2
registrerede Arne Thomsen
,(1 usynlig),
180
gæster og
196
søgemaskiner online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Skribent: Arne Thomsen
Emne: Re: Citaters pålidelighed.
|
Hej Ole.
Tak for dit svar og dit link til ord fra Einstein.
Du skriver om citatet:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. at det oprindeligt var skrevet på tysk. Hvis det var muligt at finde denne oprindelige tekst, ville det måske hjælpe til at afklare oversættelsens engelske ord: "spirit"
I dit link ses det jo tydeligt (hvad jeg også forventede) at Einstein tager afstand fra en "omnibeneficent personal God" og i det hele taget til religioners "anthropomorphic character of their conception of God", men Einstein tager jo bestemt ikke afstand fra det religiøse, tværtimod taler han jo for en "cosmic religious feeling":
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. som du jo også flere gange har peget på.
Herom skriver han bl.a.:
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. og
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. samt
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. (Her tror jeg, at vi alle er modtagelige, men at vi kan blokere)
Og om ensidig rationalismes "svage punkt" skriver han:
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 . Endelig så jeg forklaringen på det kendte citat: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.":
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. Hvordan "the illimitable superior spirit" så end skal forstås, er måske slet ikke så vigtigt. Som jeg ser det, er det ufatteligt - men det ER
M.v.h. Arne.
|
|
|
|