1."In the temple of science are many mansions."
2. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
3. "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; or you can live as if everything is a miracle."
Those statements by Einstein amaze me, almost as much as the startling statements Fr. Giussani comes out withf. The two are very different men, but have such great minds.They are open to, and in love with Mystery, and much in agreement with each other.
Why do these three statements of Einstein attract my attention? The only way to find out is to start answering my own question and see what I come up with. Of course, the answers anyone ever gets depend in part on the questions one asks, and those questions probably depend on the way one's brain is wired. That said, my musings may not be what Einstein had in mind when he made his statements, but his words are worth pondering over anyway.
Why do these three statements of Einstein attract my attention? The only way to find out is to start answering my own question and see what I come up with. Of course, the answers anyone ever gets depend in part on the questions one asks, and those questions probably depend on the way one's brain is wired. That said, my musings may not be what Einstein had in mind when he made his statements, but his words are worth pondering over anyway.
1. " In the temple of science"....a temple is God's dwelling place. Science is godlike in the minds of many scientists and people. They worship it. They place their faith in it. Yet this temple of science has many mansions, not just one God dwelling therein. I presume Einstein is saying that each branch of science thinks of itself as its own authority, and maybe that its method sets the proper standard for "doing science" or that scientific doing is necessary for intelligent, well ordered living. Maybe one branch of science thinks it sets the standards for all the other branches?
I think Einstein is poking fun at scientific arrogance and conceit. At whose arrogance and conceit in the concrete? At anyone dumb enough to make a god out of science, or attribute to science divine authority. That will include scientists and us non-scientists, the laypeople, who think we are living smartly and scientifically. Who am I, a non scientist, to criticize a whole field of endeavor I know next to nothing about? No one special. But neither is the scientist who speaks his mind about God or religion any expert in that field. So I claim the same right to self expression he has, and I appeal to the great scientist Einstein to give some weight to my rambling.
I think Einstein is poking fun at scientific arrogance and conceit. At whose arrogance and conceit in the concrete? At anyone dumb enough to make a god out of science, or attribute to science divine authority. That will include scientists and us non-scientists, the laypeople, who think we are living smartly and scientifically. Who am I, a non scientist, to criticize a whole field of endeavor I know next to nothing about? No one special. But neither is the scientist who speaks his mind about God or religion any expert in that field. So I claim the same right to self expression he has, and I appeal to the great scientist Einstein to give some weight to my rambling.
Shouldn't the scientific method be followed? Followed where? In thinking? In living? In teaching? Much depends on what the scientific method is, no? Surely, it should be followed within the scope of the science where it applies.Can anyone tell me what the scientific method is? Or what its limits are? That second question regarding limits is, I think, what the rest of Einstein's quote implies: there "are many mansions." Each specific science has its proper place in the temple, where it is appreciated and valued, along with all the others. But none of them sits on the throne as god . Why? Because each science belongs to a particular field. How many sciences are there? How many different fields? I would bet that even scientists cannot answer that question. Is not the science of genetic engineering a new beginning? Cloning was once science fiction. Now it is a legitimate field in its own right. One day it may be possible to create a servile work force, or an aggressive warrior class, out of animal and computer parts. What would that science be called? What about the field of science that combines human, animal and computer parts, or just animal and human? No matter what the number of sciences is, that number would have to be qualified by the words "at the present time" or "up to now." Because another discovery would explode into a new science.
I think science has to narrowly focus its vision more and more to specialize, to study the microcosm, and find more and more in less and less. I think the scientist surprises himself by discovering the macrocosm in the microcosm. The increase in knowledge is a great boon, but also makes any attempt at a universal perspective more and more unattainable.It is a wonderful benefit to humanity that we discover new means of combating sickness and disease. But each new discovery that improves life also complicates life, posing new questions as to how it should be used, what norms guide its usage, who sets the standards and applies the norms, or does anybody at all?
The norms don't come from science itself, that's for sure. Scientist are capable of doing science, that's also for sure. But of monitoring their own scientific field and the application of its discoveries? That's NOT like leaving a child with his toys, telling him to go and play, and then chiding him for hurting himself, because the damage done when anyone runs amok with science's toys is astronomical.
Should governments and politicians should decide the norms that set the limits of science? Big business? Moralists? The press? The voters? The scientific method? The democratic process? Is there any way for science to answer the question? I bet Einstein would say no to all of the above.
2. "Science without religion is lame"...Why? Lame means to be physically disabled, unable to walk as one would with two good legs. Why can't science walk without religion? It has no where to go, no direction to head in, nothing leading it, guiding it, nor propelling it. So how does it progress? It limps along like it always has, growing incrementally, accidentally, by providence that turns misfortune into a blessing, by inspiration, by blind luck, by stumbling on a breakthrough through a hunch, instinct, or the "scientific method". What difference would religion make? Religion in what sense? How did Einstein mean the word?
Religion meaning a sense of God behind it all, behind the universe, the Intelligence, the Mystery, behind the complexity, the order, the beauty, the wonder of all that is. I think this is the sense in which Einstein is using the word, "the religious sense", so to speak. He is not referring to any specific religion like Judaism, or Christianity or Islam, ( I do think he would never be a polytheist).)
How does this religious sense help science, and cure its "lameness"? It give science the right attitude with which to do its work, the attitude of wonder, which leads to gratitude and joy. That's all, but that's a great deal. A scientist who is capable of wonder has his mind and heart open to Mystery, to receiving what Mystery is doing in creation, through creation, and with creation. Such a scientist can be in harmony with what beyond his mental grasp at the moment and be blessed with discovery. The know-ability, the intelligibility of creation is more accessible to such a man, because of the inner sympathy the man experiences with what he is studying.
Religion without science is blind... meaning what, exactly? Religion can devolve into an empty form or a meaningless practice. Dogmatism means the Mystery is reduced to formulas. Ritualism, that religion is a matter of the correct actions and precise words. Moralism, faith in God is seen as an ethical code or correct manners. Science, since it probes deeper and deeper into Creation, gives Religion an ever greater grasp of God's greatness, intelligence, goodness, wisdom, power, etc. A simple example may make the point more clearly. Early man was able to see the stars, and when able to count, probably numbered them at a few hundred. When, because of telescopes, man was able to see more and more of the sky above, he estimated the stars at a few thousand. As science progressed, galaxies were discovered that revealed a universe beyond imagination. The horizons of religion extend further and further into the infinite expanse of Mystery, giving man even more to wonder about and question, thanks to science. This happens with the macrocosm of the universe, and also in the case of the microcosm of the cell. Science opens man's eyes more and more widely the more broadly and minutely it explores creation.
3. "There are two ways to live", Einstein says. Why only two? Why not loads of different ways, given man's infinite capacity for choice? Because all the variety reduces to one of the two at root: either there is a God behind it all,and that means everything is miraculous, even the natural is supernatural, or there is no God and therefore nothing is miraculous, and nothing matters. Matter does not matter. Science does not matter. There is no reason to get out of bed in the morning. No reason to do anything at all.
Let's take the first alternative Einstein offers: "live as if nothing is a miracle". This reduces to living by instinct. Not by reason, but instinct.Why not by reason? Because reason has already been rendered unreasonable due to its elimination the supernatural. Whatever its use, reason becomes a function
of self preservation, ego enhancement and self aggrandizement. A lot of mental effort may go into that way of living, seemingly highly intelligent, but for the mind to flourish, it has to do more than function on the level of animal cunning. Reason feasts and fulfills itself when it goes beyond itself into the reality it cannot measure, Mystery.
Look at the second alternative: live as if everything is miracle. Everything. Waking up in the morning. Breathing. Walking to the bathroom. Daydreaming while showering. The people you run into. The conversations at work. The work itself. The food you eat. Your friendships. The tiredness you feel at the end of the day. The sleep that restores you. The misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments and conflicts you have. The wounds you give and receive in relating to others. None of that could happen if there is not Mystery behind it all, in it all, sustaining it all, while each of us thinks we are each doing everything on our own. If all we are and do is not the gift of Mystery, including our freedom to do nothing and even to do evil, then there is no meaning to it all, no meaning at all. But awareness of the Mystery Present is the blessing that bubbles into joy, gratitude, appreciation, and peace, as well as humble, ongoing wonder which results in further illumination for both science and religion.
I think science has to narrowly focus its vision more and more to specialize, to study the microcosm, and find more and more in less and less. I think the scientist surprises himself by discovering the macrocosm in the microcosm. The increase in knowledge is a great boon, but also makes any attempt at a universal perspective more and more unattainable.It is a wonderful benefit to humanity that we discover new means of combating sickness and disease. But each new discovery that improves life also complicates life, posing new questions as to how it should be used, what norms guide its usage, who sets the standards and applies the norms, or does anybody at all?
The norms don't come from science itself, that's for sure. Scientist are capable of doing science, that's also for sure. But of monitoring their own scientific field and the application of its discoveries? That's NOT like leaving a child with his toys, telling him to go and play, and then chiding him for hurting himself, because the damage done when anyone runs amok with science's toys is astronomical.
Should governments and politicians should decide the norms that set the limits of science? Big business? Moralists? The press? The voters? The scientific method? The democratic process? Is there any way for science to answer the question? I bet Einstein would say no to all of the above.
2. "Science without religion is lame"...Why? Lame means to be physically disabled, unable to walk as one would with two good legs. Why can't science walk without religion? It has no where to go, no direction to head in, nothing leading it, guiding it, nor propelling it. So how does it progress? It limps along like it always has, growing incrementally, accidentally, by providence that turns misfortune into a blessing, by inspiration, by blind luck, by stumbling on a breakthrough through a hunch, instinct, or the "scientific method". What difference would religion make? Religion in what sense? How did Einstein mean the word?
Religion meaning a sense of God behind it all, behind the universe, the Intelligence, the Mystery, behind the complexity, the order, the beauty, the wonder of all that is. I think this is the sense in which Einstein is using the word, "the religious sense", so to speak. He is not referring to any specific religion like Judaism, or Christianity or Islam, ( I do think he would never be a polytheist).)
How does this religious sense help science, and cure its "lameness"? It give science the right attitude with which to do its work, the attitude of wonder, which leads to gratitude and joy. That's all, but that's a great deal. A scientist who is capable of wonder has his mind and heart open to Mystery, to receiving what Mystery is doing in creation, through creation, and with creation. Such a scientist can be in harmony with what beyond his mental grasp at the moment and be blessed with discovery. The know-ability, the intelligibility of creation is more accessible to such a man, because of the inner sympathy the man experiences with what he is studying.
Religion without science is blind... meaning what, exactly? Religion can devolve into an empty form or a meaningless practice. Dogmatism means the Mystery is reduced to formulas. Ritualism, that religion is a matter of the correct actions and precise words. Moralism, faith in God is seen as an ethical code or correct manners. Science, since it probes deeper and deeper into Creation, gives Religion an ever greater grasp of God's greatness, intelligence, goodness, wisdom, power, etc. A simple example may make the point more clearly. Early man was able to see the stars, and when able to count, probably numbered them at a few hundred. When, because of telescopes, man was able to see more and more of the sky above, he estimated the stars at a few thousand. As science progressed, galaxies were discovered that revealed a universe beyond imagination. The horizons of religion extend further and further into the infinite expanse of Mystery, giving man even more to wonder about and question, thanks to science. This happens with the macrocosm of the universe, and also in the case of the microcosm of the cell. Science opens man's eyes more and more widely the more broadly and minutely it explores creation.
3. "There are two ways to live", Einstein says. Why only two? Why not loads of different ways, given man's infinite capacity for choice? Because all the variety reduces to one of the two at root: either there is a God behind it all,and that means everything is miraculous, even the natural is supernatural, or there is no God and therefore nothing is miraculous, and nothing matters. Matter does not matter. Science does not matter. There is no reason to get out of bed in the morning. No reason to do anything at all.
Let's take the first alternative Einstein offers: "live as if nothing is a miracle". This reduces to living by instinct. Not by reason, but instinct.Why not by reason? Because reason has already been rendered unreasonable due to its elimination the supernatural. Whatever its use, reason becomes a function
of self preservation, ego enhancement and self aggrandizement. A lot of mental effort may go into that way of living, seemingly highly intelligent, but for the mind to flourish, it has to do more than function on the level of animal cunning. Reason feasts and fulfills itself when it goes beyond itself into the reality it cannot measure, Mystery.
Look at the second alternative: live as if everything is miracle. Everything. Waking up in the morning. Breathing. Walking to the bathroom. Daydreaming while showering. The people you run into. The conversations at work. The work itself. The food you eat. Your friendships. The tiredness you feel at the end of the day. The sleep that restores you. The misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments and conflicts you have. The wounds you give and receive in relating to others. None of that could happen if there is not Mystery behind it all, in it all, sustaining it all, while each of us thinks we are each doing everything on our own. If all we are and do is not the gift of Mystery, including our freedom to do nothing and even to do evil, then there is no meaning to it all, no meaning at all. But awareness of the Mystery Present is the blessing that bubbles into joy, gratitude, appreciation, and peace, as well as humble, ongoing wonder which results in further illumination for both science and religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment