The Illusion of Pure Truth: The Covenant of Faith and Research

The interplay of beliefs and scientific research has shaped human civilization for centuries. These two areas are often presented as irreconcilable opposites that lie in a constant conflict over sovereignty of interpretation. However, a deeper look at historical and philosophical developments shows that the reality of far more complexboth systems pursue different main goals, but still find ways of working together to consolidate social structures.

The Mixing of Facts and Moral Valuations

In everyday life, it proves to be extremely difficult to draw a clear line between pure statements of fact and moral judgments. Belief systems tend to turn simple factual claims into strict moral precepts, making factual debates massively more difficult. From the mere assumption that a higher power has written sacred writings, a compellingDuty to believe in this very fact. Those who adhere to this assumption are considered virtuous, while legitimate doubts are branded as serious misconduct.

Hidden Assumptions in Seemingly Ethical Principles

Conversely, ethical principles often conceal factual claims that are accepted by society as long proven. The conviction of the inviolability of human existence often carries with it the unspoken assumption that every human being possesses an eternal soul. However, the existence of such a soul can be scientificallyit is similar with the belief in the holiness of one’s own homeland. Such seemingly ethical judgments are actually based on the factual claim that one’s own nation has been the undisputed pioneer in moral and economic progress.

The illusion of purely scientific morality

Some thinkers have therefore come to the conclusion that research can completely resolve ethical conflicts, since all human values contain factual assumptions. They believe that all people have the common goal of reducing suffering and maximizing joy. All ethical debates are therefore only factual disagreements about the most efficient way to happiness.radical believer, a freedom fighter and an extreme nationalist would therefore not have a moral dispute. They would only have different views on how best to achieve their common goal of happiness.

The Problem of Measurability of Happiness

Even if this theory were true and all people were striving for happiness, the practical solution of ethical conflicts would remain extremely difficult. There is simply no scientific definition or reliable measure of human happiness. Take, for example, the construction of a huge dam in Asia. Even if everyone involved pursues the goal of making the worldto make you happier, the decision on the best way remains unclear. How to decide whether cheap electricity contributes more to global happiness for many people than protecting traditional lifestyles or saving a rare species?

The impossibility of a mathematical formula for happiness

As long as the secrets of consciousness are not unlocked, a universal measure of joy and sorrow is missing. We do not know how to compare the well-being of different individuals or even different animal species. It is completely unclear how many units of joy arise when countless people benefit from favorable energy. At the same time, theAsk how much misery is produced when an entire species is exterminated. Are joy and sorrow at all mathematical quantities that can simply be added or subtracted?

Comparing different sources of happiness

Eating a dessert may be pleasant in the short term, but finding true love creates an even deeper sense of happiness. However, no one would seriously claim that the mere consumption of sweets ever equals the happiness of genuine affection. Research can contribute significantly more to ethical debates than is generally assumed. Still, there is a limit,that it has not yet been able to exceed. Without the supporting hand of belief systems, it is impossible to maintain great social orders.

The Necessary Connection of Research and Faith

Even university institutions and research laboratories need the moral justification of religious structures. Faith provides the ethical foundation for scientific work and in turn influences the social agenda. Without taking these beliefs into account, the history of science cannot be anywhere near understood. Researchersare reluctant to address this aspect, but the great scientific revolution began in an extremely dogmatic and religious society.

The Surprising Place of the Scientific Revolution

Today, science is often associated with the values of tolerance and cosmopolitanism. Early modern Europe therefore appears to be the worst possible place for the beginning of a scientific revolution. In the days of the great explorers and early naturalists, Europe had the highest density of religious fanatics in the world. The company drove out minorities,burned dissenters and saw a witch in every older woman who loved cats.

The contrast to the more tolerant metropolises

Those who travelled to Cairo or Istanbul a few centuries ago found multicultural and tolerant metropolises there. There, different faiths lived in relative harmony side by side, making the vast Ottoman Empire a liberal paradise compared to Europe. Paris and London, on the other hand, were cities where religious extremists were in charge and onlyMembers of the dominant sect were able to live safely. Nevertheless, the scientific revolution began in London and Paris of all places, not in the more tolerant metropolises of the Orient.

The misunderstanding of eternal conflict

Modern history is often portrayed as a relentless struggle between science and religion. Theoretically, both areas are primarily about the truth, which is why a collision seems inevitable. In fact, however, neither research nor faith care so much about the absolute truth. Both institutions are therefore quite capable of making compromisesto coexist peacefully and even work closely together.

The true aims of the two institutions

Faith is above all about maintaining social order. His goal is to create and maintain a functioning social structure. Research, on the other hand, is primarily about gaining power. It wants to gain power to cure diseases, win conflicts and produce food. As collective institutions, itboth order and power over the pure truth, which is why they fit together so well.

The modern pact between research and humanism

Modern history should better be regarded as a process in which an agreement has been formulated between research and a particular ideological current. Today’s society believes in humanistic principles and does not use science to question them, but to put them into practice. In this day and age, it is unlikelythat these principles are replaced by purely scientific theories. But this historic pact may dissolve and be replaced by a completely different kind of agreement.

A look into future developments

It is quite possible that the previous alliance will be replaced by a new link between research and a post-humanist worldview. The exact circumstances of this new arrangement will decisively determine the future development of human civilization. We need to understand how this change is taking place and what new rules the coexistence ofPeople in the future.