The Universe I loved – Science and Religion (1, 2, 3)

  1. Lemma
  2. Το Σύμπαν που αγάπησα – Επιστήμη και Θεολογία (1, 2, 3)
  3. Greek, Modern (1453-)
  4. Delli, Eudoxie
  5. Classical physics - Modern physics :QM - History and philosophy of science - Complementarity
  6. 11-5-2017
  7. Danezis, Manolis [Author]. The Universe I loved – Science and Religion (1, 2, 3)
  8. The Universe I loved – Science and Religion (1, 2, 3)
  9. Positivism - Newton, Isaac (1643-1727) - Euclidean geometry - scientific pragmatism
    1. <p>Danezis, M. (2008, November 20). Το Σύμπαν που αγάπησα – Επιστήμη και Θεολογία (1, 2, 3) [Video file]. Retrieved from <a href="">, </a></p> <p><a href="">  </a><a href="">,watch?v=69dQqa6wLDk, </a></p> <p><a href=""></a></p>
    1. Manos Danezis starts his presentation by mentioning that people are possessed by three kinds of fears. The fear for survival, the fear of natural environment, and the supernatural or metaphysical fear. Trying to appease these fears humans created different cultural structures: political systems, for organizing societies in order to have better chances at survival, science and technology, in an attempt to tame nature, and religion and theology trying to reassure their metaphysical fear, and mainly the fear of death. These coexistent fears, interrelated with each other, gave birth to three cultural orientations provided by three main, different models, not always equilibrated between them.

      Many societies throughout history have been dogmatically based on only one of them at the expense of others

      Firstly, the positivist model - relied on the divinization of science and technology, fruit of the scientific revolution of 16th and 17th centuries in West - accepts as reality only the things our senses and logic can grasp and believes in the omnipotence of matter. In this frame, derived from the Euclidean geometry and the Newtonian physics, human is considered as a simple material being, limited to its natural existence. Religion is neglected or even rejected together with social philosophy and ethics. This approach is unable today to express the whole universe and the meaning of human life.

      Secondly, the administrative model, based on the pillar of social philosophy, attempts to eradicate any other fear except for the fear of physical survival and undermining science and metaphysics. In this frame, religious beliefs and theology are neglected or rejected. Sciences and technology are conceived only as instruments in the service of natural and productive needs of survival.

      Lastly, the theocratic model, based on the absolute domination of official religious institutions attempts to confront every human fear with metaphysical, theological and religious approaches. Political society, scientific investigations and technology are evolving under the uncontrolled supremacy of religious structures. Social philosophy and science become instruments in the hand of religion.

      At this point, the speaker notes the contribution of Greek Philosophy and Christianity in the birth of Western civilization, in their attempt to equilibrate the aforementioned models.

      Science and religion were impossible to cooperate regarding their diametrically different perception of the world. In the Western world, thanks to the secularization and the principle of independence of scientific knowledge, there was peace between the theology and science, thus the two doctrines, even though they undermined each other.

      Today, everything has changed dramatically regarding science. The Quantum theory, as well as the theories of Relativity and Chaos, among others, exiled Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics and the related visions of cosmos. Cultural pillars of classical science collapsed together with the theological stakes and practices linked to them, unable to explain the whole reality of the universe. Our senses and instruments allow us to see only what our restricted brain can understand.

      In that basis, a new dialogue between science and religion is needed, given the complexity of reality and the problems arised in modern world, based on a reformulation and conciliation between the three basic models, unifying human life in its multiple levels.

      The speaker, closing his presentation, underlines the fact that science alone is not sufficient to appease human fears and to give way to meaning. A critical revising of the three models is needed. The meaning of life is closely related to the human ties with others beyond differences and discriminations of otherness. The necessity of spiritual relationship and biological coexistence requires the replacement of individual reason, to social dialogue. Togetherness requires individual transformation in the perspective of a meaningful coexistence which extends beyond the confines of the survival.