is the technology of tomorrow.

4.Study major predicaments in the basic scientific research in China as well as in the world. What do these predicaments tell you about the limitations and promises of science? Write a report on your findings.