Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Judging by the wording of the question, the author considers science and religion as some alternatives. These are not alternatives. They answer different questions. Science answers the question “how?”, religion – ” why?” and “why?” (she shares the second question with philosophy.) This is, of course, mostly, not exclusively. If it is correct to call science a field of knowledge, then religion is not, because its main meaning is not in knowledge. Science deals with the knowledge of the world and the formation of a body of knowledge about the known. Religion deals with interaction with the unknown. And it is normal that it causes controversy, because nothing definite can be said about the unknown. Here, for example, everyone has their own point of view on the question of posthumous existence. It can be based on any philosophy, even if it is rationalistic, even if it is materialistic, or whatever, but not on science, because science has no knowledge about it. This is a special case of the fact that each person's worldview contains elements concerning the unknown. The rest of the worldview is based on science. So this is not an alternative. Religion in your worldview may or may not concern areas that science has not yet reached.