先放着，有空我再来翻译
==========================================
《科学和宗教》
Science and Religion
阿尔伯特 爱因斯坦
By Albert Einstein
This article is taken from:
Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium,
文章来源自：科学、哲学、宗教研讨会
The Conference on Science, Philosophy and
Religion
in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of
Life, Inc.,
New York, 1941.
科学、哲学、宗教和通往自主生活方式之间的关系的会议
纽约，1941年
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 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 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.
.JPG)
