P H I L O S O P H Y
V E R S U S S C I E N C E
Science is already partly a religion.
Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word scientist
is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying
what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with
science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology
as modern religion.
Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According
to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies
are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me
that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time
when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new
religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion
was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every
human being will think the reverse.
The sentence I am and the sentence I am not
can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore,
philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions:
Am I?, Am I not?, Is anything outside
of me?, Is nothing outside of me? ...?
Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions).
Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has
made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.
If one says I think, or I am aware, or
I am, then this one says something about a subject (I)
and about an object (think, am aware, am)
or a predicate. The problem of the subjet/object-dualism
is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists
or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily
a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again
a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes
proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another
doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession:
the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence
of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith.
Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people
believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were
one and the same..
Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only
philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!
Can this be true? Can it be a fact? Can we know it? Can it be
objective? Or is it just subjective?
Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism (**).
There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief
- belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.
Belief as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and
then it goes:
THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY
(NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION.
The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth.
The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science
and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the
most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But
nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one
and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached
the top of its history - science seemed to be free -,
then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was
regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies
of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity)
into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of
changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion,
but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief
(or faith) in truth.
What does that mainly mean?
The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more
due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies.
One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part
of the rulers, thus its former enemies.
An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times
can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever
- that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started
its way from a new theology (new divinity) to a new
religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.
There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental
culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am
proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and
perhaps it will end very badly.
The next time you visit the scientific church (universiy)
or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific experts
(priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of
Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely
under the control of the rulers.
The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies,
philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of
cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes
are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture.
The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical
bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture
dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture
a Faust came to the idea to interpret the dynamics
(and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal
state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the
cause of this dynamics.
Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories,
although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before
Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or
of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.
The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different
idea when it comes to undertand what nature, physics,
universe, life, ... means. Humans at different
places and times understood, understand, and will understand their
environment differently, they even have their own worlds,
and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how
science was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian
culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or
South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture,
by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya
culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian
culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know
also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies
(metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has
developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other
cultures, partly because they had and have (a)
a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant
religion, so that something which could be called science
nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c)
other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real
You may say (for example): there were the constructions of
the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya,
the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the
Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor).
Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions,
inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture
had and has a concept of an autonomous science and technique/technology.
You may see what it means to have a more religious science
and technique/technology when you look at thre current
Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion
than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era
of the so-called enlightenment (Aufklärung).
It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific
time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence;
the era of the enlightenment (Aufklärung)
was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is
too unripe, an older one is already too ripe
- for example too conservative, too philosophical,
thus too wise - for science as an enlightenment
(Aufklärung), but not too ripe for a more
religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.
Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories
of relativity, gravitational force, electromagnetic
force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
force, speed of light, thermodynamics,
quantum, big bang, inflation of the
universe, black holes, dark matter,
dark energy, ....?
That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures
had their best time in order to invent and form something like science
and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories
for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states;
they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities
(universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian
form, institution). The scientists of the Non-Faustian
cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at
home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have
to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.
My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were
not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just
in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science
one could relatively freely study and research because the universities
were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures.
So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and
especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique,
and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental
(Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of
In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also
in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture
which are related), scientists or technicians were killed
after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was
no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call science
lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies
and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real
science, is unique, is Faustian.
The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably
it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came
out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists
will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called Middle
Ages but only a bit similar because their relative
freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian
culture will exist.
That is my firm conviction.
You have to know Goethes Faust,
especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to
understand what is meant with Faustian culture and why
all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science
cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian
culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture,
and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science.
In any case, one has to read Goethes Faust or
Spenglers Decline of the West when it comes to
really and well understand what Faustian culture means.
The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the
most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust
and the Faustians.
The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except
one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic
culture; all so-called monotheisms" have their origin
in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot
of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with
Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more
or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most
religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.
It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented
and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be
seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood,
the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the
lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian
science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means
when it becomes a new religion.
Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with
his Faust, but also predicted the future of the
Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for
science, thus for a Faustian culture:
In the near end of Goethes Faust, part II, an
angel says to Faust:
Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den
können wir erlösen.
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.
And amongst others this is what the Chorus mysticus
sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):
Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
All perishable is only an allegory.
Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science
is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe
that will be a better religion?
Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could
try to become a new religion. Newtons laws
are as theological as Gods laws in the good
old religious times of Christianity, and as Allahs laws
(if you dont believe it, then ask the Christian
Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted
by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in
the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th
to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation
Dont think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity
will be destroyed. Thats an dangerous, fatal error. And if
you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why dont
you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental
forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally
an Oriental form?
It is true that science is on the way to become a new religion.
Science as science (!) simply does not get further. But it gets
further as religion, as a new religion. You are not allowed to question
scientific dogma. Those of the common physicists who
are honest say that they are too stupid to get further - I say they
are already too religious to get further. Science had its great
time long ago, and its time is not yet over but is going to be over
in the relatively near future, full of dogmas and no science anymore
because dogmas are a certain sign for religion. How many dogmas
has science already accumulated?
According to Schopenhauer the WILL is Kants thing-in-itself
(Ive been told that the better English term could be: thing
as such), and Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer, agreed with
Schopenhauer, but also with Kant, and the only one who was accepted
as philosopher by Schopenhauer was Kant.
It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove
with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible
with language and with philosophy. This is roughly that what Heidegger
once said in an interview.
Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, but science has also
to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes
both successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions,
new religions with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing
for so long.
Religion and science are different, they are not the same, but
hey have the same root: belief.
Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science
culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.
Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore
the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively
free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and
That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.
If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical
Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free
universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science,
the technical and consequently the economical and social progress
with all its good and bad sides.
When we close our eyes, we (1.) keep
the eyes pupils moist (during the sleep the reflex for closing
the lids does not work), (2.) protect
the eyes from debris (foreign bodies; during the sleep the reflex
for closing the lids does not work), (3.)
turn off external stimuli, (4.) ensure
the forming of the sleeping hormon Melatonin, (5.)
treat the brain with care because it has less to do during the sleep
with closed eyes.
A sleeping person does not blink (see also => 1.
It is not possible to know whether there will also be no
in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely
probability. The conclusion gold, silver, iron ... etc. are
metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier
than water had been true (no alternative)
until the potassium was discovered.
Logic as a such doesn't change, but some or many contents of it
change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity.
The conclusion that all metals are heavier than waterr
had been true for a long time; but then it changed to
false because the potassium was discovered. Since the
potassium was discovered the conclusion that not
all metals are heavier than water has been being true;
probably it will be true forever because probably the
premise that potassium is a metal will be true
forever. Please dont forget that this example refers to science,
thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely
theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the
logic as a such) which has caused the false conclusion.
Do you know the difference between the real being (existence)
and the ideal being (essence)? The real being is spatiotemporal,
the ideal being (essence) lacks temporality. According to
Platon and other philosophers the ideal being (essence) is
the true, the actual real being, while the so-called
real being is merely the appearance, the
If our definitions merely accepted spatiotemporality as the property
of being, then being without temporality would not be possible by
defintion. If our definitions accepted that temporality is not required
for being, then we being without temporality would be possible by
Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being
and the ideal being have affect? Dont forget:
According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the
true, the actual real being.
Some physicists (seriously) say 1+1=1.9...~ because
of the mass defect (cp. E=MC²).
The German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published
in 1882) that p (pi) is a transcendental
number, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with rational
p is irrational, even transcendental.
The transformation of the same area of a circle in a square is impossible.
This impossibility was given the designation quadrature of
the circle because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility
was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem
is in principle unsolvable.
The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental
irrational numbers (for example p [Pi]
or e [Eulers number]) belong - of
course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):
If you will square the circle someday, then
those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations
between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will
probably change the definition of circle and the definition
But someday never comes, said John Fogerty (**).
Among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least
Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the
public are the worst.
To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is
at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is
an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
If someone says that natural selection disproves God,
then that one merely says by using other words, how important it
is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral
science, or philosophy.
Should philosophers know any and every branch of science? **
One important purpose is a kind of scrutiny / surveillance / control
/ supervision because science needs money for research and therefore
becomes a corrupt system if there is no control. The current control
is a political or religious control, so that science (which has
already become corrupt) becomes more and more a part of the political
or religious system. But a political or religious science
is no science anymore. Philosophy should protect science against
corruption. Philosophy does not need money for research. So philosophy
is a good spiritual weapon against corruption, although (or because?)
also for corruption.
Do you have enough money for such a scientific research like the
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)?
Philosophy can also be corrupt, but currently it is not as much
corrupt as e.g. science. Philosophy is both a part of science and
not a part of science. So in the case of philosophy the risk is
not as high as it is in the case of science in general.
Philosophy - also as a mind-science, spirit-science, awareness-science,
knowledge-science etc. - can be subjective and objective like any
other branch of science, but when it comes to a very expensive research,
then the other branches of science depend more on money. Provided
that there is an interest on both sides of buying, everyone
can by everything as well as everyone can be bought by everyone,
thus also a philosopher who lives in the desert with no human contact
can be bought. But who is really more expensive: a physicist
or a philosopher?