Science and religion ( Religion and Science ) is a test written by Bertrand Russell in 1935. This work has the aim of recalling the conflict relations between Science and Religion (mainly the Christianisme). This work shows in what science is by nature opposed to the religious thought, when well even it is the work of sincere believers (such as Newton).
Analyzes by chapter
The book is divided into 10 chapters which approach each one a point of conflict between science and the religion.
1. Grounds of Conflict
2. the revolution copernician
3. the evolution
4. Démonologie and Medicine
5. the heart and the body
Criticizing the Dualism of the heart and body like the Réductionnisme, he thinks that this opposition will be one day exceeded in a neutral form of Monisme.
6. The Determinism
It shows that since the quantum Mécanique, the statistical laws do not derive any more laws governing the individual cases, but become fundamental. If the isolated atom is without law, the difficulty is to extract a regularity from it in the case of the great numbers. As a regularity cannot leave a pure and simple whim, Russell from of deduced that “the statistical laws of the behavior of the atoms derive from still unknown laws which govern their individual behavior”. That amounts saving the determinism by hiding it behind our ignorence of the fundamental causes of a probability.
7. The Mysticism
Russell criticizes less the mysticism which belongs to the life and is for this reason sizeable and estimable, that the philosophy which results from this: that of Parménide to Hegel which denies time, appearances, evil. Considered well, the mystical negation of appearances should not have as at Hegel a logical, but emotive direction: “mysticism expresses an emotion, not a fact; he does not affirm anything, and science can thus neither confirm it, nor to cancel it”. But it is harmful to bind this kind of emotions having a contemplative value with assertions on the nature of the universe. Science thus remains well the only method making it possible to arrive at the truth.
8. The cosmic intention
With a direction of caustic humor where its irony voltairienne makes wonder, Russell sharply criticizes the theory of the cosmic intention under its triple trains theist, pantheist and “emergent”. Particularly hard with the latter, defended by Samuel Alexander or Bergson, he concludes by this singlante formula: “The partisans of the emergent evolution, being persuaded that God did not create the world, are satisfied to say that the world is creating God”. Russell thinks on the contrary that the appearance of the life is a singularity by no means reproducible and to some extent accidental. Lastly, the glorification of the man appears a ridiculous claim to him. One has as many reasons to deduce from the human behavior a satanic origin than divine. In fact, “its mixture of defects and virtues are well that which one would await from a fortuitous origin”. The man is not a reasonable evidence of the cosmic intention.
It will be observed that all the arguments of Russell fight prophetically the partisans of the Principe anthropic which will be formulated a few decades later.
10. Conclusion
Quotation
" The so-called reason to think it, as we saw, is that the universe produced us, US. I cannot deny it. But are we enough marvellous to justify such a long prolog? There is not something of a little grotesque in the spectacle the human ones holding a mirror in front of them and finding what they see there enough perfect to show that a Cosmique intention tended there right from the start? Why, in any event, this glorification of the Man? What to say lions and tigers? They destroy less animal lives or human that us, and are much more beautiful than us. What to say ants? They manage the corporative State much better than any fascist. Wouldn't a world of nightingales, larks and roe-deers be better than our human world of cruelty, injustice and war? The followers of the Cosmic Intention make great case of our so-called intelligence, but their writings make some doubt. If I received the absolute power, with million years to test, I would not think of praising me of the Man like result of my efforts. only an unsoundable sufficiency can see in the man a mobile which Omniscience would consider worthy of the créateur."
Sources
-
Bertrand Russell (transl. Philippe-Roger Mantoux), Science and religion , Gallimard, Paris, 1990
Bonds
- Science and religion in Islam
| Random links: | Caricature | War of Farrapos | Kārlis Skrastiņš | Lake Bareilles | Ridge Saint-Georges |