Ne iznosim dokaze. Ne polemisem. Misljenja sam da nauka nikada ne moze dokazati postojanje Boga. Nauka, ako je valjana, sasvim je validna u okviru svojih granica. Naravno, ona se bavi samo jednim delicem stvarnosti, mada ne sporim da je taj delic izuzetno bitan za nasu efemernu zemaljsku egzistenciju. Pored toga, ona je fascinanatna. Ali, ako se bavi samo delicem stvarnosti, a znamo da se razgranala u sijaset disciplina i grananje se nastavlja, to implicira postojanje citavog jednog nepreglednog i od strane nauke neistrazenog okeana. Sam naucni metod onemogucava je da tu beskonacnost makar pocne istrazivati. Ko se otisne u te vode, ne moze se nadati kraju puta, jer uvek ima jos, buduci da ni svest, uz sve pokusaje limitiranja (koje je i nuzno za postojanje sveta i zivota kakvog znamo), sustinski ne poznaje granice. Od spremnosti, otvorenosti necijeg uma, zavisi do koje dubine/visine moze ici. Naravno, sposobnost razumevanja, tj. uspostavljanja korelacija je druga prica. U nekim iskustvima, razum cak ne igra nikakvu ulogu, potpuno je bespomocan, moze se iskljuciti, mada moze i interpretirati dozivljeno na nacin na koji je u stanju da ga interpretira. Puno toga se ne moze iskazati recima, pa cak ni brojem, tom "osnovom i merom svega". Simboli mogu da pomognu, ali samo donekle...Da bi se shvatila manjkavost reci i brojki, ma koliko oni precizno bili definisani, nije potrebno baviti se stanjima "izmenjene" svesti. Pokusajte da predstavite neku Betovenovu simfoniju recima ili ciframa. Postoji score koji laiku nece znaciti apsolutno nista. Samo vrsni poznavaoci mogu, citajuci ga, cuti muziku. Ali to nikada nece biti iskustvo ekvivalentno slusanju pravog orkestra. A definitivno je sve neizmerno komplikovanije. Da nije tako, muzika, likovna umetnost i druge se verovatno ne bi izrazavale pomocu medija pomocu kojih se izrazavaju. I o religioznim iskustvima mozemo citati, kritikovati ih, ali dok ih ne dozivimo, imamo samo bledu predstavu o intenzitetu dozivljenog. Oni koji su vec imali takva iskustva su u boljoj poziciji, ali sam dozivljaj je nezamenljiv. Mozemo objasnjavati sta je orgazam nekome ko ga nije doziveo, ali nikada ga ne mozemo do kraja pripremiti za taj fenomen. U tom trenutku bice zatecen, preplavljen. Verovatno bi na zahtev: "Opisi mi osecaj", dobili odgovor u vidu "kolutanja ocima". Tom nekome ce verovatno biti tesko da poveruje da moze iskusiti jos jaci. A onda se to jednog dana moze desiti i verovace da je doziveo potpunu, najvecu ekstazu. A uvek postoji jaca, mada je ljudima to tesko da zamisle. Neposredno iskustvo je kljucno. Sto se tice smrti, ona bi mogla biti nesto kao vrhunski orgazam. Potpuno predavanje. Uz potpuni mir koji bi nakon toga nastupio. Ali, taj mir ne bi bio vecan. Iskustva bi se nastavila, na nematerijalnoj ravni, mada bi verovatno nasa licnost bila izbrisana snagom dozivljenog.
Misljenja sam da postoji nesto sto ja zovem "duhovnim slepilom". Vec neko vreme vlada epidemija istog. Svi mi svakoga dana dozivljamo neobjasnjivo i nedokazivo, samo sto to neko ne vidi, neciji se um fiksira za takva iskustva i pokusava da ih interpretira na ovaj ili onaj nacin, a neko jednostavno prihvata cinjenicu da postoji "nesto vise", ali ne oseca potrebu ili se ne oseca sposobnim da te stvari ispita. "Duhovno slepilo" je hendikep, poput fizickog, ali nam ne smeta u obavljanju svakodnevnih aktivnosti. Zbog toga je veliki problem ljudima da shvate da imaju problem. Kao i onima kojima je umetnost zaludjivanje. Sta ce im umetnost u zivotu? Kako ih ubediti da su siromasniji, slepi za citav jedan svet koji je mozda izmastan, ali sve je u "glavi" na kraju krajeva. Oni u stvari vide, ali ne razumeju to u sta gledaju, iako vam mogu do tancina opisati sta je to sto se nalazi na jednoj umetnickoj slici. Ima glupih ljudi (ne zelim da vredjam nikoga ovom analogijom) koji misle da su najpametniji, a svima ostalima je jasno da su glupi. Oni to nece ni za zivu glavu prihvatiti ili bar priznati. Fizicko slepilo je coveku ocigledno i pokusace da ga otkloni ako je moguce. "Duhovno slepilo" i glupost je moguce korigovati, ali za pocetak se mora prihvatiti da covek ima problem. Sigurno se ne mogu i ne trebaju osteceni, bolesni ljudi leciti na silu. Mada se danas sve vise situacija obrce, duhovni ljudi se smatraju bolesnicima i histerija uzima maha. Imamo novu Inkviziciju, u drugom obliku, duhovnost je ponovo na udaru.
Ja necu iznositi licna iskustva kojih je poprilicno (moram priznati da bih mnoga zaboravio usled raznih faktora da ih nisam zapisao), jer ne osecam potrebu za tim, a i ona mogu biti interpretirana na pogresne nacine, mada je kod ovih stvari objektivnost nesto sto maltene ne postoji. Umesto toga, iako sam izneo svoj stav o nemogucnosti nauke da objasni ono sto je izvan njenih granica, a ipak je obuhvata, objavicu po neki citat ljudi od nauke koji su se osmelili da pokusaju prodor u Nepoznato, jer taj, po meni, paradoks moze jos nekome biti zanimljiv. Mozda stavim i poneku rec velikih umetnika. Uglavnom, necu vas vise opterecivati licnim razmisljanjima, niti cu, kao sto sam rekao, polemisati sa vama. To ostavljam mladjima , ekstremnijima, dokonijima, pametnijima...
Za kraj, reci i savet nekoga ko nas je nedavno napustio: "Reci: ne znam."
- - - - - - - - - -
Izvinjavam se zbog odsustva prevoda.
"It is generally believed that traditional or commonsense beliefs that contradict scientific views must recede. I will argue that such an opinion is not always justified. In particular, I claim that the modern scientific notion of the fundamental nature of the world and life may very likely prove to be false, whereas some relevant "unscientific" folk sentiments may prove to be essentially correct.
Science and traditional common sense, which both seek truth, are not adversaries. Science can even be regarded as a sophisticated and highly disciplined form of common sense. Therefore it might seem that we should always prefer scientific claims to traditional folk beliefs."
...
"It is natural that we wish to ground our beliefs about the world on as firm data as possible. It is also very reasonable that we attempt to avoid any logical inconsistencies inside our belief systems. In these regards the collection of folk sentiments is certainly much inferior to the body of knowledge science advocates. Yet the lack of a clear factual basis and the toleration of inconsistencies may give commonsense reasoning definite advantages over scientific ratiocination.
In general, the desire to found our beliefs upon firm and clear empirical facts is commendable. It is always reasonable to establish, if possible, a solid observational basis for a definite belief rather than to hold to it relying upon vague and ambiguous data. It is therefore understandable that science applies certain strict criteria a fact must satisfy in order to be accepted as a basis for reliable conclusions. However, using of such criteria may prove detrimental to our search for truth. Our world may be - and I will argue that it very likely actually is - of such character that the picture of the world formed on the basis of the most trustworthy empirical data we currently possess is incorrect, and that some very basic properties of the world reveal themselves in the specific kinds of facts which common sense recognizes but science, in its quest for utmost certainty and clarity, rejects."
...
"The advantage of common sense over modern science lies in its greater tolerance of diversity: it does not restrict itself by paying attention only to the "best" kind of data. Moreover, as concerns the specific variety of the data in question - phenomenal experiences - it has no significant disadvantages in comparison with science because introspective observations, unlike physical measurements, cannot be much enhanced by using sophisticated technical equipment. For that reason folk psychology can even today successfully compete with science in offering a sound basis for the beliefs concerning the fundamental character of our nature."
...
"Common sense does not require the concepts it recognizes to be intelligible. It trusts intuition. Phenomena that may be grasped directly and intuitively - such as time, experiential qualities and freedom of will - are unquestionably recognized by common sense. Yet common sense tends to acknowledge even phenomena that require subtlety in order to be grasped intuitively. One such phenomenon is our possession of souls."
...
"If the world is natural, then everything can, in principle, be fully understood and explained. In such a world science would be an omnipotent intellectual authority. But if definite terrestrial phenomena are supernatural and thus not entirely transparent to a human mind, they cannot be fully, if at all, scientifically explained. Scientists are then forced to admit that they are powerless in the face of specific phenomena. They must abandon the image of their potentially omnipotent understanding of the world that they presently enjoy. Abhorrence of the supernatural is a symptom of the prestige complex from which modern science suffers.
Ordinary people do not suffer from such a prestige complex and do not abhor the possibility that some terrestrial phenomena may be supernatural. To the contrary, to many of us the partial supernaturalness of the world is its positive property - such a world is undoubtedly a more interesting place to live in than a thoroughly natural world. Ordinary people are much more tolerant towards various possible ontological essences of the world than is modern science.
The best evidence that people quite easily accept even the view that the world is highly supernatural are widespread religious beliefs in the existence of a very powerful supernatural being - God. And it is highly probable that such a being indeed exists."
Undo Uus, Ph.D., astrophysicist and methodologist of science - "SCIENCE AND FOLK SENTIMENTS"
Kakve su kontraverze u pitanju 
