“To look at the symbolic dimensions of social action — art, religion, ideology, science, law, morality, common sense — is not to turn away from the existential dilemmas of life for some empyrean realm of de-emotionalized forms; it is to plunge into the midst of them. The essential vocation of interpretive anthropology is not to answer our deepest questions, but to make available to us answers that others, guarding other sheep in other valleys, have given, and thus to include them in the consultable record of what man has said.”

Assorted Themes, On the Meaning of Life

La scienza conduce a grandi conquiste, che, giustamente, colmano di gioia chi cerca la verità, ma, se approfondita, ci insegna che in altre fonti occorre cercare la verità ultima e trovare le risposte alle domande esistenziali sul senso della vita e sul mistero della morte.
Knowing the universe. For whom? at the XXVII edition of the “Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples”, Rimini meeting 2006, August 23, 2006.

Pure Theory of Law (revised ed., 1960), 7. Moral Norms as Social Norms

On Sanskrit, as quoted in " Sanskrit Most Useful for Science, Technology, Says Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3i2qoh/sanskrit_most_useful_for_science_technology_says/?ref=search_posts", NDTV (23 August 2015)

Source: Reflections and Maxims (1746), p. 179.

From &quot;President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference&quot; http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html, Washington, D.C., on why the President and the Vice President insisted on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission, rather than separately. (April 13, 2004) <br class="br">2000s, 2004

Source: Philosophy and Real Politics (2008), p. 39.

Book II, Ch. 5, p. 345, as quoted in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment‎ (1992) edited by Michael Cyril William Hunter and David Wootton, p. 99
De la sagesse (1601)
Context: All Religions have this in common, that they are an outrage to common sense for they are pieced together out of a variety of elements, some of which seem so unworthy, sordid and at odds with man’s reason, that any strong and vigorous intelligence laughs at them; but others are so noble, illustrious, miraculous, and mysterious that the intellect can make no sense of them and finds them unpalatable. The human intellect is only capable of tackling mediocre subjects: it disdains petty subjects, and is startled by large ones. There is no reason to be surprised if it finds any religion hard to accept at first, for all are deficient in the mediocre and the commonplace, nor that it should require skill to induce belief. For the strong intellect laughs at religion, while the weak and superstitious mind marvels at it but is easily scandalized by it.

Source: The Limits of Evolution, and Other Essays, Illustrating the Metaphysical Theory of Personal Ideaalism (1905), The Right Relation of Reason to Religion, p.255