About Science, philosophy and religionI'll try to evolve some (personal) thoughts from your starting questions.
[color:"orange"]1) are these fields handling the same objects?[/color]
Why objects, not subjects?
Objects in the meaning of material objects, or objects in the meaning of objectives (goals, targets)
These were the first questions that came to my (twisted <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) mind.
<lights his pipe to ignite the thinking process>
Common to all three is the attempt to explain the world around us.
Science takes the factual approach. It continously expands the limits, but there are limits beyond which science cannot find facts and explain (yet, as stated earlier).
Religion explains what cannot be proven or disproven. Let's disregard the fact that institutional religion tries to defend its dogmas. Eventually it will concede facts, and adapt to whatever cannot be ignored anymore. (Religion as general term, not necessarily some humans <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />). It seems that it lies in human nature to try and find an explanation for anything.
Philosophy tries to reconcile the two others by "constructing a bridge" between what is factually known and what is believed to be true, by trying to find reasons for the latter.
[color:"orange"]2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?[/color]
Of course they may - the question is, can they <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
It would be nice, if the spontaneous answer could be YES!
However human nature is also argumentative in defending beliefs, scientific pride, attitudes and prone to utter anything as absolute truth - irrespective of field.
[color:"orange"]3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?[/color]
<
- that's worth another pipe...>
There is one field science does not touch, which the other two do - ethics.
(Mind you, I am not saying that there are not, or should not be, ethical values in scientific research - just that those values are not scientific per se)
Up to the limits of our cognition "belief" has no room in science - it may in the scientist though, but that's a personal, individual view. In the contrary factual science should have room in religion and in philosophy, and be a similar basis for adaption, as new facts have in science.
[color:"orange"]4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields changed with history[/color]
Oh yes! Greatest outward sign is the position of scientist, plilosopher and religious rerpresentavie in society during various times and cultures. Just think, that in ancient Greece a greater part of society could read and write than in the early middle ages (in Europe). In the latter period religious representatives controlled what general public knew! As in ancient Greece the Gods were much closer to nature (and the knowledge of nature still being more "superficial", within grasp of general understanding), and less mythical and mystified, scientists and philosophers (very close at the times) had much less problems with religion. From 15th/16th century onward religion's influence was on the decline and science's was rising - philosophers always being in the middle, constantly evolving and adapting their theories, concepts and ethics, but never having the same institutional influence in society as either of the others.
{It's been a long time since I made a two pipe post - bear with me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />}
