Those who will have the courage to reach the end of the too long text in bad english below will know without any doubs why i have called this thread like that.
My humblest apologies to all those who will fall asleep trying.
Main idea of this text was given to me by some posts in alrik's thread:
"Cultural Definition of soul's damage". I could have post it there, but as it is not directly related to spiritual damage i better like open a new thread for it.
Otherwise i would be interested if this text was criticized as it is in a way critical (in the meaning of examining limits), or if some of you would have similar rants about anything.
About Science, philosophy and religionImho questions for understanding the relationship between the three are:
1) are these fields handling the same objects?
2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?
3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?
4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields has changed with history?
I won't try to answer these questions one following the other but just make an attempt (heavy underlined, please) to have a global approach.
-first- what is the common point between these three fields? Imo, that they are exercices. in the general greek meaning of aeskesîs, that it is to say that they are awakening to life, and to life of the ideas. So all three are a part or the whole of what could be called "spiritual life". Therefore, there are all three claiming a very privilegied relationship to Truth.
-paradoxally this relationship to the truth is generally not critically examined, in an inside manner except by the scientists. It is mathematicians who have since the late XIXth Century interrogated and perpetually redefined this relationship to the truth with a critical tool which is essentially a logical tool, its proper name is methamathematics. And in the meantime have redefined what is a physical theory: theory is no more an abstraction of experiments but a kind of "generator/creator of facts" (for some reasons the question to know if the fact is "made" or "rediscovers" is maybe circular, and anyway more a philosophical than a physical question. Classical answer since quantic mechanic is it is "made" and "rediscovers" but i won't really comment that).
-well these two entirely news elements introduced in the scientists view of the science (as it was introduced mainly by scientists and not by philosophers who to be frank have not really understood what was happening, mainly because they lacked the tools for that) have a very important consequence: whatever is with people who believe in science, science itshelf (and largely the scientific community) has ceased to believe in science. It was more efficient for that than the kantish distinction about theoric and practical, especially because Kant had practically understood nothing to newton's mechanic and knew very few about science in general in his lifetime.
-why these elements are proving science that science can't be explaining all
1) because a theory can't be exportable (what is true in an universe is not true in another).
2) because a theory can't be generalisable beyond a certain level of generalisation (the universe is not indefinitly expandable). Solving a problem in modern sciences is always creating new problems. There is not a scientist in this world who have not experimented that.
3) because the number of theories needed to solve all problem that science can solve (i don't even speak about all problems that science can't solve) "is equal" to the mathematical undefined infinite. What is a serious problem for explaining.
These results are definitive. If there is still (for other reasons) a place for an aximotic in science it is a very limited axiomatic. As it is, axioms for modern biology have not the same meaning that axioms for the modern mathematics and it would be more an more like that. No, i'm not Nostradamus, there a re some very rationnal reasons for predicting that. And biology's axioms are not explaining what live is. Just how living is.
As a matter of fact science is the only field to have posed its own limits. By essence religion is very reticent to do so. And philosophers haver never really interrogated their relationship to the truth whatever they said. Even Nietzsche... Well Nietzsche was but in the same way he was bringing back with an hand what he was erasing with the other. There is probably no philosophers who have more claimed to be the ultimate incarnation of truth than Nietzsche.
These differences of approach may tend to show that the objects of these three fields, as they are constituated by these fields are truly different, and so probably not concurent. It may be more easy and convincing to explain a difference of approach induced by the objects, than by a very abstract difference of method.
There are many other points to speak about in this aspect, but right now i'm beginning to tire myshelf so i will stop for now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
