Marx

Science, Belief and Faith

If we want the question of faith (item key to understanding the world as it is) today announced the rises in the appropriate language for our time must be formulated differently from the Vatican, theologians and religious thinkers do. Since the disappearance of John Gagnepain, there is something about that! In fact, mutations that scientific knowledge is no longer the same point when he opposed religious science called the "nature" to the faith, Aristotle reason for the Muslim Faith (as Averroes) or the Christian faith (as Thomas Aquinas:) This is ridiculous now! Let's talk about something else. It is here that anthropologists can have to say.

The way I will ask the problem requires a separate act of faith (whatever religion they belong or not) dogma, whatever, I mean a belief system that is institutionalized (as in the Catholic Church), or what is not (as in Protestantism). In other words, is asking the question, to go beyond dogma to consider the act of faith. This problem in the generations that preceded us, was also almost set (I'm saying now is not the case.) But what he said be resolved? He has taken his party from the Renaissance to clearly separate two worlds: the "safe" and not "Of course, the nature and the supernatural, in other words, from Bacon, the naturalist "philosophical" and "supernaturalis philosopher" (as opposed to theology.) However, in the nineteenth century, a disciple of Auguste Comte (representing positivism) has said in discussing a possible beyond this was where there was an ocean crust or sailing. The formula was nice, but completely ridiculous, because one when he says: "So I would not bark or sail, it is determined that the bank which means that the border between them and uncertainty. But at the same time, when we ask, in the field of knowledge of certain and uncertain, this uncertainty becomes certain about the same time! Of course, at this stage to eliminate the human aspects with equal certainty, is fideism touching naivete. Defining the nature and the supernatural that separate areas by a data limit, which defines the two sides at once, it will automatically request the issue of religious also incredibly realistic that the problem is natural. But he was essentially very comfortable.

Whether to celebrate or is to be regretted is the problem of the nature and the supernatural, which is believed to be a problem that we can not because it is completely involved in the development of science called "nature. Since Einstein, we have a relationship with the natural sciences in a total of relativity we now know that we who are the world, there is more substance, more fixed point anywhere. It's terrible! This does not mean there must be some intelligent reason, because we have at our disposal, we should use it in the smartest way. There is therefore neither man nor nature: what We can understand the interdependence. Thus we see that the concept of "nature of science" which, for convenience, should continue to call it, is a concept that today days is ridiculous to talk because of the natural sciences are sciences which means that the abstraction of the way we see, in other words, this means that: science that put man on the side. Well, I have to say is that the natural sciences, applied also to the famous concept of the supernatural. At the same that we can not conceive nature as something that can be done by man can not conceive of a supernatural being, I mean a deity somewhere in the sky, which could exist without us. If divine is inaccessible to us, do not see why we should be careful!

The religious issue that should be done today, it is considerably. This act of faith, religion can not be regarded as an age of humanity, like Auguste Comte (you know his famous law of three states: the old theological old metaphysics, and finally, the positive age-I: the scientists.) It is expected that the religious phenomenon as an operation of man: man is an animal which, to have the right, is the problem of the divine (the question does not arise in the rabbit.) And, speaking as a rational function so that the man responsible and the nature and supernatural. You understand that theologians would reduce anger me! Indeed, if anthropology Gagnepain aa clinic allows us to begin preparing a study scientifically possible for the act of faith (which does not prove the validity or invalidity), it is theology, and even philosophy, at least in the so-called classical philosophy, which is really a secular theology. Is that, when considering the nature since the beginning of a profound shift in contemporary thought, man can not be in parentheses, can no longer be considered as it is called "saturation", say the spiritual "as another dimension of man" because it is with us that behind this excess. There is an issue more "Other" with a capital letter. Why this change and compliance, as we have the ability we have to worry about? If you follow me, you realize that this is the end of the conflict between the pseudo-science and faith. More generally, yesterday opposed the rationalism of the religious perspective as a certainty to another certainty. So it was a fanaticism that was in all directions. Rationalism has also been the most sectarian religious sects. As we have discussed in both sides of fanaticism. Fanaticism is possible in the form of fundamentalism, of course, but it is conceivable form of progressivism as well. Bigotry is what? He said: "My convictions are the only ones worth it. "At this point, you understand that rationalism and the Pope is the same. Nietzsche said:" This is no doubt that madness, but security. "We're going to find … But first I want to complement and illustrate the first thoughts I have just presented.

All scientific knowledge is changing, we can not address today in the terms that previously discussed today, this means that consideration was made of this rationality in the sciences of physics ( "nature") that really has nothing to teach us, because we repeat, must be concepts that allow us to explain. This is what I begin by illustrating very quickly.

You know, from Democritus and Epicurus, Western science has developed the concept of determinism. This does not happen from one day to another, of course, not without causing a great debate. There are still rational, at least for us, and we have never stopped to explain the world to defy fate and random, or emergency (I mean what happens when it does not), the name of a certain need. Science has always maintained that there was chaos in the world for the benefit of abstract order that ensures consistency across a system of relations in terms of intelligibility: no order, could not explain what the ancient Greeks, significantly called the cosmos, a word which is an appellation of cosmeïn verb, means to organize, order, as "cosmetic" hair is! The science, therefore, was formed by the denial of the possibility that what has been called determinism. Yes, but can not prevent researchers go further, means that these investigators have disappeared, thanks to modern detection macrophysics microphysics, and reflected then a motion of particles beyond the laws of physics, which is generally spared the same time, the need had asked about the most visible manifestations. In other words, this transformation of physics at the turn of last century led to the question of indeterminacy. After all, determinism is an illusion: if we look more and more deep, is the same thing, finally, we must know the uncertainty and try to inform of Science, through uncertainty and chance.

Immediately, the Most experts have said, "No way!" It must find a way to reduce this determinism nickname, at least a new determinism. But do not think this determinism new abolish chance. It gave rise to new dangers. He said: "There is a chance, try to make science" in any case, always call the coincidence that resists explanation, or until this explanation will suffice to demonstrate that the boundaries of the lot, as they say, has fallen. However, pushing the limits of chance, never be erased for good reason, do not know if there is a possibility or not: this is what bothers us, we are human beings to explain the world, neither more nor less.

We can do this by saying that everything is random, everything is chaotic, except for a man trying desperately to appear in chaos. But need to understand is that the universe is absolutely irreducible to what we believe it is. This is not the world that forces us to any logical determinism and makes us a chance. Del Similarly, the universe is absolutely irreducible, even what we perceive it. Nothing is said, indeed, the world has even the appearance of what we give to him. Kant said: "If We are born with blue glasses on the nose, the world would be blue. "In other words, the mere fact that we are there, it is understandable that the world around us has characteristics that, rightly or wrongly, that is given: the Constitution is not empirically that the projection of our senses. In short, as one can not separate the world that designs, can not be separated from that collected the flower is the butterfly. It has absolutely nothing to do with what is perceived by men. This is the concept of "nature" is a fairly random, unrelated to the existence of a particular (human or butterfly) in that it contains. We now understand that we can not ask the man a hand, "nature" the other: there is a relationship between the bipolar world. Another genius philosopher Berkeley was right on this point, saying: "esse is percipi … (but never cites the following text) and percipere means "that is or may be perceived. She was fine before having this relationship, he realized that through human science, little shortly discover much deeper: it is the substance (or yourself) anywhere, so can not object to that man and things. As a result, are all our scientific concepts that must be considered as projections of ourselves in the world. In other words, for nearly two centuries, we have determined where there are none! In other words, we are doomed to animism. This does not mean it was wrong. But this means that determinism is not the result of our projection in the universe. However, you can say that determinism is true because it has been demonstrated. It has been proven, but what is shown is not true. And then there are still many phenomena that can not be proven and we have no idea.

In exactly the same way, we are counting on the universe that we call space. Why? Because they are to perception or understanding, we will give the dimensions (length, width, height, etc …) And we who specialized in the universe is that "season", It may be a beginning, middle and an end, place at least in the West, in chronological order, which means, according to a temporality that we represent as an arrow. You see, which explains the world to discuss the form or the search of their origin, evolution and purpose is in both cases demonstrate, once again, pure and simple of animism. We think therefore that the birth and the end of the world, for example, the Big Bang and the final cataclysm have absolutely no reality. When we hear the dreamers, as you say Hubert Reeves: "At first there was the Big Bang, you want to reply:" But why are you looking for the beginning of the universe? And at the other extreme, when we hear of these dreamers, the end of the world who want their objection: "Why do you think there is widespread destruction or what I know." In other words: "Why do you think there is a beginning and an end? integer problem in terms of time is here.

So you see the enormous difficulty facing science: what is the "rationalization". This is without doubt a "square" as I told rationalism, but rationalism search Security desperate. But the only certainty may be that, in turn, only partial and provisional, for animism, to be "square" will not be less than the animism. The following simplified streamline streamlines, etc. And it is infinite. In short, we do not understand the last word, we know neither the nature nor man nor his relationship to the point where we can reach any certainty. This is crazy! The universe is not in itself, man is in itself only exists in their relationship, which is not a science and always escapes. Who is feeding us is what phenomenologists have called "existential angst", which is more than aware this vicious circle is that posed ourselves the problems we are trying desperately to solve. However, if this anxiety is the result of the risk and doubt that man into the world, how can you escape it? By faith, meet people who have a religious choice, to live as a relief or cure of its concern. But we must admit that if the purpose of religion is not to relieve anxiety, opium, as Marx thought, but rather the final drug. For God more so than the rest. Therefore, the question "Does God exist?" It's as stupid as asking, "Is this that the universe exists? And true that if the universe does not exist outside the perception conceptual or projection that our draft him, Bipolar God exists in the relationship that we enjoy (or not) with him. In other words, God does not exist: it can be, too, that the object of a desperate, because, like the universe, he is the man.

This is what Voltaire was understood perfectly when he said "God created man in his image and served well! What is interesting is how, historically, has been given. Take, for example, this projection in God is not a beginning, and develop a purpose: it gives you yet Creation which has long understood as the fact that one day God said, 'Listen, I Adam, who will keep me busy. "And then there was the valley of Jehoshaphat, or the Apocalypse. But all this for century XXI century man is foolish (as the Immaculate Concepcion, magic and the Ark of Noah.) If, in fact, now we know that time does not exist, the creation and Revelation are, dare I say, permanent. And secondly, the famous Valley of Jehoshaphat is a farce, because, Christ, as you say, "The Kingdom is within you … The Kingdom has already arrived." This is not just to say " What am I after death "is absurd if you think you are God. That's all. Faith is not a bug, but something much stronger than that. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the very question of faith than that of the Vatican. What is the Pope? He preaches against abortion, against condoms, etc (do not mind worldwide), then you should take to address the renewal of Christian thought, instead of recovering fundamentalists. Catholic Christian Thought has become obsolete, archaic, antediluvian Nay. It is to prevent you are a believer! The real problem today is simply that there is now an amazing difference between science and religion. Yesterday I said that scientific rationalism to religion as a certainty to another certainty, and I finally told him comfortable (if not reassuring). Now what characterizes the rationality of science for almost a century is that his certainties have lived if the relationship between reason and theology has changed considerably. On hand, is "the collapse of security," to borrow the title of Prigogine's work, but other certainties later became completely obsolete. How, at a time when conversations about science, the reversibility of time that makes us go beyond the idea of a time represented by an arrow, even speak, not only as we have seen, Creation and Revelation, but Hello again, of eschatology (end times) of "Starting Now", etc? Eschatology as "future life" which makes no sense, at least in its present form by the Catholic Church. Not daring to think that science today, unlike yesterday led to the true faith of security and what is excluded (or should be excluded) and therefore can never move from religion to faith.

One day a woman brave said: "I have lost faith in the day someone told me that Santa has relatives." And I said, "Well, you do not lose much, and tried to show that any superstitious belief that the obstacles to faith. Again, be careful with the words: believes that the verb in French, May concern two religions (plural) to faith (singular.) Although the ambiguity when someone says "is a believer, a man or a man of simple faith?" But a large difference between the act of faith and commitment (of the church or not) beliefs. Beliefs, yet unproven, and why they go crazy, like Nietzsche said: Note that we believe in the "morning", such as beliefs that go beyond the phenomenon "religious" We believe in the race, spiritualism in the country, in reason, etc., the general doctrine is everywhere, if we take the dogma of the word in a very broad sense. I, too, who speak in this moment I am a dogmatist, of course, since the theory of mediation, I think! But unlike the Catholic Church, if I am a Protestant (you probably already guessed that he had Protestant education) I agree to the debate, dialogue, debate. But Protestant education is a mere accident of history. Regardless of their religious beliefs to which we adhere or not, regardless of religions and churches are only the entry in the history of belief systems more or less sophisticated: If you were born New Delhi, Riyadh, Rome, His beliefs are Hindu, Muslim or Christian, but his faith will be the same … "Finally, does" having faith "or" lost faith. "If you understand that doubt is always one of the founders of the faith, can never be acquired.'s Always what you do or not acts of faith. Faith, primarily opposed to religion: that is what we generally do not understand. But this does not mean that beliefs are shameful. The conflict of faith and belief is actually in all of us. After all, we are men, ie they are rational animals, the necessary certainty. And I conclude by telling the story as you all probably know. One day, Einstein took the plane to travel to Canada, a journalist rushed over him: "Hey professor, do you believe in God? Y Einstein said: "If you tell me first what you mean by it, if I tell you!" I'll comment on this occasion saying: "A stupid question intelligent response! God knew that Einstein sure that it is precisely the unthinkable that is, an in-itself that exists only to elude us, so that no can be as I told you to be a perpetual search.

In In other words, a question, others probably would say, "No, I do not think so, but I hope on him. "

title = "theory of mediation, the science of men"> www.theory-mediation.com

About the Author

Jean-Luc LAMOTTE, Anthropologist and essayist
Disciple of Jean Gagnepain, he published an Introduction in the Theory of the Mediation in the publishing De Boeck (2001), and contributes, at present, to spread the thought of the Master.
Teacher who has passed aggregation by classical literature, he taught at first the linguistics to the College of the Letters of Beirut (University of Lyon), then professed during ten years in preparatory classes in the entrance examinations of the superior teachers’ training colleges (in Montpelier, then in Versailles).
His career led him, on the other hand, to put itself in the service of the distribution of our language and our culture abroad (Means-0rient, Morocco, the United Kingdom). He also had the honor to collaborate in the works of the service of the publications of the Académie française.
Since 1991, he dedicates itself to his researches in clinical anthropology, led within the framework of the activities of the School of Rennes (University of Haute-Bretagne).

Marx at the vatican