Religious creed reigned in the human world for two thousand years, then for half a thousand years Western materialistic science ruled; now reign the harmful technologies it generated. What new reign is in store for people? It is worth understanding this without the guile so beloved by Western culture.
What is the difference between religion and science? Religion mainly speaks about living nature – first of all, about a human and their soul, and science mainly speaks about inanimate (dead) nature; a living creature is a big mystery for it, and the soul is especially mysterious. What unites religion and science? One and the other are the opposite sides of the same coin. Religion “lives” on the dark side of the moon, and science is on the bright side. If a person does not know for sure that the other side of the moon exists, they are still sure of this, because (theoretically) it seems that it should be so. Why is religion not developing, why is it a dogma, but science is developing? Should this mean that science is not a dogma? It turns out that both religion and science are developing, but in different ways, and Western science is even more dogmatic than religion. Religion requires blind faith that God the Most High is one, he is omnipotent, he generates everything from himself and controls everything, referring to what their ancient wise ancestors said so, because each religion has its own sacred Bible. Religion develops not only because it is born, lives and dies, but also because it adapts to certain historical and geographical conditions. So, first there was Judaism, the founder of which Moses learned “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” from his childhood. Then Christianity arose in the midst of Judaism, and Islam appeared already with regard to Judaism and Christianity. If religion has the same initial beginning in the form of a very vague image of God the Most High, then modern European science, on the contrary, asserts that everything that exists is many different smallest “bricks” – initial principles, proceeding from the idea that what is completely obvious to it requires no proof. But when it was making its first steps, Western science proceeded from religion. So, Descartes, one of the founders of Western science, in his teaching used the idea of the Christian trinity; its other founder Bacon, seeing the scholastic rantings of the theologians about God, decides that the only criterion can only be experience observed with his own eyes, and becomes the founder of empiricism of modern times. And Galileo, taking solely the observed empiricism for the entire book of nature, proclaims that this book is written in the language of mathematics. Bacon taught that the laws of nature should be derived from its particular manifestations, and philosophy should be practical and aimed at the domination of man over nature. From this, the dogmatic fundamental principle of new European science begins to be asserted, “what is below, so is above.” Even a brief excursion into the history of new European science makes it clear that religious dogmatism was replaced by an even deeper new European dogma, which self-confidently arrogant Westerners began to call scientific, but in fact fell into an even more ignorant heresy than dogmatic theologians. For four centuries and with increasing strength have these “enlighteners” contrived to lead a huge number of people on the planet down the garden path.