The Priest vs. The Advocate of Scientism

Pastors and scientists have been faced with many questions I can not answer. I have provided several different alternatives as a way to answer these questions. Many people turned to "religion" to answer some of these questions, and some turned to "science". After careful consideration and research, I began to agree with scientists' supporters. I participated in many wonderful discussions about my beliefs, but none of them are as interesting as my pastor.

Advocates of all scientists do not tend to reduce ethics to evolution. Sam Harris introduced science at the book "The Moral Landscape" in 2010 and expressed his opinion against the evolutionary ethics project as a whole. But he wants to replace it with a scientific part. Under Harris' ethical framework, the core criterion for judging whether action is moral is whether it contributes to the happiness of conscious creatures. Harris' idea has all the problems that had plagued pragmatism philosophy from the beginning. Since Utilitarians have been around for a while, Harris insists on challenging the fact - a difference in value, more precisely a problem of merely avoiding value by focusing on facts.

Here, we came to the dilemma facing science. The supporters now may argue that if philosophy has such a status it really must become part of science. The current problem is that arbitrarily redefining "science" to include something that science can be presented as evidence against it, has become completely less important. To make matters worse, it aligns ideas with science that should not be compatible. For example, it originated in Aristotle, and the idea developed by Thomas Aquinas is very sophisticated. Outside the time there are uninduced causes and space to maintain the causal relationship of scientific research.

Today 's scientist' s argument claims that the only opportunity for reason is often equal to science and reason. However, it seems to be against the reason. We insist that science can do things we can not do. As a scientist, I will never deny that scientific discoveries have a significant influence on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and that all those interested in these topics need scientific reading and writing. However, the argument that science and science can solve many years of problems in these areas has caused countless problems.