And finally I would like to make a little philosophical argumentthis Im not very good at, but I would like to make a little philosophical argument to explain why theoretically I think that science and moral questions are independent. The common human problem, the big question, always is Should I do this? It is a question of action. What should I do? Should I do this? And how can we answer such a question? We can divide it into two parts. We can say, If I do this what will happen? That doesnt tell me whether I should do this. We still have another part, which is Well, do I want that to happen? In other words, the first questionIf I do this what will happen?is at least susceptible to scientific investigation; in fact, it is a typical scientific question. It doesnt mean we know what will happen. Far from it. We never know what is going to happen. The science is very rudimentary. But, at least it is in the realm of science we have a method to deal with it. The method is Try it and seewe talked about thatand accumulate the information and so on. And so the question If I do it what will happen? is a typically scientific question. But the question Do I want this to happenin the ultimate momentis not. Well, you say, if I do this, I see that everybody is killed, and, of course, I dont want that. Well, how do you know you dont want people killed? You see, at the end you must have some ultimate judgment.
You could take a different example. You could say, for instance, If I follow this economic policy, I see there is going to be a depression, and, of course, I dont want a depression. Wait. You see, only knowing that it is a depression doesnt tell you that you do not want it. You have then to judge whether the feelings of power you would get from this, whether the importance of the country moving in this direction is better than the cost to the people who are suffering. Or maybe there would be some sufferers and not others. And so there must at the end be some ultimate judgment somewhere along the line as to what is valuable, whether people are valuable, whether life is valuable. Deep in the endyou may follow the argument of what will happen further and further alongbut ultimately you have to decide Yeah, I want that or No, I dont. And the judgment there is of a different nature. I do not see how by knowing what will happen alone it is possible to know if ultimately you want the last of the things. I believe, therefore, that it is impossible to decide moral questions by the scientific technique, and that the two things are independent.
Now the inspirational aspect, the third aspect of religion, is what I would like to turn to, and that brings me to a central question that I would like to ask you all, because I have no idea of the answer. The source of inspiration today, the source of strength and comfort in any religion, is closely knit with the metaphysical aspects. That is, the inspiration comes from working for God, from obeying His will, and so on. Now an emotional tie expressed in this manner, the strong feeling that you are doing right, is weakened when the slightest amount of doubt is expressed as to the existence of God. So when a belief in God is uncertain, this particular method of obtaining inspiration fails. I dont know the answer to this problem, the problem of maintaining the real value of religion as a source of strength and of courage to most men while at the same time not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical system. You may think that it might be possible to invent a metaphysical system for religion
votes for a dam in their state and discussions get all excited and lobbying replaces the minoritys chance to represent itself, and so forth. The government of the United States is not very good, but it, with the possible exception the government of England, is the greatest government on the earth today, is the most satisfactory, the most modern, but not very good.
Russia is a backward country. Oh, it is technologically advanced. I described the difference between what I like to call the science and technology. It does not apparently seem, unfortunately, that engineering and technological development are not consistent with suppressed new opinion. It appears, at least in the days of Hitler, where no new science was developed, nevertheless rockets were made, and rockets also can be made in Russia. I am sorry to hear that, but it is true that technological development, the applications of science, can go on without the freedom. Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power. The great discovery of the Anglo-Saxons isthey are not the only people who thought of it, but, to take the later history of the long struggle of the ideathat there can be a limit to government power. There is no free criticism of ideas in Russia. You say, Yes, they discuss anti-Stalinism. Only in a definite form. Only to a definite extent. We should take advantage of this. Why dont we discuss anti-Stalinism too? Why dont we point out all the troubles we had with that gentleman? Why dont we point out the dangers that there are in a government that can have such a thing grow inside itself? Why dont we point out the analogies between the Stalinism that is being criticized inside of Russia and the behavior that is going on at the very same moment inside Russia? Well, all right, all right