|
|
愛因斯坦眼中的科學與宗教
周三, 2007-03-28 21:11 — nicco
Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science
說實在的，愛因斯坦對於科學與宗教有很多的闡述，其中也不乏名言，如：science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.當然愛教授所指的宗教可不是我們想的那麼簡單啊！不信，就看看愛教授的觀點吧！（下面有中文版）
This 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.
下面是英文原版：
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.
中文翻譯就將就看吧，翻譯的一般：
要我們對什麼是科學得出一致的理解，實際上並不困難。科學就是一種歷史悠久的努力，力圖用系統的思維，把這個世界中可感知的現象儘可能徹底地聯繫起來。說得大膽點，它是這樣一種企圖：要通過構思過程，后驗地來重建存在。但我要是問自已，宗教是什麼，我可就不能那麼容易回答了。即使我找到了一個可能在這個特殊時刻使我滿意的答案，可是我仍然相信，我決不可能在任何情況下都會使所有對這個問題作過認真考慮的人哪怕在很小程度上表示同意。
因此，我想先不去問宗教是什麼，而寧願問，一個我認為是信仰宗教的人，他的志向有哪些特徵：在我看來，一個人受了宗教感化，他就是已經盡他的最大可能從自私慾望的鐐銬中解放了出來，而全神貫注在那些因其超越個人的價值而為他所堅持的思想、感情和志向。我認為重要的在於這種超越個人的內涵的力量，在於對它超過一切的深遠意義的信念的深度，而不在於是否曾經企圖把這種內涵同神聯繫起來，因為要不然，佛陀和斯賓諾莎就不能算是宗教人物了。所以，說一個信仰宗教的人是虔誠的，意思是說，他並不懷疑那些超越個人的目的和目標的莊嚴和崇高；而這些目的和目標是既不需要也不可能有理性基礎的。但是它們的存在同他自已的存在是同樣必然的，是同樣實實在在的。在這個意義上，宗教是人類長期的事業，它要使人類清醒地、全面地意識到這些價值和目標，並且不斷地加強和擴大它們的影響。如果人們根據這些定義來理解宗教和科學，那末它們之間就顯得不可能朦朧什麼衝突了。因為科學只能斷言"是什麼"，而不能斷言"應當是什麼"，可是在它的範圍之外，一切種類的價值判斷仍是必要的。而與此相反，宗教只涉及對人類思想和行動的評價：它不能夠有根據地談到各種事實以及它們之間的關係。依照這種解釋，過去宗教同科學之間人所共知的衝突則應當完全歸咎於對上述情況的誤解。
比如，當宗教團體堅持《聖經》上所記載的一切話都是絕對真理的時候，就引起了衝突。這意味著宗教方面對科學領域的干涉；教會反對伽利略和達爾文學說的鬥爭就是屬於這一類。另一方面，科學的代表人物也常常根據科學方法試圖對價值和目的作出根本性的判斷，這樣，他們就把自已置於同宗教對立的地位。這些衝突全都來源於可悲的錯誤。
然而，儘管宗教的和科學的領域本身彼此是界線分明的，可是兩者之間還是存在著牢固的相互關係和依存性。雖然宗教可以決定目標，但它還是從最廣義的科學學到了用什麼樣的手段可以達到自已所建立起來的目標。可是科學只能由那些全心全意追求真理和嚮往理解事物的人來創造。然而這種感情的源泉卻來自宗教的領域。同樣屬於這個源泉的是這樣一種信仰：相信那對於現存世界有效的規律能夠是合乎理性的，也就是說可以由理性來理解的。我不能設想一位真正科學家會沒有這樣深摯的信仰。這情況可以用這樣一個形象來比喻：科學沒有宗教就象瘸子，宗教沒有科學就象瞎子。
雖然我在上面曾經斷言宗教同科學之間實在不可能存在什麼正當的衝突，但我還是必須在一個重要地方再一次對這個斷言作一點保留，那就是關於歷史上宗教的實際內容。這種保留必然同上帝的概念有關。在人類精神進化的幼年時期，人的幻想按照人自已的樣子創造出了各種神來，而這些神則被認為通過它們意志的作用在決定著，或者無論如何在影響著這個現象世界。人們企求藉助於巫術和祈禱來改變這些神的意向，使其有利於他們自已。現在宗教教義中的上帝觀念是古老的神的概念的一種升華。比如，人們用各種祈禱來懇求所信奉的神明的援助，以求得滿足他們的願望，這一類事實就說明了這種上帝觀念的擬人論的特徵。
肯定不會有人否認，這個認為有一個全能、公正和大慈大悲的人格化了的上帝存在的觀念，能給人以安慰、幫助和引導；因為這個觀念比較簡單，它也容易被最不開化的心靈所接受。但是另一方面，這種觀念本身有它致命的弱點，這是有史以來就被苦痛地感覺到了的。這就是說，如果這個神是全能的，那末每一件事，包括每一個人的行動，每一個人的思想，以及每一個人的感情和志向也都應當是神的作品；怎麼可能設想在這樣全能的神面前，還以為人們要對自已的行動和思想負責呢？在作出賞罰時，神會在一定程度上對它自已作出評判。怎麼能夠把這樣的事同神所具有的仁慈和公正結合起來呢？
今天宗教領域同科學領域之間的衝突的主要來源在於人格化了的上帝這個概念。科學的目的是建立那些能決定物體和事件在時間和空間上相互關係的普遍規律。對於自然界的這些規律或者定律，要求--而不是要證明--它們具有絕對的普遍有效性。這主要是一種綱領，而對於這種綱領在原則上是可以完成的信仰，只是建立在部分成功的基礎上的。但是大概不會有誰能否認這些部分的成功，而把它們歸之於人類的自我斯騙。至於我們能夠根據這些定律很精密和很確定地預測一定範圍內的現象在時間上的變化情況，這個情況已經深深地紮根於現代人的意識之中，即使他對這些定律的內容也許還了解得很少。他只要考慮一下這樣的例子就行了：太陽系中行星的運動可以根據少數幾條簡單的定律，事先非常準確地計算出來。同樣，儘管精確程度有所不同，但還是可能事先算出電動機、輸電系統、或者無線電裝置的運轉方式，甚至在處理比這些還要新的事物時也是這樣。
顯然，當一個複雜現象中起作用的因子數目太大時，科學方法在大多數情況下就無能為力了。人們只要想起天氣就可知道，對於天氣，甚至要作幾天的預測也不可能。但沒有誰會懷疑，我們這裡所碰到的是這樣一個因果聯繫，它的起因成分大體上我們是知道的。這個領域裡的現象之所以在精度預測的範圍之外，是因為起作用的因素的龐雜，而不是自然界中沒有什麼秩序可言。
關於生物領域裡的規律性，我們所洞察到的還很不深刻，但至少也已足以使人感覺到它是受著確定的必然性的支配的。人們只要想一想遺傳中有規律的秩序，以及毒物（比如酒精）對生物行為的影響就可明白。這裡所缺少的仍然是對那些具有廣泛普遍性的聯繫的了解，而不是秩序知識的本身。
一個人愈是深刻感受到一切事件都有安排好的規律性，他就愈是堅定地深信：除了這種安排好的規律性，再沒有餘地可讓那些本性不同的原因存在。對他來說，不論是人的支配還是神的支配，都不能作為自然界事件的一個獨立原因而存在著。固然，主張有一個能干涉自然界事件的人格化的上帝這種教義，決不會被科學真正駁倒，因為這種教義總是能夠躲進科學知識尚未插足的一些領域裡去的。
但我確信：宗教代表人物的這種行為，不僅是不足取的，而且也是可悲的。因為一種不能在光天化日之下而只能在黑暗中站得住腳的教義，由於它對人類進步有著數不清的害處，必然會失去它對人類的影響。在為美德而鬥爭中，宗教導師們應當有魄力放棄那個人格化的上帝的教義，也就是放棄過去曾把那麼大的權力交給教士手裡的那個恐懼和希望的源泉。在他們的勞動中，他們應當利用那些能夠在人類自已的身上培養出來的善、真和美的力量。不錯，這是一個比較困難的任務，然而卻是一個價值無比的任務。在宗教導師們完成了上述的凈化過程以後，他們必定會高興地認識到：真正的宗教已被科學知識提高了境界，而且意義也更加深遠了。
如果要使人類儘可能從自私自利的要求、慾望和恐懼的奴役中解放出來是宗教的目標之一，那末科學推理還能夠從另一角度來幫助宗教。固然科學的目標是在發現規律，使人們能用以把各種事實聯繫起來，並且能預測這些事實，但這不是它唯一的目的。它還試圖把所發現聯繫歸結為數目儘可能少的幾個彼此獨立的概念元素。正是在這種把各種和樣東西合理地統一起來的努力中，它取得了最偉大的成就，儘管也正是這種企圖使它冒著會成為妄想的犧牲品的最大危險。但凡是曾經在這個領域裡勝利前進中有過深切經驗的人，對存在中所顯示出來的合理性，都會感到深摯的崇敬。通過理解，他從個人的願望和慾望的枷鎖里完全解放出來，從而對體現於存在之中的理性的莊嚴抱著謙恭的態度，而這種莊嚴的理性由於其極度的深奧，對人來說，是可望而不可即的。但是從宗教這個詞的最高意義來說，我認為這種態度就是宗教的態度。因此我以為科學不僅替宗教的衝動清洗了它的擬人論的渣滓，而且也幫助我們對生活的理解能達到宗教的精神境界。
在我看來，人類精神愈是向前進化，就愈可以肯定地說，通向真正宗教感情的道路，不是對生和死的恐懼，也不是盲目信仰，而是對理性知識的追求。從這個意義上來說，我相信，一個教士如果願意公正地對待他的崇高的教育使命，他就必須成為一個導師。
[ 本帖最後由 kickbird 於 2007-6-8 03:03 編輯 ] |
|
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發
樓主
