We Need a Combination of Both to Deliver
People From the Scourge of Competitive Spirit
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
00000000000000000000000000000000
Editorial Note:
The following text is reproduced from
the volume “Ideas
and Opinions”, by
Albert Einstein, Bonanza Books, New York,
pp. 49-52. The
article is an answer to a greeting
City. It was previously published in the September
2012 edition of “The
Aquarian Theosophist”.
(CCA)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction
between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The
answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable
dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt
that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative
answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most
people readily agree on what is meant by “science”, they are likely to differ
on the meaning of “religion”.
As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as “methodical
thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual
experiences.” Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly,
means action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in
advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value
transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its
grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the
compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and
fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science’s
reach.
As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it
deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation
of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the
inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned
with man’s attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for
the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These
ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on
tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily
accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence
evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious
traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs
whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements
on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital
importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided
when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the
pursuance of the religious aims.
When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential
substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ
as basically from each other as the proponents of the “relativistic” or
conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For
the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim
at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its
individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that
were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed,
to subsist for very long.
When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to
determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we
find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good
music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally
comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way,
artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary
precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of
unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently
not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach
considerable importance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally
even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy
sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which, from a
rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all.
Yet, I do not think that the so-called “relativistic” viewpoint is correct, not
even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.
When considering the actual living conditions of present-day civilized
humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands,
one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what
one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among
the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield
than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the
guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of
one’s fellowmen. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and,
destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of
achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work,
but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is
necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that
are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious
teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs.
The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures,
however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view
is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in
the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo
Indians in Ruth Benedict’s book, Patterns
of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently
accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of
competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of
life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.
The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence
of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly
materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that
scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral
considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative
achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious
conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to
the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly
emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by
Spinoza’s Amor Dei Intellectualis,
they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone
enables man to attain his greatest achievements.
000
In September 2016, after
a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students
decided to form the Independent Lodge of
Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better future in
the different dimensions of life.
000
