Нищета неверия. О мире, открытом Богу и человеку, и о мнимом мире, который развивается сам по себе

…The structural homogeneity of the world seems to resist any ‘deeper’ explanation: it remains a mystery (K. Popper, Realism and the Aim of Science , p. 152).

20

…that our intellect does not read the laws in nature’s open book, but imposes its own laws upon nature (Ibid, p. 152).

21

The Self and its Brain, p. 546.

22

Physics, Philosophy and Scientific Progress.  Journal of the International College of Surgeons, 1950, XIV, p. 755–758.

23

Так это объясняет Даниэль Шалит в своей книге «Земля и небо». Он указывает на разрывы непрерывности, резкие переходы от неодушевленного мира к растительному, к животному и к человеку: от физико-химических механизмов к живому организму, а оттуда – к сознанию и свободному « я » человека.

24

Ясно, что наше знание состояния тела и воздействующих на него сил совершенно не является необходимым. Важно то, что они существуют.

25

В моей книге « Закон и Б-жественное Провидение » (« Хок ве-ѓашгаха ») я показал, что это возможно с точки зрения физики.

26

Здесь и далее, когда говорится о науке, речь идет о точных, или естественных, науках, а не о том, что называется гуманитарными научными дисциплинами.

27

I have learned something else from the theory of gravitation: No ever so inclusive collection of empirical facts can ever lead to the setting of such complicated equations. A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the setting up of a theory ( Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist , p. 89).

28

He arrives at the disastrous conclusion that from experience and observation nothing is to be learnt. There is no such thing as a rational belief… The lunatic who believes that he is poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority… This is a desperate point of view, and it must be hoped that there is some way of escaping from it (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy , p. 672–673).

29

The understanding does not derive its laws (a priori) from, but prescribes them, to nature (Kant, Prolegomena , p. 67).

30

Letters to Solovine: 30.III.52.

31

If, therefore, we have definitely assured knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself. This is held to be case, for example, in the propositions of geometry and in the principle of causality. These and certain other types of knowledge are, so to speak, a part of implements of thinking and therefore do not previously have to be gained from sense data (i.e., they are a priori knowledge). Today everyone knows, of course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of certainty, of the inherent certainty, which Kant had attributed to them ( Ideas and Opinions , p. 22).

32

Йосеф Агасси. Происхождение современной философии. С. 278 (на иврите).

33

…Even on the assumption (which I share) that our quest for knowledge has been successful so far, and that we now know something of our universe, this success becomes miraculously improbable, and therefore inexplicable; for an appeal to an endless series of improbable accidents is not an explanation ( Objective Knowledge , K.R. Popper p. 28).

34

Successful explanation must retain… the probability zero, assuming that we measure this probability, approximately, by the ratio of the ‘successful’ explanatory hypotheses to all hypotheses which might be designed by man ( Conjectures and Refutations , K.R. Popper, p. 96).

35

The phenomenon of human knowledge is no doubt the greatest miracle in our universe ( Objective Knowledge, VII ).

36

The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility… The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle ( Ideas and Opinions , p. 292).

37

«Путеводитель растерянных», введение, с. 12 (на иврите).

38

The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, p. 15.

39

Там же, с. 19.

40

The Emperor’s New Mind , p. 541.

41

Ideas and Opinions, p. 40.

42

A.J. Heschel, Betwee n God and Man , p. 233.

43

I would even suggest that the greatest riddle of cosmology may well be neither the original big bang, nor the problem why there is something rather than nothing… but that the universe is, in a sense, creative: that it created life, and from it mind – our consciousness – which illuminates the universe, and which is creative in its turn…Einstein said something like this: “If there were not this internal illumination, the universe would merely be a rubbish heap” ( The Self and Its Brain, by Karl R. Popper and John C. Eccles, p. 61).

44

Моше Шварц обсуждает в своей книге «От мифа к Откровению» (на иврите) отношение Шеллинга к иудаизму.

45