 这是爱因斯坦于1918年4月在柏林物理学会举办的麦克斯·普朗克六十岁生日庆祝会上的讲话。讲稿最初发表在1918年出版的《庆祝麦克斯·普朗克60寿辰：德国物理学会演讲集》。1932年爱因斯坦将此文略加修改，作为普朗克文集《科学往何处去？》的序言。
我个人非常同意爱因斯坦的观点“把人们引向艺术和科学的最强烈的动机之一，是要逃避日常生活中令人厌恶的粗俗和使人绝望的沉闷，是要摆脱人们自己反复无常的欲望的桎梏。一个修养有素的人总是渴望逃避个人生活而进入客观知觉和思维的世界。”
年轻的时候以为对待专业的最高境界是喜欢和热爱。随着年纪的增大，才知道那还不是。对待科学，艺术的最高境界是在那里，你可以逃避现实的打扰，拥有一颗安静的心灵。如果我可以对爱因斯坦的上述观点做一点补充的话，会加上这样一句：“；是要摆脱社会，家人或婚姻把自私的欲望强加给自己的桎梏。”
将此文献给所有的读者，特别是理客同学。
附录：探索的动机（爱因斯坦在普朗克生日会上的讲话）
在科学的庙堂里有许多房舍，住在里面的人真是各式各样，而引导他们到那里去的动机也实在各不相同。有许多人所以爱好科学，是因为科学给他们以超乎常人的智力上的快感，科学是他们自己的特殊娱乐，他们在这种娱乐中寻求生动活泼的经验和对他们自己雄心壮志的满足；在这座庙堂里，另外还有许多人所以把他们的脑力产物奉献在祭坛上，为的是纯粹功利的目的。如果上帝有位天使跑来把所有属于这两类的人都赶出庙堂，那末聚集在那里的人就会大大减少，但是，仍然还有一些人留在里面，其中有古人，也有今人。我们的普朗克就是其中之一，这也就是我们所以爱戴他的原因。
我很明白，我们刚才在想象随便驱逐可许多卓越的人物，他们对建筑科学庙堂有过很大的也许是主要的贡献；在许多情况下，我们的天使也会觉得难于作出决定。但有一点我可以肯定，如果庙堂里只有被驱逐的那两类人，那末这座庙堂决不会存在，正如只有蔓草就不成其为森林一样。因为，对于这些人来说，只要有机会，人类活动的任何领域都会去干；他们究竟成为工程师、官吏、商人还是科学家，完全取决于环境。现在让我们再来看看那些为天使所宠爱的人吧。
他们大多数是相当怪癖、沉默寡言和孤独的人，但尽管有这些共同特点，实际上他们彼此之间很不一样，不象被赶走的那许多人那样彼此相似。究竟是什么把他们引到这座庙堂里来的呢?这是一个难题，不能笼统地用一句话来回答。首先我同意叔本华(Schopenhauer)所说的，把人们引向艺术和科学的最强烈的动机之一，是要逃避日常生活中令人厌恶的粗俗和使人绝望的沉闷，是要摆脱人们自己反复无常的欲望的桎梏。一个修养有素的人总是渴望逃避个人生活而进入客观知觉和思维的世界；这种愿望好比城市里的人渴望逃避喧嚣拥挤的环境，而到高山上去享受幽静的生活，在那里透过清寂而纯洁的空气，可以自由地眺望，陶醉于那似乎是为永恒而设计的宁静景色。
除了这种消极的动机以外，还有一种积极的动机。人们总想以最适当的方式画出一幅简化的和易领悟的世界图像；于是他就试图用他的这种世界体系(cosmos)来代替经验的世界，并来征服它。这就是画家、诗人、思辨哲学家和自然科学家所做的，他们都按自己的方式去做。各人把世界体系及其构成作为他的感情生活的支点，以便由此找到他在个人经验的狭小范围理所不能找到的宁静和安定。
理论物理学家的世界图像在所有这些可能的图像中占有什么地位呢？它在描述各种关系时要求尽可能达到最高的标准的严格精密性，这样的标准只有用数学语言才能达到。另一方面，物理学家对于他的主题必须极其严格地加以控制：他必须满足于描述我们的经验领域里的最简单事件。企图以理论物理学家所要求的精密性和逻辑上的完备性来重现一切比较复杂的事件，这不是人类智力所能及的。高度的纯粹性、明晰性和确定性要以完整性为代价。但是当人们畏缩而胆怯地不去管一切不可捉摸和比较复杂的东西时，那末能吸引我们去认识自然界的这一渺小部分的究竟又是什么呢？难道这种谨小慎微的努力结果也够得上宇宙理论的美名吗？
我认为，是够得上的；因为，作为理论物理学结构基础的普遍定律，应当对任何自然现象都有效。有了它们，就有可能借助于单纯的演绎得出一切自然过程(包括生命)的描述，也就是说得出关于这些过程的理论，只要这种演绎过程并不太多地超出人类理智能力。因此，物理学家放弃他的世界体系的完整性，倒不是一个什么根本原则性的问题。
物理学家的最高使命是要得到那些普遍的基本定律，由此世界体系就能用单纯的演绎法建立起来。要通向这些定律，没有逻辑的道路，只有通过那种以对经验的共鸣的理解为依据的直觉，才能得到这些定律。由于有这种方法论上的不确定性，人们可以假定，会有许多个同样站得住脚的理论物理体系；这个看法在理论上无疑是正确的。但是，物理学的发展表明，在某一时期，在所有可想到的构造中，总有一个显得别的都高明得多。凡是真正深入研究过这问题的人，都不会否认唯一地决定理论体系的，实际上是现象世界，尽管在现象和它们的理论原理之间并没有逻辑的桥梁；这就是莱布尼兹(Leibnitz)非常中肯地表述过的“先定的和谐”。物理学家往往责备研究认识论者没有给予足够的注意。我认为，几年前马赫和普朗克之间所进行的论战的根源就在于此。
渴望看到这种先定的和谐，是无穷的毅力和耐心的源泉。我们看到，普朗克就是因此而专心致志于这门科学中的最普遍的问题，而不是使自己分心于比较愉快的和容易达到的目标上去。我常常听到同事们试图把他的这种态度归因于非凡的意志力和修养，但我认为这是错误的。促使人们去做这种工作的精神状态是同信仰宗教的人或谈恋爱的人的精神状态相类似的；他们每天的努力并非来自深思熟虑的意向或计划，而是直接来自激情。我们敬爱的普朗克就坐在这里，内心在笑我像孩子一样提着第欧根尼的灯笼闹着玩。我们对他的爱戴不需要作老生常谈的说明。祝愿他对科学的热爱继续照亮他未来的道路，并引导他去解决今天物理学的最重要的问题。这问题是他自己提出来的，并且为了解决这问题他已经做了很多工作。祝他成功地把量子论同电动力学、力学统一于一个单一的逻辑体系里。
【附录：英文稿】
Principles of Research
address by Albert Einstein (1918)
(Physical Society, Berlin, for Max Planck’s sixtieth birtday)
IN the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.
I am quite aware that we have just now lightheartedly expelled in imagination many excellent men who are largely, perhaps chiefly, responsible for the buildings of the temple of science; and in many cases our angel would find it a pretty ticklish job to decide. But of one thing I feel sure: if the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have come to be, any more than a forest can grow which consists of nothing but creepers. For these people any sphere of human activity will do, if it comes to a point; whether they become engineers, officers, tradesmen, or scientists depends on circumstances. Now let us have another look at those who have found favor with the angel. Most of them are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other, in spite of these common characteristics, than the hosts of the rejected. What has brought them to the temple? That is a difficult question and no single answer will cover it. To begin with, I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that leads men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one’s own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman’s irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.
With this negative motive there goes a positive one. Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientist do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in tbe narrow whirlpool of personal experience.
What place does the theoretical physicist’s picture of the world occupy among all these possible pictures? It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give. In regard to his subject matter, on the other hand, the physicist has to limit himself very severely: he must content himself with describing the most simple events which can be brought within the domain of our experience; all events of a more complex order are beyond the power of the human intellect to reconstruct with the subtle accuracy and logical perfection which the theoretical physicist demands. Supreme purity, clarity, and certainty at the cost of completeness. But what can be the attraction of getting to know such a tiny section of nature thoroughly, while one leaves everything subtler and more complex shyly and timidly alone? Does the product of such a modest effort deserve to be called by the proud name of a theory of the universe?
In my belief the name is justified; for the general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon whatsoever. With them, it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say, the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction, if that process of deduction were not far beyond the capacity of the human intellect. The physicist’s renunciation of completeness for his cosmos is therefore not a matter of fundamental principle.
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibnitz described so happily as a “pre-established harmony.” Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck.
The longing to behold this pre-established harmony is the source of the inexhaustible patience and perseverance with which Planck has devoted himself, as we see, to the most general problems of our science, refusing to let himself be diverted to more grateful and more easily attained ends. I have often heard colleagues try to attribute this attitude of his to extraordinary will-power and discipline — wrongly, in my opinion. The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart. There he sits, our beloved Planck, and smiles inside himself at my childish playing-about with the lantern of Diogenes. Our affection for him needs no threadbare explanation. May the love of science continue to illumine his path in the future and lead him to the solution of the most important problem in present-day physics, which he has himself posed and done so much to solve. May he succeed in uniting quantum theory with electrodynamics and mechanics in a single logical system.
| 
看了想哭
好文章！感谢首席！
虽然我们作为草根和大人物在智慧上有着本质的区别，但是不妨碍我们也会有和他们类似的想法，只是在现实社会中，我们和他们相同部分的梦想对我们是远远力不从心的，当然，这仍然不妨碍我们去努力想并且追求我们的梦，包括伟大事业，也包括美满的爱情，这是积极的一面。但是作为能力普通的俗人，梦想和追求能让我们生存和生活的烦恼在多大程度上减少对我们自我定义的幸福的让人烦躁的打扰，作为智能动物的人具有比粒子更多的多得多的不确定性：什么都可能发生，什么也都可能不发生，有感情的人的比粒子更是奇异，也许正是人类和自然的这种一定规则下的充分不确定性，才是式自然和人类社会如此既错综复杂又色彩斑斓的美妙的一个原因，从人类诞生以来都没有答案的问题，谁知道呢，真理之口（罗马一个最小的著名景点）一直开着，也许要直到人类灭亡
先赞下首席！再慢慢品这篇文章。另外一楼是不是客兄的马甲啊。。。赫赫，玩笑话。
精辟入里，这么说，弯曲的读者基本上都是要摆脱世俗的
学生我以为人类所有的困惑（包括生命意义）在没有弄清楚“宇宙的来源与去处”这个问题之前都不可能得到真正解答。
不知道有生之年能够有比爱因斯坦更牛的人找到答案
不知道有生之年能够有比爱因斯坦更牛的人找到答案–>希望有生之年能够有比爱因斯坦更牛的人找到答案，要不然感觉白来了地球
一不小心， 觉得自己看懂了爱因斯坦的这篇文章。 超人就是超人， 能把深邃的思想相对平直的表达出来。 同样的思想， 我即使有能力参悟， 也不一定可以表达。 即使表达， 也是一盘狗屎。
我对工作还没有达到逃避桎梏的层次， 更遑论以最适当的方式画出一幅简化的和易领悟的世界图像。
我佩服陈首席，就是他已经到了画图像的阶段。 这里还有多少人到了画图的阶段？ 不管你干什么。。。
特别是理客同学？理客生日：）
我为何就到了画图像的阶段了？我只是忽悠大家要有一个业余爱好并坚持下去，例如，在弯曲评论上玩。这样就可以忘记许多烦恼。。。。。。
言归正传，这篇文章是爱因斯坦谈话里我最喜欢的。。。
>学生我以为人类所有的困惑（包括生命意义）在没有弄清楚“宇宙的来源与去处”这个问题之前都不可能得到真正解答。
这个是宗教范畴的问题，科学无法解答。有些问题，还是不知道答案的好。
aaaaa:是普朗克虽然可能没有什么家庭的不合，但却极其不幸。
再次感谢首席！
这篇文章看多了总会有不同的体会，也许是大师站的角度高出我的认知水平太多的缘故。
我自身也有很多对于这个世界的疑问，但是我对自己的暗示是我是个普通的工程师，我要挣钱买房结婚，所以也不会去深究造成这些现象的原因。
比如为什么花不能直接授粉，却总是很完美的出现蜜蜂这个种类；为什么男人长了一根棍，女人却正好长了一个洞；为什么刺猬貌似很难交配，但是雌刺猬却会伸出她的性器官，而且雄刺猬的性器官却正好长在他没刺的地方—-胸口。
我不是无神论者，也不是有神论者，因为我不想简单把原因归结到一个我不确定的因素上去，我觉得这些看似永恒的事情背后肯定有定律存在。
按照佛教的理论解释，一点就是全世界，全世界也只是一点，所以其实不必为自己只看到那一点而烦恼，那一点看进去，其实就是全世界，你纵使看遍了全世界，最后你会发现其实他们加在一起只是一点。于卖油翁略有类似，即使只是挣钱买房结婚，如果你深深的去体会其中的美妙，那就是人生的本质，即使你把人生和事业做得再轰轰烈烈，但是你从没有深深的去体会其中的美妙，那么你仍然没有真正的得到人生最本质的快乐，佛教作为唯心主义的最高境界，存乎其妙，全在一心
”我不是无神论者，也不是有神论者“ == 不可知论者?
读后感：
1.探索的动力是对我们生活的世界的好奇，就像孩子一样，继尔是有所发现的有所领悟有所收获的快乐，而后是继续的在快乐中的不断的探索。我多想保留一点这种好奇….
2.我国近现代之所以没有伟大的科学人物，是因为没有这种能让人可以放下心的，来自由的，幽静的，有清寂而纯洁的空气的土壤…
这些可能要几代人去奋斗，让国家富强，人们富裕，完善社保，自由教育….
3.宗教同样可以获得这种快乐，但宗教本身是可笑的,会在一定时期消亡的….
”我不是无神论者，也不是有神论者“ == 积极或消极? 泛神论者：不可知论者
爱因斯坦同斯宾诺莎一样是泛神论者，他相信整个宇宙就是一个神，所以他才努力地寻求先定的和谐。我觉得首席突出了探索的动机里面消极的一点，普朗克和爱因斯坦他们后半生孜孜不倦追求的是统一场论，其实应该是他演讲里说的积极的动因。
3.宗教同样可以获得这种快乐，但宗教本身是可笑的,会在一定时期消亡的….
——-
你深入过么，研究过么，何以用“可笑”之词。
我的体会，我们大多数人都是天使驱赶的前2种人。我们大多数人的烦恼也特别多 普通人的烦恼而已。这二者是有联系的。如果谁要是天使留下的人 那就已经不是普通人了。
你有这篇讲话的英文版吗，可否发我看看，谢谢！
不知道这篇文章是谁翻译的，我觉得翻译质量相当高，如果楼上真要英文的，自己试着搜索一下。
PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH
By Albert Einstein
From: Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein, edited by Carl Seelig, New translations and revisions by Sonja Barmann, WINGS Books, New York,1954, p224—227
Address delivered at a celebration of Max Planck’s sixtieth birthday (1918) before the Physical Society in Berlin. Published in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam:Querido Verlag, 1934. Max Planck (1858—1947) was for many years professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin. By fare the most outstanding of his contributions to physics is his quantum theory, which he advanced in 1900 and which has provided the basis for the whole development of modern atomic physics. Next to Planck it was Einstein who did the pioneering work in the young field, above all in his theory of specific heats (1907). It was he who perceived more than anyone else the fundamental and pervasive character of quantum concept in all its ramifications.
In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.
I am quite aware that we have just now light-heartedly expelled in imagination many excellent men who are largely, perhaps chiefly, responsible for the building of the temple of science; and in many cases our angel would find it a pretty ticklish job to decide. But of one thing I feel sure: if the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have come to be, any more than a forest can grow which consists of nothing but creepers. For these people any sphere of human activity will do, if it comes to a point; whether they become engineers, officers, tradesmen, or scientists depends on circumstances. Now let us have another look at those who have found favor with the angel. Most of them are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other, in spite of these common characteristics, than the hosts of the rejected. What has brought them to the temple? That is a difficult question and no single answer will cover it. To begin with, I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that leads men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one’s own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman’s irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.
With this negative motive there goes a positive one. Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientist do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. What place does the theoretical physicist’s picture of the world occupy among all these possible pictures? It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give. In regard to his subject matter, on the other hand, the physicist has to limit himself very severely: he must content himself with describing the most simple events which can be brought within the domain of our experience; all events of a more complex order are beyond the power of the human intellect to reconstruct with the subtle accuracy and logical perfection which the theoretical physicist demands. Supreme purity, clarity, and certainty at the cost of completeness. But what can be the attraction of getting to know such a tiny section of nature thoroughly, while one leaves everything subtler and more complex shyly and timidly alone? Does the product of such a modest effort deserve to be called by the proud name of a theory of the universe?
In my belief the name is justified; for the general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon whatsoever. With them, it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say, the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction, if that process of deduction were not far beyond the capacity of the human intellect. The physicist’s renunciation of completeness for his cosmos is therefore nota matter of fundamental principle.
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibnitz described so happily as a “pre-established harmony.” Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck.
The longing to behold this pre-established harmony is the source of the inexhaustible patience and perseverance with which Planck has devoted himself, as we see, to the most general problems of our science, refusing to let himself be diverted to more grateful and more easily attained ends. I have often heard colleagues try to attribute this attitude of his to extraordinary will-power and discipline—wrongly, in my opinion.
The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart. There he sits, our beloved Planck, and smiles inside himself at my childish playing-about with the lantern of Diogenes. Our affection for him needs no threadbare explanation. May the love of science continue to illumine his path in the future and lead him to the solution of the most important problem in present-day physics, which he has himself posed and done so much to solve. May he succeed in uniting quantum theory with electrodynamics and mechanics in a single logical system.
to fj:
我虔诚的敬畏我们生活的环境、自然、宇宙，但不会我的信仰寄托在一个并不存在的什么神身上，有时想一下对着上古人们创造的臆像顶礼膜拜是不是有点可笑。个人觉得随着人们认识的发展，时间会证明的，只是看不到了。
谢谢大家。我把英文稿加到文章中了，以方便大家阅读。
爱因斯坦也罗哩吧嗦
信不信神其实不是做重要的，关键是信不信心里面的那个你，那个你可以是科学，可以是信仰，也可以是神…
孔子的对神的看法是：信神在
佛教的一种简单说法是：你就是佛，佛就是你
看来中文最罗嗦的是鲁迅，英文最罗嗦的是爱因斯坦
用真理来忽悠世界， 是忽悠的最高境界。 又读了一遍此文， 对爱因斯坦佩服的五体投地。
如果爱因斯坦是中国人，可能他能找到。可惜他是犹太人。不过那个时候生在中国，他就不会是爱因斯坦了。
科学本来是也一种宗教，一种信仰，一种生活。
找到了首席最近经常重复的一句话的注脚了 — 做研究的最高境界不是喜欢，而是讨厌你身边的人和事。
其实从爱因斯坦/叔本华对科学和艺术动机的定义而言，宗教也完全符合。只不过，宗教可以普渡众生；而科学艺术的殿堂，门槛非常高。。。
算你狠。。。
咋评论忽然把探索的动机转到宗教上了？
其实宗教未尝不是一种探索，与所谓的科学某种意义上是对等的。
从另一个角度讲：佛教、道教是人类在精神疲惫时的休憩场所；而科学、哲学等则代表了人类勇敢无畏的探索精神。人不可能永远只待在一个地方，要么背上行囊上路，要么停下休息。
找到了首席最近经常重复的一句话的注脚了 — 做研究的最高境界不是喜欢，而是讨厌你身边的人和事。
其实从爱因斯坦/叔本华对科学和艺术动机的定义而言，宗教也完全符合。只不过，宗教可以普渡众生；而科学艺术的殿堂，门槛非常高。。。
不知道首席是否也对Hamming的这篇关于Research的著名演讲感兴趣。原文比较长，似乎未见过翻译版的。
Richard Hamming ‘You and Your Research’
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.pdf
好文
楼上诸位，
阿弥陀佛
好文
再次感谢首席。
俗蠢之物，苦中作乐，一息尚存，苟活于世。
每个生命只要是活着，就可以说是一种故事的奇迹
如果我可以对爱因斯坦的上述观点做一点补充的话，会加上这样一句：“是要摆脱社会，家人或婚姻把自私的欲望强加给自己的桎梏。”
======
社会对人有约束,因为谁都不能做百分百的自然人,人的社会属性可以少些,但不可能没有.
至于家人,中国传统文化中,人都不是只为自己活的.适当为家人委屈求全,家庭关系才能久长.
至于婚姻,我很不解,为什么要找一个会把自己的欲望强加给爱人的人作为伴侣?万一婚前没认清对方真面目,后悔了,大可以离婚.
犯不着打着科学的旗号.逃避终归是不好的.
要逃避日常生活中令人厌恶的粗俗和使人绝望的沉闷，是要摆脱人们自己反复无常的欲望的桎梏。
—-这一条和宗教很类似嘛。
至于MasOs所说的“科学、哲学等则代表了人类勇敢无畏的探索精神”
虔诚宗教人世也是极勇敢无畏的，呵呵。
世界是一不是二。
哲学和科学是密不可分的。
如果时间有终点，那么人活着又有什么意义
朱熹: 循天理，灭人欲