Autor u ovom doprinosu podastire rezultate istraživanja ideje i korijena mediteranske bioetike. Postoji li uopće jedna regionalna, upravo mediteranska bioetika? Ako postoji, nameće se pitanje o njezinim teorijskim korijenima. Ako njezini teorijski korijeni uistinu počivaju na sveobuhvatnome kulturnom tlu mediteranskoga kompleksa, onda nije beznačajno pitanje o njezinu odnosu prema drugim regionalnim bioetikama. Međutim, odgovor na pitanje o teorijskim korijenima mediteranske bioetike podrazumijeva također odgovor na pitanje o njezinim praktičkim – upravo etičkim – korijenima. Drugim riječima, koja etika može stajati i (...) stvarno stoji u temeljima mediteranske bioetike, kao njezin odlučujući raison d’être regionalne bioetike? Pritom regionalno određenje bioetike kao mediteranske ne označava puko zemljopisno razgraničenje nego podrazumijeva i uključuje bitne elemente historijske realizacije jednoga kulturnoga kruga koji je pokazao i pokazuje svoje enormne teorijske i praktičke učinkovitosti na razini stvaranja jedne zasebne, upravo Zapadne civilizacije. I upravo kao što kompleks Zapadne civilizacije, svojom misaonom prodornošću i praktičkom učinkovitošću, probija i nadilazi okvire zemljopisnoga ograničenja, to se isto razložno može očekivati od regionalne mediteranske boetike u kojoj ono regionalno ima značenje začeća, kolijevke i izvora ideje koja određuje, karakterizira i uvjetuje ljudsko istraživanje smisla i sreće iz jedne metapovijesne perspektive. Izvanjsko, tj. civilizacijsko istraživanje smisla i značenja korijena mediteranske bioetike u slijedećem koraku treba ustupiti mjesto unutrašnjem, tj. filozofijskom istraživanju smisla i značenja njezinih korijena. Autor upravo u ovom doprinosu podastire neke rezultate istraživanja korijena mediteranske bioetike te nekih njezinih idejnih određenja i usmjerenja.The paper presents the results of the author’s research of the idea and roots of Mediterranean bioethics. Is there such a thing as regional, Mediterranean bioethics at all? If it does exist, we must ask about its theoretical fountainhead. If, furthermore, its theoretical source truly rests on the all-embracing cultural soil of the Mediterranean complex, then the question of its relation to other regional bioethics is not inconsequential. However, the answer to the question of the theoretical roots of Mediterranean bioethics assumes an answer to the question of its practical – i.e. ethical – fountainhead. In other words, which ethics can be and indeed is the very bedrock of Mediterranean bioethics as its decisive raison d’être of regional bioethics? It must, however, be noted that defining bioethics as Mediterranean is not some mere geographical demarcation, but rather implies and involves the vital elements of the historical realisation of a cultural circle that has demonstrated its superlative theoretical and practical efficiencies at the level of creating a distinctive, namely the Western, civilisation. Just as the complex of Western civilisation transcends and exceeds the limits of geographical boundaries with its reflective penetration and practical efficiency, the same can reasonably be expected from regional Mediterranean bioethics, in which the regional determines the conception, the cradle and source of the idea that determines, characterises and conditions the human research of meaning and happiness from a meta-historical perspective. The external, i.e. civilisational, research of the meaning and significance of the roots of Mediterranean bioethics is to be followed by the internal, i.e. philosophical, research of the meaning and significance of its roots. This paper presents some of the results of the author’s research of the source of Mediterranean bioethics and a number of its ideaistic determinations and orientations. (shrink)

istovremeno otkriva Božje tragove. Štoviše, po njemu je upravo pomoću prirodnih znanosti moguće uhvatiti i shvatiti Božju za-misao. Ovakvo gledanje na prirodu u XVIII. stoljeću je sačinjavalo sukus »prirodne teologije«. No, Einsteinov život i djelo se smještaju cijela dva stoljeća kasnije. Stoga je sasvim na mjestu istraživanje nekih teoloških implikacija Einsteinove fizikalne slike svijeta. Jer upravo je Einstein svojim najvažnijim prirodoznanstvenim otkrićima, točnije specijalnom teorijom relativnosti i općom teorijom relativnosti istovremeno »pokopao« dva i pol stoljeća dugu vladavinu newtonovske slike svemira, (...) bazirane na fizikalnim postulatima klasične mehanike, i postavio solidne temelje za uspostavu nove slike svemira, bazirane na fizikalnim postulatima kvantne mehanike i na načelu neodređenosti. Tom je epohalnom obratu, u smislu znanstvene revolucije i smjene paradigme , kumovao Einstein, koji je doslovno potkopao tradicionalne temelje poimanja stvarnosti, svodeći takoreći sav problem na jednu konstataciju: »Jedina stvar koja je neshvatljiva o svijetu jest ta da je on shvatljiv« . A ta je činjenica uvjetovala burnu filozofsku i teološku raspravu koja traje do danas. No, na pitanje canterburyjskog nadbiskupa R. Th. Davidsona: »Kakav bi učinak relativnost mogla imati na religiju?«, Einstein je bez oklijevanja odgovorio: »Nikakav. Relativnost je čisto znanstvena stvar i nema ništa s religijom.« Istina, direktno ne baš, ali indirektno veoma kompleksan i izazovan učinak. Stoga su u istraživanjima teoloških implikacija Einsteinove fizikalne slike svijeta dva teološka pitanjaneizbježna. Prvo, što točno znači riječ ‘Bog’ za Einsteina? Drugo, koje implikacije ima priziv na Boga za Einsteinovu matematiku i fiziku? Budući da, nasuprot uvjerenju mnogih u Einsteinov ateizam, postoji također uvjerenje mnogih u njegovo duboko religiozno iskustvo koje se temeljilo na štovanju »misterija« svemira, nameće se i treće, najzahtjevnije teološko pitanje, čiji odgovor doduše ne ovisi o odgovorima na prethodna dva pitanja, ali itekako može baciti dragocjeno svjetlo na njihov smisao i značenje. Naime, i židovska i kršćanska i islamska teologija polaze od vjere u jednoga Boga kao Stvoritelja svijeta. Svijet je, stoga, eminentno stvorenje, tj. učinak Božje stvarateljske volje, dakako, misleći pritom pod pojmomsvijeta cjelokupnu materijalnu stvarnost, a ne samo ljudski svijet. Teologija, dakle, govori o svijetu kao stvorenju, dok prirodne znanosti govore o svijetu kao prirodi, tj. govore o prirodnom svijetu. To je razlog zašto kršćanska teologija ne može ostati postrance glede načina prirodoznanstvenog opisivanja svijeta, budući da je u samu narav teologije upisan zahtjev za neprestanim preispitivanjem uvjeta i mogućnosti usklađivanja tih opisivanja s pretpostavljenomvjerom u Bog kao Stvoritelja svijeta. Židovska i kršćanska vjera u stvaranje svijeta potvrđuje da ama baš ništa ne postoji što ne bi bilo stvoreno od Boga, pa tako ni materija. Dakle, treće teološko pitanje možemo formulirati ovako: Kakav je odnos realno moguć između Boga i njegova stvorenja u kontekstu nove – prirodoznanstvene – slike svijeta?The research of religious experience of great minds since ever represents demanded, but yetprovocative and controversial enterprise. And when that research is focused on one of the mostrenowned physicists of the twentieth century, which could also mean of all times, Albert Einstein, than the subject obtains in weight, but no doubt also in attractiveness. Thisfactis due to the pureevidence of Einstein’svery often mentions of religionand God in hisscientificand popular writings. Maybe often mentions of Einstein’spersonal views of religionandGod arefar moresignificant in his private letters and various public meetings with people.For example, Max Jammer,a philosopher,physicist, and former Rector of the Bar-IlanUniversityof Jerusalem in Israel, illuminating meticulously Einstein’sintimate, e.g. personal,andprofessional,e.g. scientific, relationto religion,affirms that his physical cognitions andhis understanding of religion are profoundly bound. For Einstein, in such supposed complex ofrelations, the cognition of nature simultaneously reveals Divine traces. Moreover, according tohim precisely by means of natural sciences becomes possible to capture and comprehend Divinethought. Indeed, such view of nature in eighteenth century formed a core of natural theology.However, Einstein’s life and work find place two and a half centuries later. Therefore it is aright place to research some theological implications of Einstein’s physical, e.g. scientific, viewof world, because just Einstein by his most important scientific discoveries, more exactly byspecial and general theory of relativity, simultaneously “buried” two anda half centuries dominated Newtonean mechanistic worldview, based on physical postulates ofclassical mechanics, and placed solid foundations for later establishing a new worldview, basedon physical postulates of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. Behind this epochmakingturn, in terms of scientific revolutionand paradigm shift , was Einstein wholiterallyundermined the traditional foundations of comprehensionsof reality,reducing,so tospeak,a whole issue at one sentence: “The only thing that is incomprehensibleabout the worldisthat it is comprehensible”. This whole story has stipulated tempestuous philosophicaland theological debates, and these debates aregoing on up to nowadays. On the quest ofRandallThomas Davidson, the Archbishopof Canterbury: “What effect relativitywould haveonreligion?”Einstein without hesitation replied:“None. Relativity is a purelyscientific matterandhas nothing to do with religion”.Is this true? Indeed, none could be true for directeffects,butthose indirectprovokedvery complex and defiant challenges for theological explanations ofthecreatedreality.Thereforetwo theological questions seem to be unavoidable within researchoftheological implications of Einstein’sworldview.First, what exactly means a word‘God’forEinstein?Second, what implications have an appeal to God for Einstein’smathematics andphysics?Since vis-à-vis conviction of many in Einstein’satheism, thereis also conviction ofmanyin his deep religiousexperience originally based on devotion of “mystery” of the universe,than raises the thirdand the most demanded theological question, whose answer to be suredoesn’tdepend upon answers on previoustwo, but can cast some light on their true meaning.Namely,Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology is presupposinga faith in one God as Creatorofthe world. Thereforethe world is eminently creationor directeffect of the agency of Divinecreativewill. The word‘world’embraces herean entirematerial reality,and not only the worldofman. Consequently,theology speaks about world as creation,while natural sciences speakaboutworld as naturethat is as natural world. This is the motive why Christian theology cannotremainat a distance fromfashion of natural-scientific description of the world, since it is inscribedin the same coreof theology a demand for continuous reexaminationof conditions andpossibilitiesfor harmonizing of those descriptions with supposed faith in one God as Creatorofthe world. Jewish and Christian faith in the creationof the world confirms that just nothingexists,neither matter as well, without Divine creativewill. Now the thirdtheological questionsoundslike this: What a relationis reallypossible between God and His creationin the contextofa new – natural-scientific – worldview? (shrink)