Dmitry Mayorov 2
For what man can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lord ? The thoughts of mortal unsteady , and our thoughts are wrong , because the corruptible body burdens the soul, and this earthly Hramina suppresses mnogozabotlivy mind. We can barely comprehend the fact that on the earth, and with labor do we find that, under the arms and in the heavens - who investigated ? ( Prem.Sol.9 :13 -16)
This world is a marvelous testimony of God , for thereby reveals the Wisdom of God . And this is what the prophet saw , and brought grief intelligent eyes , saying, How are marvelous are thy works , Lord ! All the wisdom thou hast made ;;! ( Ps 103:24 ) .
St.. Ambrose ( 340-397 ) . Six Days .
Of course science can not answer questions that are outside its competence - namely, those that are set over vnefizicheskogo , imply a supernatural world. Is there anything out of this world - is another question , but the philosophy and religion wondering exactly what is beyond the borders of our world. Consequently, the definition of the boundaries of human knowledge , and , in particular, limit the issues of natural science, there is the question and the religious and philosophical solved in epistemology .
What could we possibly know or 3 the answer to one question
We learn that the world of sense , empirical , rational knowledge and pass through the mechanism of social memory and translation of this knowledge through human culture . Depending on where in the system the question philosophical boundaries depends for its solution. If this is the positivism of Auguste Comte or neo Vienna Circle , in particular Russell or his student Ludwig Wittgenstein , the answer is obvious - there are no limits of human knowledge , the horizons of knowledge as human cognitive abilities are limitless , and it is - an optimistic attitude. If we are talking about the medieval scholasticism or later idealist metaphysics of Descartes systems , D. Berkeley, Kant , G.Gegelya - the answer will be different. One might call this epistemological pessimism , but that would be too simplistic : idealist philosophers doubted the ability of the person to learn the world. But the ontological horizon of knowledge of the physical world delineates them to metaphysics as metaphysics at the top of this case has already performed theology or revelation of God is revealed to man , humbly aware of its limitations - including cognition . These issues are explored in detail in the standard sections of epistemology , and there is no need to dwell on them in detail . There is a third point of view - agnosticism , devaluing the very limit a person's ability to put questions and answer them, and he , by virtue of the relationship to the ultimate question , we will not be considered .
What may be new to the old question?
Scientific novelty will be chastnognoseologichesky aspect - is the question of the limits of knowledge of the natural sciences or determining the ultimate question of science.
For a start point to the same three main issues arising from the issue of the limits of knowledge of the natural sciences.
1) The boundaries of knowledge in the natural sciences are the same, forming a common horizon is unknowable , or for each particular science - physics , chemistry , biology , astronomy , etc., has its limits , do not touch unknowable regions of other sciences?
2) The boundaries of knowledge or the ultimate questions of natural science are defined once and for all , or each time they are installed with the level of scientific and technological revolution ( Kuhn , Michel Foucault , F. Fukuyama ) ? In the first case - a metaphysical limit is well described in the "criticism" of Kant . In the second case, the border - no more than an optical illusion of the horizon , it is avoidable in the future movement of science , wrote the Nobel Prize in Physics V.Geyzenberg , talking about the limit of divisibility of matter , or R. Dawkins in a controversy with theologians.
3) And finally, the natural science revolution , exponentially increasing amount of knowledge, moving from the obvious truths to be obvious, from the simple to the complex, intractable met neither today, nor , it seems , for the foreseeable future issues . This is a problem since the world began , the origin of life appears in the course of biological evolution of man and his consciousness. Indeed, before the Big Bang was not, in the modern view , no space , no time, no physical matter , and therefore our physical laws. Science can not talk about the beginning of the world, when there was nothing. Equal and biology can only reconstruct the model of a first cell , the first of a thinking being , the first man. And since the process can be quite singular , unique, and move away from us billions of years , the empirical base arheobiologii just disappears . Perhaps this is the desired ultimate questions ?
We believe that all three questions can give positive answers : 1 ) Yes, the same, 2 ) Yes, the perpetual , 3 ) Yes , science is science, and non-scientific issues not related to nature to this world , does not solve .
Why not to talk about such interesting things ?
However, despite the obvious scientific novelty , it is difficult to determine what is the ultimate questions of natural science (we will henceforth use the abbreviation PVE ) . The author is not met unambiguous definitions of PSUs in the fundamental reference books on philosophy , science , history of science. Is not protected by any thesis on this topic in the philosophy of the past two decades, Russia . Analysis of foreign sources shows that now the Western analytical thought chastnofilosofskie often solves the problem rather than the general fundamental questions. However, there is little explored area in which the widely discussed issue of PSUs - and in Russia and abroad. This theology or philosophical theology . Do not academic philosophy or professional historians of science altogether uninteresting problems PVE ? No, but they do not talk . Why ? We point out two main reasons .
First, it is now an unpopular issue . Metaphysics and natural philosophy have existed since ancient times , thinking about ultimate questions , considered a natural limit to the natural sciences - the immanent nature of this world, a fundamental principle of the transcendental world, if any, by its very definition is not available to human cognition . But, on the other hand, developed in modern and contemporary times positivist optimism prescribes unlimited development to human knowledge in all fields of science and, therefore, limit the issues of natural science simply does not exist. This two virtues trends took shape by the end of the XIX century. They existed inside the natural , because the fathers of modern science Modern Times - Galileo , B.Paskal , Descartes , Leibniz , I. Newton - were both philosophers and theologians. Both of these positions have existed since ancient times up to the present time. And epistemology as a branch of philosophy also leads us to the two opposite responses to a question about the boundaries of human knowledge :
1 ) Limit science questions are limited to determinate being of the world, therefore the limit of this knowledge is the recognition of being incomprehensible Infinite Personal God Almighty , or ( with which the author disagrees ) unknowable, impersonal transcendent reality ;
2) Human knowledge is unlimited. Being transcendent beginning of this world can not be proved , and of him , even if it is not necessary to say and take it into account in scientific constructions.
Speaking of this article , the very name of his second position is impaired and its scientific and practical importance of zero. Therefore, if the author is thinking of limiting the study to take questions of natural science, it is necessary to stick first , idealistic point of view.
It is well known that neither philosophy nor science is a point of view is not marginal . This work is not intended to prove this truism. We will make an attempt to establish that the second position is not only kontrarnoy and disputed , but it is legitimate and appropriate , even coexisting with the first. This gave rise to a dialectical unity and creates not only the " history of the war of science and Christian theology ," but it is " creative tension ," according to the famous Polish scientist and theologian M. Heller.
Second, secular thinking, stopping in front of the difficulty in determining the ultimate question of science , theological interpretation does not take into account . This is due not only to the historical continuity of the opposing idealist and materialist philosophical trends. This is associated with a profound revolution in natural science and philosophy, which occurred in the XVII century. It's not just the age of great scientific discoveries. Natural science is gradually abandoned the philosophy of nature , or rather the great Aristotelian "target causes" that sent the science , philosophy, and theology in three modern independent channel of autonomous existence . Secular science and philosophy in the modern age has the right to an independent raising questions of theology . The Roman Catholic Church has no power to take. Neither the Inquisition , nor a list of banned books unable to keep the laws governing the process of secularization , supported by Protestant states . Therefore, it is a theological definition of limit setting on the issues of natural science has no power of modern science and philosophy, and is a consequence of historically conditioned " delegitimization of metanarrative ," or devaluation of traditional values ;;, especially religious ones.
conclusion
In the modern history of science, it is assumed that there is a science in modern times with the work of the above scholars XVII century. Yes, it was natural science , and the problem of PVE occurred - for example, in the Milesian school, looking for a base in the world primal elements - water, fire , air, or a volunteer, or if the Epicureans - the first atomists . In the historical review, we can not ignore the achievements of scientists of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. But all the previous period called prednauki . Natural science in the modern sense of the word that is formed in the XVII century. So , talk about current issues limiting science we can within the limits of the XVII century to the present. At present, when the differentiation of science has led to the emergence of scientific disciplines about 15,000 , most of whom are exactly sciences to natural sciences , the situation looks much more complicated PVE .
Philosophy of science , trying to talk about PVE , bypasses , in our opinion , the main thing : that the pursuit of the limits of knowledge - God - inspired by the great scientists from ancient times to the present day. Thus, in the scientific world have a situation where the most important issues for the human spirit - the problem of the limits of this world, and who is behind these limits - are without review by reigning in the world of rebellion , lukewarmness or indifference to religious faith.
References
1.Kont O. spirit of positive philosophy . ( A word about positive thinking ) Rostov n / D: Phoenix , 2003
2 . Russell B. Human Knowledge : Its Scope and Limits . : TERRA , 2000 . S. 3: " Scientific common sense (which I assume) it is clear that known only an infinitesimal part of the universe ... ".
3 . L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus / Selected Works . M.: . home " territory of the future ", 2005 . S. 14 : " ... in order to draw the line of thinking , we should be able to think on both sides of the border ( we should , thus , be able to think about what to think not ) . Therefore , the boundary can only be made within the language . What lies on the other side of the border will simply does not make sense . "
4 . Spirkin AG Philosophy . M. Gardariki , 2010 , S. 387 : Even today, a range of philosophical doctrines , not alien agnostic conclusions rather wide - from neo- to phenomenology , existentialism , pragmatism , etc. Their agnosticism is due not only causes an epistemological order, internal logic , but to a certain extent and tradition that goes back to the philosophy of Hume and Immanuel Kant .
5 . Kuhn , Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . MG : "ACT" , 2003 .
6. M. Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge . St. Petersburg . : IC " Humanitarian Academy ", " University Book ", 2004 .
7. Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future . The consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Moscow: AST , 2008 .
8. Kant I. Preface to the first edition of " Critique of Pure Reason" / Works in six volumes . V.3 . M., " Thought", pp. 73 : " The share of the human mind in the same type of knowledge it had the strange fate : it is precipitated by questions that he can not escape because they are imposed on him by his own nature , but at the same while he can not answer them , because they are superior to all of its capabilities . "
9. Heisenberg W. The steps beyond the horizon. Moscow: Progress Publishers , 1987 .
10 . R. Dawkins, The God Delusion . Moscow: Publishing Colibri , 2008 .
11. Grigorovich C. In the beginning was the RNA ? In search of a molecule primary life / / Science and Life . - ¹ 2 . - 2004 , Levitan E. Was there anything before the Big Bang? / / Science and Life - ¹ 5 . - 2012 . Official site of the journal "Science and Life" . http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/20684/?sphrase_id=69469 Access Date 09/08/2012 ; Mumrikov Oleg , a priest . The phenomenon of biological life as the "ultimate question " in Theology and Science of the XXI century . http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1529089.html. Access Date 09.08.2012
12. Vernadsky VI : " The scientific outlook developed in close communication and broad cooperation with other parties of the spiritual life of mankind. Department of science and scientific outlook of concurrent or recent descendant of human activities in the field of religion , philosophy, and social life of art or not . All these manifestations of human life are closely intertwined and can be separated only in the imagination ... we have never observed so far in the history of science without philosophy , and studying the history of scientific thought , we see that the philosophical concepts and philosophical ideas are included as needed, all-pervading science element of all time of its existence . " Selected Papers on the History of Science , Moscow, 1981 . S. 50-51 . Cit. by: A. Dugin Evolution of the paradigmatic foundations of Sciences , M , 2002, pp. 15
13.John William Draper. History of the Conflict between Religion and Science ( 1874 ), Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom ( 1896) , p. by : James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979 .
14. M. Heller. Creative conflict . On the problems of interaction between scientific and religious worldviews . Moscow, Academy of St. Andrew , 2005 . 216 .
15. Gaidenko PP Exile target causes a prerequisite mathematization of physics / PP Gaidenko Scientific rationality and philosophical reason . Moscow: Progress- Tradition , 2003 . p.169
16. Jean -Francois Lyotard, Postmodern Condition . : St. Petersburg , Publishing House " Aletheia ", 1998