Stvrtok 8. marca 2007
Thursday 8 March 2007 -
akuratne som sa vratila z Anglicka. Byvala som u kamarata. Casto sme sa rozpravali o Bohu a o nabozenstve. Ja v Boha verim. On - nie... Ale dovodom, pre ktore neveri, nie celkom dobre rozumiem... Hovori ze nabozenstvo, a viera v Boha (alebo boha) nedokazu rozsvietit ziarovky... Ja na to hovorim, ze je to uplne v poriadku. Ved podstatou nabozensta nie je aby sa rozsvecovali ziarovky. Taka odpoved ho vsak neuspokojuje. On veri vo - VEDU. "Len preto, lebo chces aby to bola pravda to este pravda namusi byt" hovori. On "veri" vo poznanie, nie vo vieru...
Rozmyslala som, ze dokonca aj sposob akym ich - (u)verenie a/alebo poznanie - slovne vyjadrujeme a definujeme vyjadruje ze jedno nie je to co je to druhe, verit nie je to iste co poznat (alebo lepsie, vediet). Ze teda ide o dve rozlicne "reality". Hovorim "reality" a tym mam na mysli ze su obe skutocne a zakusitelne. Tak ako to ze pre neho je jedna z tycho skutocnosti niecim a nejako menej ako ta druha - preco jednu vyvysuje nad druhu? "Buhhh", ako tak velmi vyrecne hovoria Taliani...:-)
Ideme sa teda bavit o rozdieloch medzi vierou a vedou? Medzi poznanim viery a poznanim vedy? Medzi "verime" a "viem"? Ja si myslim ze mozu spokojen spolu nazivat jedna vedla druhej, lebo su obe dvomi rozlicnymi sposobmi poznania. Rozlicnymi, to ano, ale napriek tomu skutocnymi a pravdivymi. Pracujucimi s rozlicnymi datami.
A ty si co myslis?
just returned from a trip to England. Stayed with a friend of mine. We talked of God and religion often. I myself do believe in God. He does not... And the reasons he gives for not believing I can't undrstand too well indeed... He says religion and a belief in God (or god) do not turn the light bulbs on... I say it's perfectly ok, as turning the light bulbs on is not a religion's purpose. He seems to not be satisfied by such answer. He believes in - science he says. "Just because you want it to be true does not mean it is true" he says... He "believes" in knowing, not believing...
I thought though that even the way we verbally define them, one as "knowing" and the other as "believing" does show that, in fact, they are not the same. That therefore they are two different realities. I say "realities", meaning they're both real and experienceable. Why though he belittles, or thinks less, of just one of them? "Buhhh", as the Italians like to say... :-)
Shall we dispute about the difference between the faith and the science now? I do think the two can peacefully "exist" together, and I think they both are kinds of a way of knowing. Different ones, yes, but both real and true. Just taking for basis different kind of data.
What do you say?
I thought though that even the way we verbally define them, one as "knowing" and the other as "believing" does show that, in fact, they are not the same. That therefore they are two different realities. I say "realities", meaning they're both real and experienceable. Why though he belittles, or thinks less, of just one of them? "Buhhh", as the Italians like to say... :-)
Shall we dispute about the difference between the faith and the science now? I do think the two can peacefully "exist" together, and I think they both are kinds of a way of knowing. Different ones, yes, but both real and true. Just taking for basis different kind of data.
What do you say?
No comments:
Post a Comment