FAITH, HOPE and SCIENCE

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I realize that what I have to say on this tri-une of consciousness may well be controversial to many. So I would like to say upfront, though I Believe in and deeply revere the underlying Divine spirit that drives the universe, my faith in the growth and ultimate purpose of science is almost as profound.

The scientific mind is an essential tool in the development of human consciousness. Without the advances in technology that scientific research is providing us with, we would not have the means to manage our planet and deal effectively with the exponential pressures of our population impacting on the global environment.

But with that great power comes great responsibility and in the arena of deteriorating ethical behavior, the Lodge of Science has much to answer for.

Using science to build atomic bombs illustrates the point to some degree, but the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reveals only the tip of the ice-berg.

The real cancer lies in the protestant reaction science has had to all the Catholic religions of Belief.

In the process of indoctrinating every child on the planet in compulsory school classrooms into a purely analytical mind-set, science has catastrophically under-mined mankind’s intuitive grasp of the motivating power of spirit. When Belief in Divine design gone, faith and hope in an eternal after-life, goes with it.

When the full realization sets in - that the only future mankind can hope for, lies in the finite field of scientific exploration - with the end realization that when science can go no further, we will be trapped on this tiny planet on the edge of our galaxy, and never ever get to see or experience the full meaning and purpose of Creation - then surely a collective boredom must set in and drive us over the edge of sanity into the madness of mass suicide.

Some would say that we stand on that brink already. If there is no God, there is no Heaven. If there is no heaven there can be no hell. So death is simply oblivion and life is meaningless. So if one is desperately poor with no chance of ever enjoying great material wealth and one has access to WMD.s - what the hell, why not push the button?

For many that stark reality is spoiling their sense of a meaningful existence, and science is indirectly responsible for that hopeless feeling.

Before the challenges of science, every culture on the planet believed in a God of their own choosing. Religious devotion motivated every culture to build massive monuments to their Gods and established the cultures we all enjoy today. Without learning grammar via Scripture, the scientific intellect would never have evolved.

The initial reaction of the administers of religion to science was unquestionably disgraceful. There are still many churches that remain disrespectful to science. The result, instead of some form of civil accommodation between the Church and Science, there has been a steady and growing reaction of protestation. While most of the Church has gradually leaned forward to embrace science, the reverse compliment has not happened to any significant degree.

The concept of an invisible God cannot be disproved. Thus the unbending attitude of science to Faith and Hope is not only unethically disrespectful to Ages of ancestral belief, it is also irresponsible. This wrong, unless righted, will spell the end of us.

It is not for religion to prove that God exists, for by its very definition it must be based on Faith and Hope and Charitable expression, not on any certainty. Thus if there is to be an argument, it is up to science to prove that God does not exist. And until such definite proof is forthcoming, the only ethical stance of any scientist to his or her culture, is to either bow in respect of the unknown, or keep one’s opinion to one’s self every time the name of God is mentioned.

2

How do the Chinese and their absence of a word for ‘religion’ factor into your thesis? Within that linguistic context your words (or more formally the words of any teacher, like say your math teacher) are placed within the same context as ‘religion’, in that they are both teachings.

Speaking of which, you might want to view:
Tu Weiming’s critique on what he feels are the negative aspects of the Enlightenment which seems to cut to the heart of what you suggested – that the paradigm of homo economicus is unable to meet the demands of the human condition.

As for your arguments on what a world without God looks like – I don’t buy it in the same way I don’t buy the claims that Christian fanatics awaiting the rapture don’t save money.

So, then it comes to the question of: why deny God? There have been numerous atrocities comitted in the name of religion and injustices that continue to be supported by various religions. So, then it is by-and-large less a rallying cry against some divinity but rather an opposition to the Orthodoxy whose views may be reactionary, dangerous, or both. It is first and formost a complaint against an institution that many feel is claiming a moral authority it lacks.

But what about those who actively fight against the idea of god itself? Well, there are those who think the institution of Religion has had an overall negative effect on society, so legitimizing any aspect of religion merely leaves the door open for more problems (I don’t hold this view, though I have known those who do).
Additionally, the idea of God is rather absurd. Think about the absurdity of offering a sacrifice to calm the seas – how is any belief in God any less absurd? Within a rational worldview, the ‘absurd’ becomes a ‘bad’ thing, so why wouldn’t you want to point out a fault in another?
Since we agree it is an unknown, I have to ask: what use is the idea of God? Is it inherently more useful than the idea of an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Next there is the aesthetic argument. I, personally, feel that the idea of a God removes much of the sublime wonder that is present in the world. By cheapening it and placing it on the level of a product, much of the wonder and awe that the world and its myriad of complexities evokes is reduced to appreciation of fine craftsmanship, but little more. There is a strong disconnect to the sublime when a divinity enters into the picture.

So, there are societal reasons to be critical of the institution of religion. There are rational reasons for rejecting the notion of God. There are utilitarian reasons for rejecting the notion of God. And, there are aesthetic reasons for rejecting God. All of these, within their respective moral contexts, are very fair reasons to call for an end of the notion of God in an ethically responsible manner.

3

The point that is raised in this thread is not about who or what is God, or to provide reasons for His Being. The question here is about faith and hope, which are attributes of the human psyche. They are metasphsyical urges which originated the ancient cultural need to believe in the promise of an eternal consciousness that lies beyond the limits of the mundane.

Whether such an exitence is an ego-less Buddhist Nirvana or a Christian Heaven or Islamic Paradise is not the issue either.

What I am saying is that if that intuitive sense of a universal soul, which has always been with man since the animism of the Stone Age, if that inner vision is ridiculed or quashed completely by the empirical arguments of science, which is focused only on biological reasons for existence, and is therefore meaningless in absolute terms, then what is the ultimate reality on which we are to anchor our motivations on?

I am old now and I have seen all the wonders of this world that I wish to see. I will carry with me the memories of this earthly life eternally. Now I wish to travel and explore the entire Universe and see its other wonders first hand. Science can never get me beyond this solar sphere. So, without faith and hope in a transcendant spirit, my most fervent desire is denied and all my efforts to become sagacious dies with me on my deathbed. That, to me, is pointless and therefore irrational - and if a surrender to it, it will turn me insane.

So, to sum up: The argument between religion and science (including yours) about God, is basically counter-productive. Until such time as science can prove otherwise, it is of vital importance for all of us to continue to have faith and hope that consciousness is eternal.

4

See, I really disagree.

While I do feel that religion provides a community which is far better at providing moral structure and education than a classroom, I feel that much of this ‘hope’ in an afterlife/soul is actively damaging to humanity.

  1. By believing in an afterlife, it adds a notion of ‘justice’ beyond this world. Bad people’s ‘souls’ will be punished through hell, lesser reincarnation, ect. In many ways I think this fosters anti-social tendancies, whereby those who do not believe in this form of punishment will be able to take advantage of a system which is largely set-up to behave like a panopticon. If no one is in the tower, why not go buck wild? There have always been tricksters, who either deny the existence of this arbitor through atheism or through ‘selling one’s soul’ or good-old-fashioned hybris. To me that suggests that this model of justice needs to be replaced with a secular one.

  2. Faith in the unseen leads to complatancy. Religiosity has a very close relationship with poverty (the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be religious). This encourages social stasis. Look at the lesson of 1848, the common people are far more conservative than is in their own interests, largely because of the ideals their religions teach them. This hope, which can be a very good thing, has more often become a shackle. So it becomes out duty to discover where hope is worth holding onto and where it must be discarded. Do the poor stay poor because they are religious, or are they religious because they are poor? I’d say that a mix of the two conditions exists.

  3. Religion detracts from this world. How many funerals have you been to where the weeping spouse talks about seeing their dead lover on the other side. How many of those weeping spouses cherished that relationship in this life, and how many took it for granted putting things, like work and career, first only to learn too late where their focus ought have been?

5

That’s good.

6

And such disagreement is the great contribution of science, for it elevated us beyond mindless superstition. But as Uncle Albert has said on many occassions, “science without religion is like a brain without a heart”. So though I celebrate the right of your mind to question religious dogma, I question whether that mind has become so enamoured with reason that it has now blocked the heart from metaphysical insights that lie beyond rational explanation.

So what are you suggesting? That because religion is based on faith and hope, it should be abandoned, even though you agree that it is a better model for instilling ethical behavior? So we end up without hope and without a strong sense of social morality as well?

The chapters in Genesis were intended by the ancient sages who wrote them, (since science had yet to arise to give more logical explanations as to how the universe works) as metaphors that parents could use for disciplining their young. Adults were supposed to see the deeper social and spiritual truths that lie behind the childish concepts of Gods and devils and heaven and hell.

The idea of reincarnation is an amazing governing methodology that instills a psychology of peaceful social cooperation. Instead of using the artiifcial carrots of monetry-based systems to motivate human effort, it has served for six thousand years to allow billions of souls to calmly and reflectively accept their lot in life and strive through personal discipline, not for material gain, but for spiritual credits so that they could rise to higher levels of responsibilities in lives to come. Every untouchable recognized themselves-to-be in every merchant, raja and brahman - and behaves twowards them as they would like to be treated when their chance comes…

That secular model is costing us 80% of the GNP - in endless legislation, massive bureaucratic oversight, policing, prosecuting, courts. judges, prisons - while crime andf regional wars keep on escalating and citizens keep on paying.

As environmetal pressures increase exponentially due to global population, the need to initiate a more holistioc system of child education, one that stimulates both sides of the brain and succedes in evoking a universal sense of spiritual awareness, and then leavening it with scientific objectivity in order to create a modern ontological global society, seems to me to be the only “hopeful” answer for future development.

You have to be kidding!! One’s Faith is tested endlessly! For instance, your intellectual probes are testing it right now. Just as science was mocked and scoffed and persecuted in an earlier age by religious dogmatists, so too is Faith ridiculed today by scietific dogmatists, who have no evidence of what they refute. Clearly, balance is always needed.

Poverty is a state of mind. I was once a rich man and with a talent for resource and market exploitation and ended up hating myself. I am now much poorer, and infinitely more supportive and creative and 100% happier.

Religious hope has a close relationship with humility. It cultivates love for neighbor, moderation, a sound work ethic, honesty, integrity, courage etc. All of which serves to control the greedy ape beneath. Faith allows one to work hard and trust that tomorrow will look after itself, that there is no need to concentrate solely on accumulating wealth and hoarding it in bank vaults - or in gambling with commodities and stocks and bonds on the temple floor of global estate

The above speaks more for the retention of religion than the reverse. Is it not better for the surviving spouse to have seen the light of true love, even though too late, than never see it at all?

I hate disagreeing with someone on every point. You are obviously an intellignet person and I believe you are sincere in your disagreements. Science and the rational argument it presents is vital to human existence - but only in as much as it serves to improve our understanding of physical laws. It has no business trespassing in the mine-field of metaphysics, without adequate training in right brain modes of comprehension and thereby gaining a better graps of the invisible emotive forces that govern human behavior.

I say this from direct experience. I was an atheist and avid advocate of zero life after death myself. I am now, after thirty five years of intensive training, a practicing metaphysician. That has not shut down my analytical faculties in any way. I remain with as much respect for the scientific method as before, perhaps even more so - now that my outlook is more balanced.

Hopefully we can find a common ground that will allow us to arrive at some base of mutual respect. I have hope that this can be done.

There is an ancient discipline in yoga called jnani which claims that metaphysical enlightenment can be arrived at purely via intellectual analysis.
Rinzai Zen also takes this mental approach via seeking answers to seemingly irrational koans.
Bhakti yoga - Love of God, via emotional arousal - is a shorter and more certain route.
The route best loved by God for complete understanding of how the universe works is that of the kharma yogi - or householder and parent. That is the route I have chosen and it has worked wonders for my peace of mind and my Faith and Hope in the future for mankind.

7

Respectfully,

For me, it is about seperating the useful, rational aspects of religion contained in its ethics and its rituals (which support the ethics) from the superstition that serves to hurt society (dualism, afterlife, ect.).

Similarly, much of the humanism that we experience in the West has not been a generative enterprise, but rather a response to and a rejection of religion. Integrating some aspects of religion and grafting these (slowly, slowly) onto secular systems results in the hodge-podge that we see in the modern West. The sick and twisted cross of ‘rationality’ (based on Mill’s and Smith’s grossly incomplete models) with religious support of it. In this manner, people are given hope who have precious little and rather than apply this hope in a meaningful manner divert it towards purchasing prayer candles.

A new humanism needs to be created. Rather than the sick revenant of homo economicus represented in secular humanism, there needs to be the view of the human condition as a finite network. Religion is insufficient for this task because it does not value the human, ultimately. Instead it places true value outside of the human condition (most religions at their start create an alternate economy, for example) de-emphasizing the only thing that we really truly can say we have.

You mention the efficacy of the caste system – I agree, it is wonderfully effective, but so is slavery. It was on that basis that the caste system had to be eliminated in India, and it remains on that basis that many Untouchables were converting to Buddhism. Were, why the past tense? Because of the blending of religion and temporal law: it is now much harder to convert in India. As a method of control, it works fascinatingly well. It can keep people enslaved, whether the bondage be physical or economic religion seems to offer an escape. That keeps the slaves passive and easy to control, after all, they will be ‘rewarded’ eventually, won’t they? Nearly every religion has a strong reward system for poverty and meekness.

A new humanism needs to be created. Rather than offering an immaterial reward in the afterlife, there needs to be a system which rewards virtue in this life. We already have shades of this, but we have too great a disconnect between ‘to get’ and ‘virtue’. It is expected that the wealthy will not be virtuous and that those of little means will be more virtuous. This is a terrible set-up because it removes accountability of those on top (money is dirty, so those who have it are immoral) as well as of those on bottom (they were starving, they couldn’t help themselves). Here we see the horrible legacy of grafting secular humanism onto a very deeply religious base.

You talk about how wonderful it is now that the grieving spouse has now seen the light – what about performing a heart operation? Would it be OK if, after performing open-heart surgery the doctor realized that his priorities had been mis-placed and he should have studied in Med school rather than partied and passed the exams through guile? How is the situation with the spouse any different? He learned the lesson too late and claims that in the next life he’ll get a chance to make it right. Terrible idea, just terrible. Religion provides the very excuse whereby the family was neglected! There is always next time! At death, with or without the belief in the next round, the man would have realized his mistake but it one case he has false hope. That means that the same mistake can be made again and again as the mistake is not so tragic.

A new humanism needs to be created whereby those closest to you are cherished in the now. There may not be a tomorrow, since you may die and cease to exist. Isn’t that a wonderful motivational technique? No bearded man in the sky passing judgement, no daemon Mara spinning his terrible wheel, just you face to face with your actions and how you have failed to live up to your potential. No next time.

You speak of the controling aspects of religion like they are a good thing. I very much agree. However, all these elements can be seperated from the idea of a soul, of a God, of a metaphysical morass and instilled from early age on their own. By placing the authority with humans, not with some divine entity, a system of respect is established across generational lines – the elderly teaching generation instills virtue in the young through example and remember in their admonishments how they were treated as a child. Through this memory, they will be gentle and kind. By placing the arbitration in the hands of humans, punishment becomes far more fearful. It is far more difficult to be afraid of an invisible entity than it is of a real live person watching you.

It is far easier to reform one’s self knowing that self-improvement is a long road. No miracle conversions, no secret gnosis hitting you like a brick in the head reforming your character. Just years and years of work. Learning to be a human is a damned difficult thing and to use the crutch of religion only distances us from the task. After all, the eventual goal is to escape the human condition, is it not?

8

Since I once shared precisely the same sentiments, I appreciate your attempt at intellectual rationalizations of the invisible, unquantifibale emotive forces that govern not only human behavior, but the behavior of all organic life on this planet.

But, with all due respect, now that I am an older and (I hopefully believe) wiser man, I realize that those earlier views were little more than the immature rationalizations of a self-determinant teenager, intent on establishing my own independent spin on reality.

The fact of the matter is that none of those purely socially-orientated ethical rationalizations work in practice.

With the gradual demise in religious practices, so too has been a gradual rise in dysfunctional social behavior - culminating in two world wars and in atomizing entire cities with WMDs and a badly polluted planet -with little or no care for hundreds of millions dying of preventable causes.

The reason why there has not been total moral collapse is because, though most people no longer put into religious practice what they preach, over 80% of Americans continue to believe in God and in an after-life.

Another, even more telling, recent poll reveals that over 72% of young Americans between 18 and 25 believe we are now living in the final days, preceeding global collapse.

9

It is precisely because of those beliefs that I think the world is going to pot. It is religion, not the lack of it, that is driving these things.

A dynamic humanism forces you to relate to one’s environment and one’s fellow man in the same way religion distances one from one’s environment and one’s fellow man.

That is why I do very much believe that a re-emergence of Confucian humanism is required to get this world going straight again. It has an extremely peaceful legacy, coupled with a very stable governmental system/ideology that is not expansionist. On top of that the emphasis is in all the right places. Let it be governed by the rationality of Xun Zi married to the rationality of the Enlightenment, with a dash of Yi Yulgok’s chi monism for that metaphysical edge you are seeking and bam, you’ve got an incredibly dynamic system that is more than able to deal with the modern global crisis in the way the major religions of the world aren’t.

Death has always been with us, but it has only been through progress, both rational and scientific, that we have been able to stay it for a time. Religion has never offered that solution.

10

While in Hong Kong thirty years ago, I became a great admirer of Confucius. From what I understood, he is part of the ancient Chinese religious pantheon. His image is idolozed in temples throughout what was then the the New Terrotories, alongside that of Buddha and Lao Tsu. His call for filial piety as the foundation of sound social behavior, is literally a worshipful one related to the Divine.

11

Confucius is pretty damn awesome, I’ve gotta say. I didn’t know you lived in Hong Kong, that’s awesome!

As for Confucius being a divinity, eh, a lot of that comes from first the Han synthesis where much of the rationalism of Ru thought got blended with the yingyang school as well as the wuxing school. This got compounded by the whole Daoxue movement (especially Zhu Xi’s ‘we can be Chan too!’ metaphysics).

So, while he gets thrown in there, I am not sure that he would have really wanted that (based on his teachings).

But I do agree with you that the ideal of filial piety is (within Confucianism) one of the best (if not the best) way to relate to the divine. That is, in essence, what I am talking about. Real actions in this world coupled with real service in this world acting as an expression of religious faith. I don’t care about the soul, what are you doing right now is what I care about as well as why you are doing it.

So, I do have to ask: how do you feel hope in an afterlife deepens or improves this paradigm and how does focusing on there hereafter improve this world?

12

I synthesized what I learned from ancient Chinese philosophy in Hong Kong, into four basic personal paradigms and have tried to live by them. I have also laid it out as a life-map for my children.

  1. 0 - 21 years Student
  2. 21 - 42 Years Servant (manderin, global steward)
  3. 42 - 63 years Husband
  4. 63 - 84 years Sage

Each stage prepares one for the challenges of the stage ahead.
In the final stage, when the sage has served his time as a conscientious student, then paid back to the state via servitude for the lessons learned, and then attended to his own family estate, what is the sage who retires to mountains to look foreward to?
It is to the heavens that he looks and what he sees there, should he survive the illumination, he brings back to earth and passes on to the student.

By the grace of the Gods, I received illumination well before my appointed time. So I tell my children that a Divine Intelligence that lies beyond physical rationalization, is witness to every atomic action and reaction. It iguards against ethical trespass and is capable of reaching out to teach painful lessons if its warnings against trespass are disregarded.

Instilling this superstition from a young age has served them well, making them meta-normally aware of every action they make and that when they transgress, they themselves are responsible and must bear the consequences without blame.

Net result, I have self-policed students who teach themselves without adult supervision and take pride in excelling in everything they do. Those that have graduated as stewards are already serving gratefully and our family is happy, peaceful and creative.

13

Tricky, tricky. Using my own tradition against me.

How did your ear become attuned?

14

By shutting down the eternal machinations of the materially ambitious analytical mind and listening in the silence to an etheric tune.
Zazen is the seat of true knowledge, all else is merely embelishment.
Teaching me how to sit in silence makes me eternally grateful to the House of Mongol - for it has taught me how to properly love our world and all who live on it…

15

Quotes from Albert Einstein

“True religion is real living; living with all one’s soul, with all one’s goodness and righteousness.”

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13

“I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe.” or sometimes quoted as “God does not play dice with the universe.”

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism…”

“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

“The highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. … it is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any otherway.”

“Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.”

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.”

“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”

“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 exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the 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 behaviour 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 … If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) 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 illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the 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 imulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contibutes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life.”
[Albert Einstein, “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]

Edited by MagnetMan on Oct 27, 2006 - 11:12 AM