Between religion and science

Those who question the utility of religion and overall its credibility, usually "park" on the opposite side that is science. They usually appreciate science useful and in stark contrast to religion, which they consider it as a drug for human thought and destined exclusively for illiterate people. On the other hand, those who believe in their religion or in a god and creator of the world usually do not question the necessary role of science in life, do not easily question its credibility and use a multitude of its applications. But they believe that knowledge is inadequate and that many phenomena will never be explained by science, as the presence of God cannot be explained. Faithful with a higher educational level sometimes use observations from scientific research to support their religion.

We are here somewhere between these two sides. So, every time we comment critically and derogatory or when we show the flaws of one side, then we accept reactions and answers with the assessment that we support the opposite side. This means that everyone is theoretically turning against us and usually with known views. When we comment on unila­teralism, arrogance, irrationality and gaps of reasoning on one of the two sides, then others will disagree with us as if clearly and completely we support the opposite side.*¹

Now, if we are asked to say in a few short phrases, what is a usefulness to religion and it does not disappear with any power, then we will say in addition to other well-known reasons: ethics, thoughts on regulation and destination of life and empirical recognition for the relevance of all values in the material world. And we would still ask what prevents science from eradicating religion and convincing everyone about its own good perspective in life, then among other things we will say in short words: 1) Science does not focus on man as a spirit seeking the destination of his existence and 2) Science (divided into heads of people) is not directly interested in man himself (in first priority) and serves for any other purpose. That is, spiritual morality is degraded by science, while the usefulness of knowledge in life is overestimated (and mainly for life to the outside world). When ethics is recognized as a science, then these two ends (of religion and science) are "braked". One of the central issues highlighted and "imprisoned" forever in the field of a modernized ethics is this: Knowledge and thought have a role in (unintentional) misleading and conscious deception, for the creation of many foolish examples of life, short-lived values and unnecessary actions. New technologies have already surpassed every person's imagination. But research with observation in thought also hides great surprises! Can ethics be founded on credible knowledge and have valuable meaning without religion? Here's a question that few philosophers have raised with the prospect of scientific research, because everyone has more expectations of life when life is active out in nature. The role of morality for human life was discredited because scientific ethics was shredded in other fields of science, such as psychology, social sciences and many rules "grabbed" for politics and assimilated into state legislation. As we deny that there is a global ethics for the logical regulation of personal life, State and democracy (because of our fear of limiting our unstoppable and speculative action and our materialistic life), many other people will seek morality in religions and in paranoid saviors.*²

Some traps of words we need to avoid: religion, ethics, science, society. We are talking about something that is not a body that is not located in an area, is not limited to a short time and is not a static thing. We are talking about something that combines human action and works, thought and emotions, social events and social phenomena, such as ceremonies, celebrations, many relevant professions, communities with leaderships and members and mixing politics. Therefore, not all people in their thinking have the same view as listening to the same word. Their personal experience is also not the same and have not received the same education, they do not have the same information or the same memories. If we were to say a less provocative word such as "Philology", then again imagine that everyone will have different experiences from cultural events, bookstores, different books and authors, from visiting libraries, from school as a student or as a teacher, from what is left in the memory of reader, from participating in a competition, etc. Here we think briefly and link many issues together and do not want to form a biased view. It is important to have researched as much as possible a large sample or many examples of all the phenomena of society. And it may be the most important - and so it has been done here - not to use these words accurately in their definition. In a contrast to the "causal" thought of many teachers, who need clear descriptions and analyzes of phenomena to teach exclusively what is well known. Many words if they are heard with a defined meaning then they become traps of thought because they exhibit part of the complex phenomenon, while the number of other phenomena disappear or are not recognized as involved. For example, we say: Man is a body, soul and spirit. Thus a complex phenomenon is divided into three words and then each appears as a purely distinct phenomenon. With such demanding thought from the words many phenomena have been recklessly split and often a spectacular discovery is presented for their connection (eg matter and energy, thought and emotion). So, if we do not want to lose (and unnecessarily) a long time in trying to discuss and disagree incessantly, and not every interlocutor says reactive and selfishly what satisfies his image as a more reliable interlocutor, then we must use these words with wider and loose meaning. If some restrictions do not allow full development and expression of views, then we should not stick to words unless needed in a case to avoid unnecessary disagreement. 

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Footnotes

1 * This "intermediate" position in this particular confrontation between religion and science was not a choice in the author's philosophical thought. That is, he did not look for thoughts that would bring him in between religion and science. The views were formed and clarified with many years of thinking since the 80's. The first philosophical book in which the fundamental thoughts were formulated was published in 2000 and had the provocative title "The Theology of Science".

2 * The coupling of ethics with thinking, the consequences of ignorance and delusion outwardly of mind (with behavior) and the delusion through knowledge are fundamental observations. The first thoughts were expressed at an early age in the 1980s, and they are contained in the book published later in January 2000 (only GR language, ISBN 960-385-019-5).