Earth Sol Milky Way Home Galaxy Local Group Virgo Supercluster Imagination Station Celestial Citadel
USA SUNFLOWER TOWER TREE OF LIFE SECRET STAR STATION RAINBOW BRIDGE WIZARD SPIRAL STAIRWAY AIR SPIRIT WATER EARTH SILVER LUCID DREAM ASTRAL TAROT HEALING MANDALA COSMIC FANTASY TURTLE WORLD LIBRARY LABYRINTH TEMPLE CREATION IMAGINATION BLUE HOLY FORTRESS SAPPHIRE AMETHYST SKY CASTLE RIVER INN MAGIC THEATER CELESTIAL MEMORY PALACE GALAXY HOME MULTIVERSE FRACTAL CITY INTERDIMENSIONAL NEW ANCIENT LOVE UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS PEACE EMERALD BUTTERFLY REALM ❤️ ✨⭐ π ⭐ ✨ π π π π 𧑠❤️ π π’ π
Search This Blog
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won’t get us very far.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment