Science and Religions both offer explanations for the world and for human experience. When an observation in Science or a dogma in Religion cannot be explained by reason, it is called “a mystery”; and Science and Religion are differentially tolerant of absent explanations.
A recent published paper proposes a comparative analysis of both approaches. The study concludes that: “In Science, unanswered questions are judged to stand in need of explanation, while in religion, participants are often content to leave unanswered questions as mysteries.”
Philosophers and scientists have been discussing opposition and intersection between Religion and Science domains for centuries. An anthropologist and ethnographer studied the relationships between the two, using the example of space science and its correlation with Japanese Buddhism. He reached the conclusion that tension or conflict between Science and Religion is a product of Western academic practices, linked to monotheistic religions. This conclusion is not assumed in Japanese discourses on the world. In that Tradition, Buddhism and Science are considered fundamentally compatible, our world being understood in terms of causal relationships and interconnectedness. In that context, potential for extra-terrestrial life is not considered adversarial to Religion.
The last Milesian philosopher, Anaximenes (585-525 BC) described the cosmology of the earth as emerging from what he called “Air” which can also be interpreted as “damp dark mist”. Earth was formed from it by “condensation”. This cosmogonic model is similar to the one proposed by one of his predecessor, Anaximandres (610- 546 BC) who said that “the Unlimited is the Principle and the Element of things which are. The nature of this Principle is to be moving and eternal. This article is analyzing the Anaximenes thought regarding this principle.
The Secret Doctrine (Proem, p.14) describes the One Absolute Reality as Absolute Abstract Space and Absolute Abstract Motion.
” The nineteenth century was a period of great achievement, but it failed to produce men of learning with a sensitive appreciation of varieties of interest and potentialities . . . and the situation has not changed in the 21st century.”
Quoting A. Whitehead and others philosophers, the author of this article elaborate on the principle of understanding to introduce the ecological culture in education as the ethics of conservation. He concluded by saying : “The diversity and unity of the world are not limited to the empirical sphere – the sphere of the visible.”