Abstract:
In this article, the author wlll firstly mention the history of debates between science and rellglon from "monkey trlal" up to multlverse hypothesis, as well as theories posed to show that there are no design and Intelligence In universe.Then he goes to Introduce a Kantian perspective In this regard and speaks of the unity of reason (theoretical and practical).He concludes his article as follows:The challenge of how reason might be regarded as unified, the "unity of reason" problem, does not first appear with Kant's schema, but grows from modernity's conundrum of determining how humans can be both part of the natural world of cause and effect, and at the same time exercise free wlll and thus assume moral responslblllty, How Kant regarded reason as unified has been deliberated In three basic formulations:1. They are compatible with each other, that Is, Insofar as the prlnclples of one do not conflict with those of the other;2. Both can be derived as components of a unitary and complete system of philosophy, which has as Its starting point a single first prlnclple;3. They possess an Identical underlying "structure," or constitute what Is In essence a single activity of the subject. (Neuhouser 1990, p. 12)
Machine summary:
He concludes his article as follows:The challenge of how reason might be regarded as unified, the "unity of reason" problem, does not first appear with Kant's schema, but grows from modernity's conundrum of determining how humans can be both part of the natural world of cause and effect, and at the same time exercise free wlll and thus assume moral responslblllty, How Kant regarded reason as unified has been deliberated In three basic formulations:1.
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwlnlsm and the multlverse hypothesis In cosmology Invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found In modern science, the Catholic Church wlll again defend human reason by proclalmlng that the Imminent design evident In nature Is real.
Indeed, scientific facts are not at Issue, but rather their interpretation, so that we should recognize the instrumentality of reason: Science may be used by anyone; its technology applied for diverse social pursuits; its knowledge perhaps designed for one purpose, applied to another; its findings interpreted to support one metaphysics, or another.
I am following the tradition Initiated by Kant (Wein 1961) and then developed by Whitehead (1925), Husserl (1935, 1970), and Gadamer (1976, 1981), each of whom, despite the radical differences of their respective philosophies, profoundly understood that the bifurcation of reason bestowed a conundrum that could only be addressed by a synthesis of science and Its supporting philosophical crltlque.
(
, 
, 
)
