Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

On Three Philosophical Premises of Religious Tolerance

100%
Waloszczyk K.
Dialogue and Universalism
|
2017
|
issue 3
9-14
EN
My contention is to adumbrate three general premises leading to religious tolerance. The first is that emphasis should be laid much more on ethics than on metaphysics. Religions greatly differ in supernatural beliefs but all advocate justice, love, truthfulness, self-control and other virtues. Second, the beliefs about God are not true in their exact meaning, but rather as remote analogies to scientific truth. Religion is more resemblant of poetry than science. Third, real tolerance consists in the readiness to assimilate some of the values of other religions, since no one has expressed the transcendent in an exhausting and perfect way.
2
Content available remote

Religia i nauka w myśli Pierre’a Teilharda de Chardin (1881–1955)

100%
Waloszczyk K.
Filozofia i nauka. Studia filozoficzne i interdyscyplinarne
|
2016
|
vol. 4
81-94
PL
Celem niniejszego tekstu nie jest szczegółowa analiza myśli francuskiego jezuity, ale przypomnienie niektórych jej głównych tez ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem nauki i religii. Poświęcam też nieco miejsca ich krytyce. W końcowej części stawiam pytanie, czy tezy te są w jakikolwiek sposób falsyfikowalne.
EN
The aim of the article is a concise presentation of the main traits of the Pierre Teilhard de Chardin thought with special attention to the relationship between religion and science. There is a widely accepted opinion in commentaries to Teilhard that he has done with a far going reconciliation of these domains of culture. He has shown them up as two meridians which do not merge but are bound to converge as they approach the pole. The article also contains a reply to the critique of the Teilhardian thought put forward by some philosophers and biologists: Bertrand Russell, Peter Medawar, Richard Dawkins, Władysław Kunicki–Golfinger and Zdzisława Piątek. Their contention is that a higher consciousness is not superior to the lower, and that evolution has no direction. But how can they explain that people often love to know for its own sake? And why more cerebrated and more conscious creatures appeared in evolution not randomly and not before but always after less conscious ones? Furthermore a question has been raised whether the Teilhard’s system is in some way falsifiable. The answer has been suggested that the remarkable scientific and technological progress and the greatest in the human history wave of globalization, which all took place after his death (1955), seem to confirm his ideas.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.