18 Answers

  1. In fact, quite a lot-from Plato and Pythagoras, through medieval thinkers and to the philosophers of Modern times-Pascal, Leibniz, Hegel.

    One of the modern ones is Anthony Fly. It is interesting because for most of his life (he worked throughout the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century) he was an ardent atheist, and in the first years of the XXI century he published a book with a very eloquent title – ” God is: How the world's most famous atheist changed his mind.” Guys like Richard Dawkins were quick to claim that “the old man lived to senility”, but the book is actually quite interesting, and is strongly recommended for reading – both believers and atheists.

  2. I read the answers, a lot of interesting ones, but for some reason I didn't see Spencer.

    Perhaps because his synthesis of science and religion was 15 volumes long… very few people mastered it =))

  3. In fact, most (!) philosophers considered philosophy to be integral knowledge, which means that it unites all other types of knowledge, and certainly including religious and scientific ones. There are not many exceptions to this rule-mainly starting with the French materialists of the XVIII century-but it just so happens that in our modern culture this view has become a common mainstream, and both Marxism in our country and positivism in the West have tried in this direction… but looking at the history of philosophy as a whole, reading great philosophers – if we expect that everyone must necessarily be for or against religion, we will often not understand what it is all about: about some Idea, matter, God… so is it for religion or against it? – neither one nor the other, this is a study of the essence.

    God, from the very beginning of the appearance of this concept in philosophy, meant One, and it was understood in philosophy to some extent independently of the history of religion: when religion matured to assimilate a new portion of ideas, something was taken from philosophy and dressed in mythology. So the idea that there can be only one true God is formulated by Xenophanes, and the idea of the Trinity is essentially based on the neo-Platonist Proclus – and only then gets into Christianity and becomes a cornerstone there.

    The difference between science and religion lies primarily in the fact that these forms of thinking have evolved in different epochs. Religion gradually grows out of mythical antiquity, becoming a system of ethical rationalization, and science as a concrete occupation appears only a few centuries ago. Accordingly, before the XVII century, their conflict was all the more impossible. For example, Giordano Bruno was not an atheist at all, but a typical heretic, that is, he believed, but in his own way, he was also engaged in astrology. The scientific method itself, which makes science a science, was developed by Descartes – and have you ever read Descartes? “Reflections on the first philosophy”? When, having already read Descartes in the original source (by the way, the text is also available in Latin, so you can read it literally in the original), I saw in a Soviet textbook that “Descartes was a materialist” – I was surprised and did not understand: what sideways? It goes on to say that Spinoza is also a materialist, isn't he? You read his infinite theorems about Substance, about God… and suddenly a materialist? Well, as they say, Marxists know better how to hang noodles – but these philosophers themselves did not mean anything like that. And Aristotle is also talking about God, so he is not so much a “materialist”, although they often try to contrast him with Plato in this.

    Then there is Hegel, for example – the great turning point in all philosophy: before him were Hume, Leibniz, Kant and Fichte – after him were Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, this is the boundary “from” and “to”. What did Hegel say about the confrontation between two modes of thinking, which by that time had taken shape as a struggle between empiricism and metaphysics? – I just don't understand why one flat one-sidedness is better than another.” Some insist on the extensiveness of sensory experience, others on the intensity of inner spiritual experience – but what would one experience do without the other? They are just two aspects of the same whole.

    But since the nineteenth century, one of the points of view of “flat one-sidedness” has really prevailed more often in philosophy, and all the more valuable for us are those who have overcome it. In my opinion, Russian cosmism became an outstanding trend in this direction: the teachings of Nikolai Fyodorov, Tsiolkovsky and Vernandsky thought in the same direction-humanity will achieve the very immortality that Christianity promised with the help of science, and for the settlement of immortal humanity we will need to populate Space. Among other thinkers, it is worth paying attention to Henri Bergson, Max Scheler, and especially Teilhard de Chardin – it is with his name that most modern attempts at scientific and religious synthesis and such a doctrine as theistic evolutionism are associated. Science tells us how the world was created, but only religion explains why all this is necessary, and what is the point. The subject areas of science and religion, if viewed with an open mind, do not overlap at all (as long as someone does not invade someone else's field: science does not try to establish morality, and religion does not try to teach about the structure of the universe).

    Among the outstanding thinkers of our time, you need to know Ken Wilber with his integral philosophy: there are different kinds of experience, both material and spiritual, and individual and systemic-but all these are different sectors and levels of a single Consciousness. Yes, and biocentrism in cosmology, a very fresh concept: the whole structure of the universe is such that consciousness is not a consequence of the existence of the world, but the world itself develops as if it is the opening of the Spirit and providing conditions for the development and existence of life and consciousness.


  4. Such attempts have been constantly made in recent decades. There is a whole branch of religious thought called theological evolutionism or evolutionary creationism. These people from advanced priests are well aware that evolution is a proven fact, and an attempt to deny the obvious and claim that the Earth was created 650 thousand years ago automatically puts the church in the category of marginals. Therefore, they try to prove that the church's teaching does not contradict the theory of evolution, and look for quotations in the Bible that testify to this.

    Of course, it all looks very funny, and excerpts from the Bible are far-fetched, but people really want to sit on two chairs – and be known as modern and at the same time get into the kingdom of God. 🙂

  5. What should I combine here? Think for yourself:

    Science is concerned with the study of the world, namely, not with the science of established patterns. No scientist has ever created a single law of physics, and never will. His fate is to study the already working laws that make up the world. I.e., science is defined exclusively within the world.

    And religion is the doctrine of the relationship between the worlds, the World of the Creator and the world created by Him.

    Science studies the structure of the created world, and religion-the relationship with the Creator of the world .

    How can this be combined?

    Can I merge a car with the factory that created it?

  6. SCIENCE in a broad sense, with a capital letter Science, not a bureaucratic mini-science-a friend and ally of religion (in all scientific aspects of religion).

    RELIGION is a friend and ally of science.

    So far, only a few scientists are engaged in the synthesis of “science+religion”.

  7. Attempts have been made, are being made, and will continue to be made.

    They won't do any good.

    Science is the experience of humanity, presented in a convenient way. No more and no less.

    Faith deals with questions that cannot be answered from experience.

    Science and Faith about different things. They do not contradict or connect with each other.

    Religion is a slightly different matter. Religion is a ready-made set of answers to many questions. Including those that science was able to answer later. And in a different way. There is friction here. And attempts to “connect” are essentially attempts to somehow cover up the contradictions of ancient myths with modern knowledge.

  8. Just knowing the story is enough. All European science is a child of religion. Both schools and universities sprang up in churches and monasteries. The principles of scientific knowledge were developed by theologians. And the first teachers, of course, were monks.

  9. There is such a science of “Understanding the Word”, according to the church God of Words. This science unites all things.Religion and science, Man and God, the Cosmos and everything on Earth, the Universe and Reason.

    In general, it unites everything that exists, and at the same time, each manifestation remains an independent phenomenon.

    I urge you not to stall for time, but to join this science.Then it will be difficult to tear you away from it.

    This science is an inexhaustible storehouse of knowledge and a source of wisdom.

  10. I advise you!�

    “The Tao of Physics” by theoretical physicist Fridtjof Capra.�

    Capra studied theoretical physics for a long time and spent several years doing research. Later, he became interested in Eastern philosophy and soon began to find parallels between religious teachings and modern physics. He was particularly interested in the mysterious tenets of Zen Buddhism, which evoked associations with the paradoxes of quantum theory.

    I hope you enjoy it!

  11. I don't read theologians in principle, but I can give you a name-Watchman Ni (died in '97) a man who combines all these hypostases philosopher-scientist-theologian, the book “Spiritual Man”. And the other? I've just been poking around in Lucretius ' book On the Nature of Things, a book for all time, highly recommended. I also recommend K. Flammarion's “The Multiplicity of Inhabited Worlds”, L. Gumilyov's “Ethnosphere”, and Vernadsky. The last two did not advertise their religiosity, but their works come close to this. Of course, the works of Galileo and Aristotle can be attributed to the topic, but this is to your taste.

  12. От [email protected] This question was well covered around the year 200 by Titus Aurelius Clement of Alexandria, Father of the Orthodox Church. I don't remember the title of the treatise, but it's not difficult to find this topic. He was an outstanding thinker. Currently, I have to deal with the connection between science, philosophy and theology from an experimental perspective. One book is called “Universal Theory of Knowledge, Asymmetry is the mother of Matter”(2015). Now I'm working on a book dedicated to anti-materialism and anti-atheism: I'm trying to create an experimental direction in theology.

    With good wishes-Yuvenali Timofeevich Artemyev.

  13. Religion is religion. Science is science. What is called “science” in religion is the biblical beginning about how God created heaven and earth, and so on, and then from clay – Adam, and from his rib Eve, and then drove them, his children, out of paradise for an apple from the tree … (which one?) knowledge. So God was angry.

    And they only found out that they were… naked.

    What is there to combine?

    Religion… And why it remains, despite the achievements of science, art and sociality, too, and among whom – this is a phenomenon for science: history, psychology, sociology…

  14. Synthesis of science, philosophy and religion is a famous project of the famous Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900). He believed that these areas were given only fragmentary knowledge separately, and that truth could only be achieved by combining them. The philosopher called it ” the philosophy of Unity.”

    Today, such attempts at unification are being made not only among creationists, but now the task has been slightly reformulated: it is the unification of Western and Eastern types of philosophizing, different paradigms of thinking, one of which is more categorical, the other intuitionistic. In philosophy, as far as I know, this is done by researchers of Russian cosmism (history is necessary, of course, philosophy is based on the history of philosophy).

    On the part of science, as a rule, scientists try to dissociate themselves from both philosophy and religion, although they use both. The same Stephen Hawking, saying that philosophy is dead, argues in his book just like a philosopher. At the same time, many scientists (physicists, mathematicians, natural scientists – including Darwin) were believers, this is a well-known fact, just Google it here. They saw their discoveries as a path not only to scientific truth, but also something like “revealing the Creator's plan.”

  15. Yes, there have been attempts, and they are still ongoing
    Take the scientists of the last millennium-Al-Jabr, a Muslim theologian, scientist, mathematician, founder of Algebra.
    Omar Khayyam – it is a common misconception that he wrote about wine and girls(in fact, we are dealing with translations, in the original everything is completely different. Who benefits from this is another question). This scientist was a great astronomer, theologian, and scientist.
    There are quite a lot of such examples, including Badiuzzaman. Quote from wikipedia: “Believing that modern science and logic lead to the future, he advocated the teaching of religious sciences in secular schools and modern sciences in religious schools.”

  16. This is what the scholastics did. Although it is not true to say that through science, namely through logic and rational thinking . Thomas Aquinas and His Five Proofs of God, Duns Scotus, Paul Abelard. Scientists such as Blaise Pascal (a wager named after him) and Isaac Newton repeatedly mentioned the Almighty and his involvement in all the laws of the universe(“I derive my laws from the laws of God”). Well, you can also add Giordano Bruno with his cosmology.
    And about today…This is what creationists do today. Their representatives can be found on websites dedicated to this topic.

    P.S. If you are going to study the work of creationists, please do not forget about skepticism.

  17. It doesn't make sense. Science is built on reason, religion is built on feelings. It is not possible to combine them, and it is not clear why this should be done…

Leave a Reply