Emmanuel Kant’s religion was rational thought which is why he was one of the greatest Enlightenment philosophers, and created the Metaphysics which allows Science to function as a logical system without falling to the problem of induction – he came to all of these systems with his religion based on Christian doctrines of humanism and reason, where Science itself and discovering the universe with human rationality and reason is a form of worshipping God: the Logos – Logic, language and reason. Being religious under Christianity is harbouring, nurturing and harvesting the Logos.

The core of the Western world is this rational thought system developed and harvested by the religious scholars of their day. Thus it is a straw-man to pretend that Science and Religion are contradictory – the argument is built on a weak version of a very literal and redundant view of religion – this is probably because said person has only ever met religious people who cannot articulate their views and don’t have a historical knowledge of Science and Religions intimate relationship with its development through Philosophy – which seems to be true of American religious people more so than the European.

The application and use of reason to discover the world was and still is considered a religious activity which discovers reality: God. Thus Science can be seen as a religious activity: it uses a system of beliefs about reality to investigate it. Without those beliefs about reality it could not begin to test it: the belief is in the material reality and the laws of nature: otherwise known in the past, and in the first branch of philosophy and Science as God.

The philosophical school of Metaphysics is not merely a school which takes on the subject when Science leaves off. It is a school of inter-subject analysis and criticism of everything including Science, and even Philosophy itself. Science is a metaphysical assumption and thus a fallacy in itself – it only manages to keep going by correcting itself, which is exactly what Religion and Philosophy does as it goes forward – which is why when Philosophy and Religion becomes rigid it begins to fall apart and shed its skin to renew itself.

Philosophy is putting thought into practice, and is thus scientific – it experiments and tests. The great Pagan philosopher Aristotle didn’t come to a God by assumption, but by logical argument and avoiding fallacies – this tradition was carried on by scholastic, theological, philosophical and then Scientific tradition. Science is a branch of Philosophy centred in the empiricism doctrine and method with a sceptical underpinning.

Science is Philosophical in nature, when it demonstrates, experiments and tests: it is doing practical Philosophy. The core problem with Science is that it tests itself with itself, and thus can only work from a leap from a metaphysically unsound position. It is circular from its assumptions, and thus can easily turn its own self-regulation and correction into a pathway into nonsense.

Metaphysics does not make the assumption that God exists, it doesn’t even make the assumption that material, reality or existence exists…that is a straw-man. Metaphysics is the base Philosophy of reality itself and dealing with the hardest problems in reality – itself. This includes Science’s assumptions of reality, cause and effect, that material existence is a thing, and so on. Metaphysics is testable by logic alone, which makes it the hardest and most challenging Philosophy. Philosophy itself is testable by logic, argument and practical application. Science is testable by demonstration, method and evidence. They are intimately distinct, yet connected.

The apparent basic reasoning of Science is not reasoned at all, it is demonstrated via demonstration built off metaphysical assumptions: material, cause and effect and continuity. Metaphysics investigates if these things are mere human projections onto reality or reality itself. Without metaphysics Science has no logical legitimacy.

Science and Philosophy are merely two ways of doing the same thing – demonstrating and testing reality – one with logic, one with an investigating method – both of these methods are not completely flawless and thus need self-regulation. In order to avoid stumbling into the future with fallacies this self-regulation is not enough. Thus both forms of investigating reality should not only regulate themselves but each other: philosophy does already regulate Science and has done since before Science was even termed as a separate branch: natural Philosophy. It is only Science which is unwilling to take on the criticisms of Philosophy, and thus stumbles into becoming Scientism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s