That is what distinguishes science from other systems of description/explanation of the world, including religious or philosophical
It is first, it seems to me, the fact that it has methods that allow it to reach truths that everyone is ready to accept and eventually accept the facts. At least implicitly. It obviously objected that this is to ignore the nature uncertain, provisional and changing of scientific theories. But I think here of the assertions contained in the most daring and more abstract theories. The truths which I think are much more basic species and each is willing to bet his life on it daily.
Can you give examples
The man of today, whenever he mounted in a train or an aircraft, relies almost blindly on certain natural laws, of which he is indeed convinced that science has succeeded in establishing the truth objective. This does not necessarily prevent him to simultaneously declare a sort of principle scepticism about assertions of science in General. For he had heard the speech that take philosophers and post-modern epistemologists, it may very well feel obliged to say that the truths of science, as they are called, are nothing more than a sort of myths or social, more or less arbitrary constructs to which it is impossible to assign an objectivity and universality any.
How do you explain such a development
This is, I think, to the fact that the idea of belief ceased today almost completely to be attached to that truth. A belief is now reduced to little about an opinion. Each has therefore the right of the choose without actually examining his truth, since opinion is, say, subjective and that all views are at near equal value. In a certain way, it plays to the religion. If its supposed truths are mere opinions among others, they are also respectable than any other.
But religions do not claim, as the science, to the truth
Religion in fact, it also has a critical need of the concept of truth. Hence the ambivalence created by the current attitude. The trend underlined by Theodor Adorno, today was to choose a belief about as it would choose a commodity, not for its quality but because its advertising is particularly successful, is not compatible with the contention of religions in absolute truth. Although religions know now use modern means to make the "goods" they propose desirable, so to speak, by the consumer, the ultimate reason for which the goods in question shall be chosen cannot be in any case its desirability or utility, but only its truth and, most importantly, its absolute and immutable truth. It is one of the problems that arise today to religions, and I have given it a central importance in "can you not believe".
Are the truth of religion and science identical
No, in the first case, it's a revealed truth, given to at the outset. In the other, it is an ultimate horizon to which it passes by successive approximations. The notion of progress is crucial to the scientific truth. In science, the ultimate truth, so that one can talk about this kind of thing and hope to get there one day, cannot be reached, in the best of cases, to the end. For a genuine scientific spirit, the idea of an absolute and final truth has no real meaning and it is precisely, often because the science is not able to provide this kind of truth that it is in away to seek refuge in religion.
Science can in no way be equated to any religion
Scientists can certainly behave, too perfectly dogmatic, authoritarian and even sectarian way and they do so, obviously, frequently. But it noted that, if there has been and continues to be wars of religions, cannot speak of "Science Wars", even if relations of power and forms of violence, the less symbolic, undoubtedly play an important role in the scientific community itself. It remains understood yet that controversy cannot be settled by peaceful confrontation between researchers. As long as it is not, no one can argue authoritatively impose his point of view on others.
But the speech of some leading specialists of fundamental physics and genetics has an almost religious tone.
Science has, of course, likely highly speculative aspects of de l', du point de entendu de les de l' de l', donner l' impression the l', du point de entendu de les de l' de l', donner l' impression, the point of de du point de entendu de les de l' de l', donner l' impression heard de les de les de l' de l', donner l' impression de de l' de l', donner l' impression l' l' de l', donner l' impression de l', donner l' impression de l', donner l' impression de de l', donner l' impression l' l', donner l' impression, donner l' impression donner l' impression impression l' du du entendu entendu de de l' l',, is not pas l' susceptibles l' l' susceptibles susceptibles susceptibles the assumed generally to religious doctrines. There is, on the other hand, the fact that, in the evolution of a science as Physics for example, there may be times where one has the impression of a reconciliation and even a possible convergence with religion and theology. This is what was said, for example, by some of the founders of quantum mechanics. But also long a scientific theory continues to be treated as it should be, as a hypothetical construction which will take nearly inevitably need to be modified and may be even abandoned one day, she may not have actual resemblance to a religion.
In other words, it would be impossible to be scientific and have faith
We can certainly be scientific and at the same time believing. Many examples of prominent scientists show. Even if this may create difficulties, tensions and contradictions difficult, or perhaps impossible to limitresolve. However, there is a relatively simple way to make compatible the science and religious belief. It is to consider that they are not interested in the same issues. Wittgenstein explains very well. Once science has said that she has to say, our existential questions are not to be resolved. They have even not been touched. It is precisely this that deals with religion. Thus, many theorists of religion suggested a distribution of tasks between science and religion which science occupies mainly the questions of whether, while religion strives to answer the questions on the life and action.
However, those who watch things in this way tend to minimize the importance of the actual doctrinal part of religion to accommodate more or less symbolic interpretations. However, this solution is not very satisfactory, because religion is hardly compatible with relativism, for reasons which we have spoken. But if, in the religion, it is first and foremost morality with and dogma, it is certainly much easier to reconcile science with religion.
Scientific attitude (authentic) you think it preferable to the religious spirit to govern social life
I think the development of certain virtues such as sensitivity to the truth is to make people more tolerant and more respectful of the requirements of democracy. Or, if all that science is certainly not true, she said a better chance of being true than what his opponents. Therefore, it is not outrageous to suggest that some consideration for scientific truth should be encouraged in the interest of democracy itself. For George Orwell, true freedom, is not necessarily the right to express any subjective belief without the need to justify. It is primarily the right to say that 2 and 2 make 4.
Political dictatorships have, somehow, not worst enemies than the objective truth and the facts, and not best that combined the ability to believe almost anything. Gullibility, including that which instituted religious and political authorities are able to operate, is likely to represent a social and political danger in certain circumstances, major. It was to try to encourage the development of certain virtues, such as the intellectual honesty or the sake of consistency and not to establish a belief as the intellectual world police appears to have decided to believe. The idea of an "ethics of belief" is generally poorly received because it evokes the moralism and repression. But it is absurd. It is not clear why ethics apply to actions without that it is permitted to take an interest also in the beliefs that inspire. They can also be judged good or bad, acceptable or reprehensible.
What can the rationalism with "magical thinking"
I am afraid that it can unfortunately not much to seduction, usually much larger, that exercise all kinds irrational beliefs. Arguing is not much because it seems accepted that belief is not a case of reasons and arguments. And it is rather worrying. This means that, if it continues to reason, it is more out of habit than by conviction. However, I continue to think that human beings humans are, in General, already too little of their reason to make it necessary to encourage them to do even less. If the rationalism is now almost completely disarmed, it is because it is assumed, against all probability, a dominant position which would allow it to behave authoritarian and oppressive. It is not hard to see that the power and influence on the minds are not at the present time on the reason and science, but rather on pseudoscience, religions and mythologies.
How do you explain this preeminence of the irrational
The power of the irrationalism fueled base is based largely on the fact that it has passed, largely with the complicity of a good part of the intellectual world, in the role of the victim. With rationalism, described as a much more powerful opponent who dreams of destroying it, he is virtually in a State of self-defence. This approach is quite staggering, because it is sufficient to consider a roughly human affairs to realize that what has been called the "light of reason" no there shines only in quite exceptional and timely way. But the most radical irrationalistes are quite capable of supporting both that she has no real role and that its role is much too important, or even excessive.
Is it the triumph of religion
Not so, it seems to me. Edgar Poe notes that the world is infested by a new sect of philosophers he calls "believers in any quirk", a cult which has never been as successful as currently. According to Poe, if called to any of them why he believes this or this, would be a very similar to that of Talleyrand response when asked why he believed in the Bible: "I do, first because I was Bishop of Autun;" and then, because I hear absolutely nothing. "Much at this time of a return to religious belief, but I am not at all sure this is for good reason. If many of the faithful asked the reason for their faith, their response would probably not a type much more satisfying and more respectable than that of Talleyrand.