Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... Religion and Science (original 1935; édition 1997)par Bertrand Russell (Auteur)
Information sur l'oeuvreScience et religion par Bertrand Russell (1935)
Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. Of the books I've read by Russell so far I think he is the easiest on religion here. I see two reasons for this. One, he never talks about sexual repression which is the subject that consistently gets him riled up about the church, and two, at the time this was written (1935) he was optimistic that the days of Christianity fighting progress were behind us and saw the real threats coming from the state. He was keenly aware that the governments of Russia, Germany and, to a lesser extent, his own Britain were throwing their citizens' freedoms under the bus. His later work shows that he later abandoned the optimism he had towards Christianity, but the important thing to remember is that he was pretty darn optimistic here. The nice thing about the book is Bertand doesn't particularly take a stand on whether or not religion and science are incompatible. Indeed his optimism about the future of Christianity suggests that at the time of this writing he thought that they could coexist. The first half is really just a history of instances when the church determined that science was incompatible with its teachings. The first few chapters are each dedicated to a specific scientific discovery the the church ardently opposed, often with the power of the state and serious threats against the scientists involved. This included discoveries like that the sun was the center of the solar system, that the earth was not a mere 6,000 years old and that the strata of rocks not only pointed to a very, very old earth, but did not show any evidence of a worldwide flood. He briefly mentions evolution, but doesn't seem to realize just how troublesome it would continue to be to many religious people. Later chapters move away from the structure of relating the history of science being repressed by the church. This is of course because the church no longer had the power or, in Russell's opinion, the inclination to directly oppose science. Instead he focuses on religious schools of thought (not necessarily Christian) that are ideologically incompatible certain scientific thought. There's a chapter on determinism and the threat it poses to the doctrine of damnation (though it should be mentioned that Russell makes it clear that right now there is no way to know if determinism does in fact describe the movements of all things). Then he discusses mysticism and cosmic purpose. Sadly, because these two concepts really describe countless subsets of belief I found the chapters insufficient to really address them completely. He finishes off with a chapter addressing the popular criticism of science that it doesn't say anything about morality. He did an excellent job talking about how, while technically true this doesn't mean that dependence on science will lead to immorality. Quite the contrary. He dismisses the idea of intrinsic morality and a conscience as illusions covering up the fact that morality is learned. Ultimately he ends up breaking down exactly what subjective morality is. He's 100 percent in step with Spinoza's Ethics though he more fully addresses the real world effect of a world where each person has their own personal morality which may in some ways contradict his fellows'. If nothing else that chapter alone deserves a read as it is the most complete and concise treatment of community and ethics I have come across. The reason I made a fuss at the beginning of this review about Russell's relatively lenient attitude toward religion here and the fact that he himself does not declare religion and science incompatible is because of the introduction that was given to this book. It was written by Michael Ruse and by the time I had finished it I was certain that he hadn't read a word of Russell prior to getting the gig writing his intro. And after reading the book I'm not sure Ruse ever got around to reading this one either. He seems to think that it is Russell that asserts science and religion cannot coexist when Russell only recounts instances in which religion sees science as incompatible with itself, mostly in the past. To make matters worse Ruse doesn't seem to have a clue what either Russell or Spinoza thought of ethics, though that doesn't stop him from claiming that without religious morality Hitler's actions cannot be considered immoral. This is of course ludicrous since the entire basis of both Russell's and Spinoza's "good" is the fulfillment of the well-being of the individual and his community. It doesn't take a genius to know that the Nazis acted to annihilate the well-being of millions of people for the benefit of a few. I was stupefied that someone so ignorant of Russell and his ideas was given the task of writing his intro, it's really quite shameful. I've never come across such a poorly researched introduction before in my life. In the first instance, I wish to repudiate the statement made by Manny on comment 72 here: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/551961-lame?page=2#comment_number_73 I mean, I was gasping, possibly even moaning...but it wasn't because Bertrand is my pornography.... So we have here a guy who thought he could spend his life being opinionated about everything and telling it how it is until he changes his mind. Russell believed that facts weren't the way to change people's minds, only emotional arguments could do that, and this book is an example in point. He writes seductively, if you didn't happen to know first that he's a wanker, you might even start believing him. Not this little black duck. I've been to a Bertrand Russell School and wankers doesn't begin to cover it. Only a jolly big wanker could have come up with the idea of a type of school where the kids and the teachers all thought they were very special indeed. In his opinion, science deals with facts and the truth, the rest of what we do - and I guess he is bagging his own discipline here - is just matter of opinion and some people shout louder than others. I was rather shocked to read, when he is discussing Nietzsche's idea that most men are just animals and there are supermen above them:
Hence my moaning. My 'Oh Bertrand'. Three of us sat there mulling over this. Anna, who is a physicist, clearly thought equality of man was something that could be intellectually demonstrated. Manny was doubting that this meant Bertrand would be racist. Me, I'm thinking we'll see about that. If you go to the wiki page on Bertrand, one of the things you see is this:
Ambiguous? This is just a straightforward lie on Russell's part. He quite clearly saw black people as inherently inferior and in his essay on Ethics in War, he states this unambiguously, posing the question:
and surely his pompous answer will make you gasp too:
This speaks for itself, doesn't it? But nonetheless, let me say WOW. I realise that Russell lived in a time where it was normal to think black people were inferior, but he lived in a time when women were believed to be as well and yet he was outspoken for the idea of a better deal for women. Maybe it was as simple as he was going to get a shag out of the one and not out of the other, though in general intellectuals are more likely to be the other way, champions for man's equality but not women's. In his review of this book, Manny says
But if Russell is saying that science cannot pronounce on ethics, he is also and much more importantly saying that only science can be the arbiter of truth and that if one cannot prove something with the basic methodology of science, it cannot be true, it can only be a matter of opinion. This belief he has, not only gives science exclusive - and dangerous - prerogative to own the truth, it also gives everybody else the right to do as they please, because nothing can be proved, nothing is 'true' outside the purview of science. So when Manny says:
I think the opposite. To read his relentless diatribe about all ethics being opinion and then have him say at the very end that scientists have to stand up against Hitler is bizarre. It doesn't work - how can it? It is merely one civilised opinion against another. I don't understand how one can read this book and not be filled with the deepest of unease. Every time I come across you, Bertrand, I'm unhappy. We must stop meeting; and not just like this. aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Appartient à la série
"New truth is often uncomfortable," Bertrand Russell wrote, "but it is the most important achievement of our species." In "Religion and Science" (1961), his popular polemic against religious dogma, he covers the ground from demonology to quantum physics, yet concedes that science cannot touch the profound feelings of personal religious experience. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)215Religions Natural Theology and Secularism Religion and ScienceClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
1. Introducere - pag. 7
2. Bibliografie - pag. 24
3. CAP. 1 - Temeiuri ale conflictului - pag. 26
4. CAP. 2 - Revolutia copernicana - pag. 35
5. CAP. 3 - Evolutia - pag. 59
6. CAP. 4 - Demonologie si medicina - pag. 86
7. CAP. 5 - Sufletul si corpul - pag. 108
8. CAP. 6 - Determinismul - pag. 135
9. CAP. 7 - Misticismul - pag. 156
10. CAP. 8 - Scopul cosmic - pag. 171
11. CAP. 9 - Stiinta si etica - pag. 197
12. CAP. 10 - Concluzie - pag. 213
13. Index - pag. 220 ( )