Wissen und Gewissen — Die Naturwissenschaft zwischen Sehnsucht und Sünde

Emil du Bois-Reymond: Reden, 2 Bde., herausgegeben von Estelle du Bois-Reymond, Leipzig 1912, Bd. I, S. 135–317.Google Scholar

l.c. 1, S. 291, Anmerkung 8).Google Scholar

l.c. 1) S. 250.Google Scholar

Frank E. Manuel: A Portrait of Isaac Newton, Harvard University Press 1968, Part one.Google Scholar

H. McLachlan: Sir Isaac Newton, Theological Manuscripts, Liverpool 1950, S. 58. “That religion and Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy nor philosophical opinions into religion.”Google Scholar

Sir Isaac Newton: Opticks based on the fourth edition, London, 1730, Dover Publications, New York 1979. S. 404 f.: “As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy....By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations....And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of Moral Philosophy will be also be enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as towards one another, will appear to us by the light of Nature. And no doubt, if the Worship of false Gods had not blinded the Heathen, their moral Philosophy would have gone farther than to the four Cardinal Virtues; and instead of teaching the Transmigration of Souls, and to worship the Sun and Moon, and dead Heroes, they would have taught us to worship our true Author and Benefactor, as their Ancestors did under the Government of Noah and his Sons before they corrupted themselves.”Google Scholar

Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematische Principien der Naturlehre. Herausgegeben von J.Ph. Wolfers, Berlin 1872, S. 508 ff.Google Scholar

l.c. 7), S. 511.Google Scholar

l.c. 4), S. 173 “They who search after the Philosopher’s Stone by their own rules obliged to a strict & religious life”.Google Scholar

The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Volume II, Cambridge Press 1960, S. 2. “But yet because ye way by wch \( \mathop + \limits^o \) may be so impregnated, has been thought fit to be concealed by others that have known it, & therefore may possibly be an inlet to something more noble, not to be communicated wthout immense dammage to ye world..., therefore I question not but that ye great wisdom of ye noble Authour will sway him to high silence till he shall be resolved of what consequence ye thing may be...”.Google Scholar

In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board, United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1954, S. 928: “Q. Could you reasonably be mistaken about it?”Google Scholar

J. R. Zacharias: “I am afraid I am a scientist, Sir, and I could be mistaken about anything that is not written down in my notebook.”Google Scholar

Richard P. Feynman: “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!” New York, London 1985, S. 343: “I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I am talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”Google Scholar

Edward Teller: Back to the Laboratories. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 6 (1950) 71. “The scientist is not responsible for the laws of nature. It is his job to find out how these laws operate. It is the scientist’s job to find the ways in which these laws can serve the human will. However, it is not the scientist’s job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used. This responsability rests with the American people and with their chosen representatives.”Google Scholar

C. G. Jung: Psychologie und Alchemie, Gesammelte Werke Bd. 12, Olten und Freiburg i. Br., 4. Auflage 1984. C.G. Jung: Psychologie und Religion, Zürich 1947. C.A. Meier: Die Bedeutung des Traumes. Olten und Freiburg i. Br. 1972, S. 147.Google Scholar

B.J.T. Dobbs: The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy or “The Hunting of the Greene Lyon”, Cambridge 1975.Google Scholar

J. Robert Oppenheimer: Physics in the Contemporary World, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 4 (1948), S. 65 ff.Google Scholar

Wilhelm Olbers, sein Leben und seine Werke, Bd. II, Berlin 1900, S. 438.Google Scholar

l.c. 11) S. 251. Mr. Gray: “Your deep concern about the use of the hydrogen bomb, if it were developed,... became greater..., as the practicabilities became more clear? Is that an unfair statement? The Witness: I think it is the opposite of true,...my feeling about development became quite different when the practicabilities became clear. When I saw how to do it, it was clear to me that one had to at least make the thing....The program in 1951 was technically so sweet that you could not argue about that. It was purely the military, the political, and the humane problem of what you were going to do about it once you had it.”Google Scholar

Ich stütze mich hier auf die sorgfältige Analyse von Herbert F. York: The Advisers, Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb, San Francisco 1976. Das Buch enthält als Appendix den nahezu vollständigen Wortlaut des Berichtes vom 30. Oktober 1949 des General Advisory Committee an die Atomic Energy Commission. Zur Problematik siehe auch Gerhart Wagner, Die Forschung zwischen Wissen und Gewissen, EVZ-Verlag Zürich, 1961.Google Scholar