Gualberto Gismondi
I. Introduction
1. Uses and meanings of the term . Not to conduct a general discussion on culture, but on that specific scientific culture in the context of the relationship between science and faith . The meaning of terms and concepts, then, will be chosen in view of the scientific culture which would develop in an appropriate manner and appropriate, the potential of scientific knowledge and action. As for the term "culture", given the large variety of definitions, starting with the more general distinction of culture in the strict sense (close view) and in the broad sense (view large). In the strict sense means' the highest of all production of the human spirit. " It is also learned that culture , classical, humanistic , scholarly , etc.., And criticized by some as intellectualist , classist, elitist etc.. In a broad sense means' the whole of the vital events of people and groups. " It is well known culture in the anthropological sense , vital or existential , and criticized by some as popular, populist etc.. These criticisms are conceptually irrelevant, however, overtaken by more recent approaches to systemic . They characterized the culture as a total system , also said global , general, or total area, which includes all expressions of human life and social system and as part , also said sectoral , specific, or partial area on more specific and limited to expressions (art, science, sports etc..).
These distinctions show the complex, dynamic and changing nature of culture and warn that the study of its definitions, distinctions and divisions will never end (cf. Gismondi, 1993, pp. 86-88; B. Varisco, Culture, in "Italian Encyclopaedia Treccani , vol. XII, p. 102). Recognizing these distinctions as real, as well as conceptual, we can use the information more valid, without limitations and ambiguities. The narrow conception highlights the 'body of knowledge, the provisions of mental and social and human qualities that allow each person to benefit from knowledge and interchange, communications and information. " From that perspective, it encompasses the spirit and content more meaningful more constructive thinking of the classic ancient, medieval, Renaissance and modern humanistic. The broad concept, however, has been adopted by two of the most significant and influential cultural institutions in the world: the Catholic Church and UNESCO. The first presented it in the constitution Gaudium et Spes of Vatican II (1965): "The general term of culture you want to show all those means by which man develops and refines many capabilities of his soul and his body, power of attorney to reduce his power in the cosmos itself with the knowledge and labor; to human social life, both at home and throughout civil society, through the improvement of customs and institutions and, finally, with the passage of time, expresses, communicates and maintains in his works the great spiritual experiences and aspirations so that they can serve the progress of many, indeed of the whole human race "(n. 53). It is the most comprehensive, detailed and complete.
UNESCO in Declaration of Mexico City (1982), described culture as' the set of distinctive spiritual and material, intellectual and emotional, that characterize a society or a social group and includes, in addition to arts and literature, ways of life, the fundamental rights of human beings, value systems, traditions and beliefs. " This, after seventeen years, summed up the contents of GS so that, in both, the spiritual and moral integrity is the foundation, the center and summit of culture. It expresses, therefore, the mode of growth of people and communities, developing their own freedom, responsibility, creativity, spiritual and moral values, customs, habits, attitudes, beliefs, ways of life and action and a sense of belonging. This explains why community and society, to be born, preservation and development, they always need a culture (cf. Gaudium et Spes , 59, cf. Also Gismondi, 1993, pp. 220-222).
2. State the problem . The two definitions indicate the dynamics and changes that ensure the vitality of culture. They are connected today to the processes of increasing complexity, globalization and the globalization that is being stepped up, involving all cultures and making obsolete the narrow conceptions culture. This is not to large ones as follows: "Culture consists of explicit and implicit patterns of behavior and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the acquisition of distinctive human groups, including their materialization in artifacts, the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas (ie, historically derived and selected) and especially the values \u200b\u200brelated to them; cultural systems may be considered on the one hand, products of the other, elements conditioning the next action "(Kroeber-Kluckhohn, 1972, p. 367). Although criticized at the time, this definition preserves the merits, as the previous two, to highlight the most important characters of the culture (integrity, systemicity, unity, symbolism, etc.) Always open to further clarification, and additions to the value and utilities are emerging in various historical contexts (Gismondi, 1993, pp. 17-18, 112-113; Bernardi, 1991, pp. 31-33; Febvre, 1939).
Send GS , for example, is broadly confirmed by the great events of the twentieth century and their historical consequences, cultural and social exhaustion of modernity, disintegration of ideologies and utopias (scientism, Marxism, etc..) returns of irrationalism (weak thought and postmodern). Shows, finally, that the solution of cultural problems requires the contribution of several disciplines. The scientific method to the information and analysis, historical and philosophical reflections on the critical, ethical and theological guidance on proposals for the purpose, meaning and ultimate values. For this, the various knowledge (science, philosophy and theology) will have to find ways of dialogue and ways of cooperation, overcoming the misunderstandings and conflicts that have arisen in modern times. The new relationship between science, philosophy, theology and faith must be firm, calm and constructive, to enhance the elements for a true scientific culture. Critical reflection should also explore the reasons why three centuries of modern science have facilitated the development of an ideological scientism, rather than a true scientific culture.
Today, a valid scientific knowledge is made more urgent by the current process of "complexification" and "globalization" that involve all cultures. Without it, the scientism of the socio-cultural residues Western will continue to spread confusion and inadequacy. Although the dissolution of absolutizations deterministic, mechanistic and physical aspects of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has emptied the artificial image of a world reduced to a machine and a man reduced to automatons, scientist residues do not appear to overcome the weak thought. The postmodern irrationalism, with its relativism and nihilism, lack of principles and conceptual tools to deal with that reality and problems re-emerging with new force in scientific thought, such as quality, purpose, complexity, relatedness, etc.. They concern the world is physical, and biological, social and human, raising the urgent problems and difficult to resolve. In the history of science, the emergence of complexity represents a decisive step, because it shows that to account for the richness of reality is necessary to use a variety of models, passing through an explanation of the world from the elementary level entities and phenomena, the recognition that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , 31.10.1992, n. 2).
II. Towards an understanding of the meaning of culture
1. Need for a new culture . Due to the complexity, hypercomplex, purposes, irreversible and so on., are not enough previous concepts of "origin", "critical steps" and "laws of the first, in which time is essential. The events, unique, surprising, unpredictable, and so on., Require a scientific culture and an epistemological heuristic-much more elaborate, specific and profound than those currently adopted for the physical and natural sciences. Moreover, for human phenomena, social and cultural rights, even more significant, are not enough "to universally valid laws, necessary and in need, according to a strict causal" (Ferrarotti, 1983, pp. 43-44). The scientific rigor to join the interdisciplinary research that, in addition to contributions of the physical sciences, natural and mathematical demands to enhance those of the humanities, social, moral and religious. Is the set of all the disciplines that form the common cultural heritage (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , 29.10.1990, nos. 1-2). The excessive extension of the purely causal and quantitative models did degrade into scientism. The discovery of the enormous complexity, however, goes well as operators of the physical sciences to talk about a "universe that has some chance." Together with the scientism, then, fell the old "certainties" that led to secularism and secularism obsolete faith and religion. In such "unfounded certainties" have joined the "uncertainty based" post-modern, in part, led to healthy recovery, making science less pretentious and more cautious in asserting manipulate reality.
However, they have made it even more insecure, emphasizing the partial, provisional, conjectural and falsifiability of his knowledge. Another fact is that the most important historical research and epistemological reflections are now inseparable from the development of scientific knowledge. At its inception, modern science was doing research in any order. Growing up, the need emerged to analyze and interpret its "how" his "because" the meanings and relationships with others with the same knowledge and human intelligence. At the dawn of each new subject area increased the need for rational legitimacy. With the maturity of the scientific became the essential question in on itself and its relationship with the more general knowledge. There have recently been added as well the needs of social legitimacy and fulfilling the duty to contribute also to the peace, integral development and solidarity of the fraternal peoples. All this has made me think more about the meaning of techno-scientific research in the context of human culture (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 29.10.1990, nn. 3-6). Epistemological developments of the twentieth century, therefore, necessitated new evidence of sense, meaning, purpose and value of scientific knowledge and action, can be derived only from philosophy, metaphysics, religion, ethics and theology. In this regard, are useful indications of GS various knowledge to help overcome the difficulties inherited from modernity or returned by the weak thought.
The cultural contradictions, anxieties and the resulting personal and social anxieties, require both personal and social hope, that helps individuals and groups to become involved in a new culture, combining their desires autonomy with a sense of responsibility towards the man, history and the world. Only real hope can help people to recognize the fullness of their vocation to take care of themselves and the world around him (cf. nn. 55-57). To this end, GS enhances the culture in the strict sense (refinement of spiritual, moral and intellectual) and in the broad sense (transformation of nature, environment, society), to produce actions, works and objects and pass purposes, meanings and values. In this way, a full, complete attention to the social problems of Christian thought of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with that given to cultural issues. Joined together provide valuable input to address the socio-cultural commitments of the twenty-first century and third millennium (cf. Gismondi, 1993, pp. 33-34, 102). In this perspective, the gospel message and culture are brought to synergize their semantic aspects , hereditary integrals and . Those semantic languages \u200b\u200b make them suitable for personal relationships and specific for styles that unite people and communities. Those hereditary continuity, duration and depth of the values, traditions and institutions, who founded the community and become an essential element. Those full enhance and qualify their parts (see Fides et Ratio , 31, cf. also Bernardi, 1991, p. 31).
2. Values \u200b\u200band limits of the culture . The three previous issues bring out the complex relationships between the various components of culture, ideas, symbols, feelings, languages, attitudes, meanings, purposes, values, trends, actions, works, objects, things, institutions, etc.. that make it difficult to study the relationships between knowledge, culture and society. This difficulty has led to apply to culture the concepts and principles of the systemic approach. Considering the culture at large sense as defined given by the quoted text GS , both as a system "global", which as a system of "partial", it shows the problems that lead to a meaningful dialogue, scientific, philosophical and theological. The first question is about the reasons that, in every period and area, have led man to rise by more pressing material needs that beset the plane of the spiritual and symbolic values \u200b\u200b(axiology), and of ultimate and essential (metaphysics and religion ). For the Christian thought, the answer is that "every culture is an effort to ponder the mystery of the world and mankind in particular is a way of giving expression to the transcendent dimension of human life. The heart of every culture is its approach to the greatest of all mysteries: the mystery of God "(Address to the UN , 5.10.1995, n. 9).
This illuminates the reciprocal roles of religions and cultures. Religions are the foundation, the strength of construction and the transcendent dimension that animates every gesture, expression and cultural progress. Cultures develop, coordinate, maintain and transmit to future generations and to all humanity to their fundamental beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors. The man shows his nature and cultural identity, pursuing cultural goals that are higher than the purely natural. Al respect, Goethe had already indicated the need for respect of what is "above" to establish and maintain what is "equal" and what is "inferior." Most remote antiquity, religions and cultures confirm that compliance with that which is above the foundation and supports the other two. The modern scientistic error was to reverse this relationship, man and culture and founded on what is below. The historical and socio-cultural consequences of this "logic from below" became evident in the tragic events that afflicted the entire twentieth century. They confirm the need for a witness and a memory that keep alive, in every culture, the great values of transcendence. This is the primary task of religions, in which the Christian faith adds two fundamental requirements: the discernment and prophecy , designed to keep alive the ultimate meaning of reality and of man as the completion and fullness of salvation (eschatology ).
This biblical-Christian perspective is essential to assess the authenticity of all the positive features and cultural elements: a) the commitments, plans and deeds aimed at promoting people to leave and b) human development, social, historic and ground-oriented final fulfillment of man; c) the knowledge to tackle the problems posed by the natural and human d) the knowledge with which to reflect more deeply on the meaning and destiny of man, the universe and of history, and) the ideal aspirations to be transmitted to new generations (cf. Gismondi, 1993, pp. 157-160; Szaszkiewicz, 1988, pp. 125-127). Ultimately, the great cultural task of the Christian faith is to put the person and the relationship of love and solidarity as the foundation of every culture (cf. Pontifical Council for Culture, for a pastoral approach to culture , 05/23/1999, No. 3 ).
III. Culture and cultures
1. Elements for an assessment cultures. Stressing the elements just highlighted, we highlight the limits and the more negative aspects that plague cultures. They make them incomplete, subject to errors, bias, external influences, attitudes and inappropriate behavior and, unconsciously or consciously, contrary to the good. A regular dialogue and cultural exchange can help you discover the gaps and push the limits, correct the mistakes and fix the ills. To detect the negative side, however, requires the evaluation criteria. The 'a-valutatività "of cultures is now much less advocated, since it appears that it would facilitate assessments invisible or unconscious, nestled in the most forms of common interest, sympathy, attention or preference for their own culture (ethnocentrism) or other (allocentric). The alleged in-valutatività not, therefore, avoids the evaluations, but makes it more insidious, because unconscious and surreptitious. The evaluations, however, can not be global, while partial (individual fields) are difficult because, in different cultures, the fields are not equal or do not have the same meaning. Finally, pluralism does not allow the current hierarchy of common values \u200b\u200bor shared. Today, many hopes are directed towards an 'ethic of human rights "in processing, which could allow common evaluation criteria (see Address to the Diplomatic Corps , 01.09.1989, nn. 4-6).
Human rights are linked to fundamental Christian values \u200b\u200bwhich have profoundly influenced the culture over the centuries. Treat them more fully in Item ethics of scientific work, but here we highlight only some aspects of culture. The secular culture and secular thought, born in countries of ancient Christian tradition, they kept some fingerprints and with which they have nourished their reflection, have highlighted the need for human rights. Esauritosi the rationalist optimism, which he saw as a fairly successful history of reason, freedom and happiness, reason enlightened by faith finds its place (see Fides et ratio, 91; for a pastoral approach to culture No 23). For her human rights are a fruit born on the root of truth and inalienable dignity of the person, resulting in its unique and irreplaceable vocation, and the significance and specific role in God's plan (cf. Veritatis Splendor , 38 - 41). Similarly, we could speak of "truth of cultures" and also recognize them to a dignity, uniqueness and historical significance and role or vocation in the divine plan. In addition, for a true appreciation of human rights is of utmost importance "relational perspective" drawn up by Christian social thought, which is reports the general condition of reality.
It believes that individuals, societies and cultures are not only for themselves but for and with the others, confirming the need for dialogue and mutual exchange (see Donati, 1997, pp . 314-330; Szaszkiewicz, 1988, pp. 134-142). Human rights for those characters appear suitable and appropriate to establish a culture and ethics of science, made even more urgent by the processes of globalization and the globalization that push towards a global culture. They may be longer than the scientism, economism, materialism and secularism that still predominate in the Western techno-scientific cultures. The twentieth century has also shown throughout the irrationality, violence and negativity that govern the serious processes of degradation and disintegration of the socio-cultural Marxism that led to experiences of 'humanitarian intervention . However, they are full of risk and ambiguity. It should, therefore, prevent and overcome with a new culture of relationship, solidarity, subsidiarity and reciprocity, to open a joint dialogue, responsible, respectful and free of all human groups (cf. Gaudium et Spes , 54; Centesimus Annus , 50-51).
2. cultural conversion and acculturation. In this regard, acquire two important ideas "strong", with significant similarities: the "conversion", typical of the biblical-Christian faith and 'acculturation', typical of anthropology. Both express towards truth and the truth and the need to merge. His theological nature of the conversion is a spiritual, universal and transcultural, allowing interesting cultural applications. Can in fact guide the acculturation, because each culture is open to the universal, when it hosts the best in these instances ( For a pastoral culture , 10). For the biblical Christian faith, conversion refers to the return to God, Life and the supreme good. Move away from him means death, tend to return to him is real life and real good. Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), in his work to the test Civilization (1948), noted that the cultures are subject to die and live again. Christian thought sees in them the character of contingency, of the fragility and mutability, and the universality of the faith opens up new possibilities of life, fertility, rebirth and renewal (see for a pastoral approach to culture, 4). Their future, however, can not be inferred from scientific predictions, based on fallible assumptions and extrapolated on the assumption that every feasible condition remains unchanged. Not even the wildest predictions and speculation offer philosophical guidance, expressing only the possibility, likelihood and / or virtual.
The only force capable of opening up the future is a realistic hope. But it is authentic if it is strictly transcendent, theological and eschatological (cf. Gismondi, 1995, pp. 149-162). Can recognize, then, only a "wisdom open to wisdom", which we will shortly. Here we say only that it was always present in cultures and religions, deploying all its fullness in the theological-biblical revelation Christian, founded on the universal salvation of Christ and the power of the Spirit. Faith and hope can guide the theological understanding human reason and the scientific and philosophical wisdom and knowledge to the full, pushing the limits of rationality and irrationality, both modern and postmodern (cf. Gismondi, 1993, pp. 182-190). For both cultures are an instrument of real spiritual progress, ethical and intellectual property, if the basis of every project they put the truth and dignity of the person (cf. Gaudium et Spes , 53; Veritatis Splendor, 38-41; Fides et Ratio, 88). In this truth and dignity they should direct all their historical, anthropological, social and conceptual. In this sense, ' acculturation, such as integration of the mutual values, can enrich the different "Cultural roots" with new ways of thinking, ways of life and judging criteria (see Evangelii nuntiandi , 19-20, 29, 62).
The fundamental importance of cultural roots has been revealed by the cultural uprooting which deconstructs the man, depriving them of their cultural identity and making it "fertile ground for dehumanizing practices" ( for a pastoral approach to culture , 8). Is it that in the twentieth century led to widespread violations of human dignity and the repeated denials of cultural dignity. To avoid them, should develop a dialogue, promote cooperation and intercultural solidarity, decisive for the future of humanity, bearing in mind that only the spiritual and ethical dimension makes cultures able to humanize people and society. These principles were also incorporated in the Declaration of Mexico City UNESCO on cultural policies, signed by more than one hundred States in 1982.
IV. Science, Faith and Culture
1. Knowing the culture and science system . This analysis of the multiple aspects and general problems of culture was essential to investigate the specific relationships between science, faith and culture. Since as we have seen, scientific knowledge affects the knowledge and other "roots" of the same culture, it should enhance it, taking into account the established order against the current critical and historical epistemology. It considers: hypothetical, partial, provisional, always rebuttable, and certified as false (or, again testable and therefore falsifiable) and never completely true. Furthermore, it underlines the limits, errors, gaps, inconsistencies and negative consequences. Awareness of this has not yet come to schools, public opinion, the disclosure, the media and common sense. For this cultural science continues to be a representation true and appropriate in the world, a certain knowledge set by the criterion of truth, an ultimate explanation of the origins of the universe and of how reality works, a single rigorous knowledge, etc.. With these all-encompassing and philosophically erroneous conceptions is presented "scientifically" every reality: the universe, nature, life, man, society, etc.. The systemic perspective enables us to understand how science is considered a "system of knowledge", spread in all cultures these negative traits, which we see the consequences.
As the "global system", consisting of the institutions, business and research, it is a condition conceptually, socially and economically to all cultures. Subsystem as part of the global cultural system of all peoples and all societies, science interprets and transforms reality, raising new problems. In this way changes the "cultural roots" mentioned in Evangelii nuntiandi , that the judging criteria, sets of values, points of interest, lines of thought, beliefs, lifestyles, etc.. (Cf. nn. 19-20). To achieve these results, it uses those very powerful operational tools made from "systems of representation," or sets conceptual and symbolic that he applies the reality "expression systems", or figures with which meanings and affects standards; systems standards, or values \u200b\u200bfor determining the concrete choices; action systems, or technological mediations with which directs the work and the ' act (cf. Gismondi, 1993, pp. 83-102, 1995a, pp. 109-119). With these results in both positive as the new values \u200b\u200band new possibilities for action, and negative, as the ethical conformism and flattening in the advanced economies and the human, ethical and cultural disintegration in less advanced. This powerful set of factors to be taken into account because, for science to guide the positive developments, develop a genuine scientific culture.
All this raises many questions about the core of the "global system of science" and its functional roles. What is essential or priority in it? The system of knowledge? The methods and programs to acquire knowledge? The activities of people and institutions? The planning of the research? The organization of personal resources, cognitive, economic, financial resources? Its priorities are cognitive, operational, explanatory hermeneutical wisdom? The answers will shape the development of scientific culture. It, however, must be consistent with the understanding that scientific knowledge is not cumulative, nor uniform, unilinear, incontrovertible, but subject to errors, shortcomings, limitations and denials, audits and experiments have never critical, but always subject to different interpretations, theories are not conclusive, but require continuous corrections, additions and Finally, substitutions, paradigms, models, methods and acquisitions are not final, but partial, provisional and subject to revision, the scientific rationale is that the error, not the truth, and advances for errors and corrections, the conditions and not a scientific can be demonstrated scientifically but philosophically, the ideas and scientific views of reality not only contain data, but also their interpretations always conjectural and subject to revision (Experience, IV).
2. contradictions of scientific culture. This awareness emerged from the critical discussion and careful verification of all knowledge, and failure to leave the theories and subject to uncontrolled exploitation of any kind, which would prevent it's cultural values. This is important because science, like "sub-part", with its knowledge, its research and its economic organization, financial and industrial world wide now, conditions and limitations, for better or for worse, the "system global society and culture. Conditions and constraints is very other than a healthy interaction. The system-science, then: as a professional agency determines research projects and resources, such as business management affects public authorities, state and private enterprises to obtain the economic and financial resources necessary to their needs, as their economic-financial- industry affects its research and production in accordance with the laws of profit and market and the logic of mono-and oligo-polio to take advantage of competition, information and advertising agency as a condition for public opinion through the mass media , as an agency training conditions-educational schools, universities, publishing, etc.. This multifaceted and widespread conditions affect the well roots of culture, creating, changing or disrupting the various cultures (acculturation) (cf. Gismondi, 1993, p. 130; Bernardi, 1991, pp. 94-97; Eilers, 1987).
The disruptions implemented by the scientific culture stemmed from several factors. Among them: the denial of the fundamental and unifying role of faith, religion and ethics, and the rejection of metaphysical discourse and the abandonment of the fundamental philosophical issues, the separation of "systems of representation" of science by the "system of meanings and values," that establish and sustain the culture, the absence of integration of new scientific images of reality with the traditional culture, lived and learned, the interruption significant links with the past and this future denial or devaluation of meaning, purpose and values, the interruption of relations with the sources of meaning. These disruptions prevented the most authentic subjective values \u200b\u200bof the scientific, such as the desire for knowledge, rigor, objectivity, criticality, the accuracy, competence, intellectual honesty and humility, to express their socio-cultural value. Among the objective values \u200b\u200b , the hardest hit was the objectivity of knowledge, interpreted as excluding the institutions, which hampers the value intersubjective (relational) of the comparison between subjects, repeating equals experience, assessing the different interpretations. Others, such as autonomy, conceptual domain, the control of its objectives, to absolute high, were rendered abstract and unreal. It was the systems perspective to show that purpose and autonomy of a system are never absolute, but related with the whole system and its subsystems.
The correlation also suggests a systemic ethics of scientific work, which will enrich science and ethics with positive contributions, such as increased knowledge of natural processes and the enlargement of the possibilities of intervention, the extensions of the ethical, the formulation of new problems, the expression of new values, increased social responsibility procedures more relevant to the situations and the appropriate ethical intent (cf. Gismondi, 1997, pp. 80-93, Agazzi, 1992, pp. 231-240). Today's enthusiasm for the Enlightenment rationalists and a science full time at the domain of reality based on pure reason and the positivists and evolutionists for a science that offers unlimited progress, civilization perfect and happy life are exhausted. World wars, tyrannical dictatorships, genocide, mass murder and environmental tragedies of the twentieth century led to the rise of anti-science movements and accusations that science is inhuman interest, damages and degrades the environment and human cultures (cf. Gismondi , 1999, p. 147).
Christian thought, without indulging in such charge or in defense of its own motion, proposes a more realistic and balanced. First, regarding the problems of knowledge, in first place intellect and intelligence, whose job it is intelligible "read between", "choose" to discern, understand, think, judge, guess. The intelligence, then, is structured to deal with reality, being and relationships, even before the ideas and representations. It combines the knowledge and understanding, in their broadest sense. This is why the Thomistic thought considered intellection as the act under which captures the spirit of the principles that will use the ratio (See A. Lalande, Intelligence, "Philosophical Dictionary critical," Milan 1971, pp. 434-435).
V. Relationship between knowledge and openness of culture to the concept of wisdom
1. Wisdom, knowledge, culture . Intelligence is the goal, and the reason is only an instrument. The intelligence, then, according to their needs can always develop new tools of knowledge and understanding. Its most noble and elevated is the wisdom . It, for breadth, depth and spiritual and moral elevation, is the highest degree of knowledge of things, in essence seeks to measure and capture the nuances. Seeks to govern and govern well, distinguishing the evil to choose the good. To enjoy this special esteem in the field of life (religion) and Knowledge (philosophy). The immediately following the wisdom, along with foresight, experience, prudence, caution, common and complex problems to solve. Knowledge and wisdom were regarded as the base, the center, the Summit or the "backbone" of cultures. Their attenuated form is the reasonableness , or balanced use of sound reason, according to common sense. Modernity neglected to emphasize the only reason, however, reduced to mere formalism of rationality, logic and methods. Therefore, thoughtful consideration of the simple "systems rationality" limited, partial, imperfect and changing. Of these systems, scientific knowledge is characterized by naturalistic logic, conjecture, bias and temporary.
These limitations make it difficult for its inclusion in the overall context of intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, reasonableness, reason and culture. These difficulties, has now been added, and the growing distrust, radical and widespread in the various forms of scientific rationality. It is an understandable reaction to the excesses of scientism, but offers no solutions. Not sufficient to emphasize the negative consequences of scientific activities, but should also enhance the cultural contributions and Humanities: incessant research that involves people and communities experience and ability of critical interaction with reality, development of cognitive and operational principles, problems, hypotheses , estimates and projects to interact with reality. The most rigorous critical discernment must be exercised, however, on claims to derive directly from the sciences, the general views of the universe, life, humanity and history. Three centuries of repeated failures have shown that all attempts to develop concepts of the global realities of individual theories (mechanism, determinism, evolutionism, relativism, indeterminacy, etc..) Or disciplines (astronomy, physics, cosmology, biology, etc..) Produced only the hybrid concept, with no scientific value and unfair terms of heuristic, epistemological and philosophical, that had nothing to knowledge and culture (cf. Gismondi, 1999, pp. 77-78).
These visions, extrapolated from knowledge of the physical-natural, whose limits are ignored and bias, ignoring the contributions of other sciences (human, social) and the religion. They forgot or ignored that the allegations of sciences and cultural value make sense only in a more rigorous and extensive discourse on sciences, drawn from epistemology, philosophy and history of science. However, the segmentation of scientific knowledge makes this necessary yet insufficient step, since its partial approach and the resulting fragmentation of its meaning, contrasts with the need for inner unity of man and culture (cf. Fides et Ratio , 85). It is therefore necessary to reorganize and restructure this knowledge as a whole, by a further more general philosophical reflection, involving epistemology, anthropology, hermeneutics and metaphysics. The philosophy, in fact, concerns the proper interpretation of the phenomena also collected and analyzed by science and the synthesis and integration of their knowledge. Through these steps, the knowledge epistemologically heterogeneous and incommunicable heuristically are made suitable for a coherent dialogue, culturally homogeneous and significant ethical, religious and theological. Moreover, the man of science is driven by the logic of its procedures to make use of concepts metascientific, whose nature is to be clarified to avoid misunderstandings, ideological statements and undue extrapolations, which would be the negation of true culture (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 31.10.1992, No 2).
In this dialogue, the Biblical-Christian faith has a specific role that is different from the knowledge and culture: it supports the goals in the first place, the senses, meanings and values \u200b\u200bof the past, that found people, societies, cultures and knowledge and are the basis for all scientific and philosophical thought, and proposes the intelligence, wisdom, wisdom, reason and human reason, the horizons of divine revelation and salvation. The greater supply of scientific research to the broad cultural themes is not so much by his answers always partial, provisional, changeable, but rather from his questions , its problems are always new and inexhaustible. The same goes for philosophy. Enhancing the essential requirement of the human mind to question and wonder, science, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and theology can overcome old misunderstandings and lack of communication in the modern era and move forward together to create a new culture and a new techno-scientific humanism (see ibid., n. 3).
2. Scientific knowledge, philosophical, metaphysical and culture . As no person can do without the questions, especially the latter, radical and definitive, so he can not do without any culture, because in them is a source of energy and structuring vital and inexhaustible dynamism. Science, philosophy and theology are fed to these questions and, as a system for interrogating different specific problem areas, do not overlap. To this can be completed in a respectful dialogue, integrating, developing the new culture. The irreplaceable role of metaphysics is to problematize "totally," everything, including herself and the ultimate realities, total final. Other knowledge can only problematize, "partially," the parties. Science can problematize only the immediate and partial aspects of reality, but not herself. Therefore, he must rely on other knowledge. To develop a true scientific culture, then, we must ask in depth about the very basis of science and its theories. These, as a center of scientific activity and the heart of his knowledge, is a fundamental problem for the scientific culture. They combine, in fact, the advantage of highly imaginative descriptions of reality, the limits and defects of the bias, provisional, conjectural, need constant additions, corrections and replacements. The same fate the following categories, models, principles and scientific concepts.
This may not be used in humanities and cultural sense without the steps described above, to assess their truth value and cultural significance. At this crucial insight critical-rational, the Christian faith adds to the need for theological and theological . Compared to secular thought, therefore, faith requires a deeper and more rigorous critical discernment, since not enough to overcome agnosticism, relativism, harmony and unnecessary waste or naive optimism, nor can it be satisfied purely immanent solutions. Discipline was of the utmost advantage to science and scientific culture, because it allows more explicit than the potential of scientific knowledge, beyond any consideration scientistic, secular and immanent (see Fides et Ratio , 5). Reveals, in fact, the "surplus of meaning" and the sense of 'original experience' is implicit in empiricism (experience) that in science. In this way, scientific knowledge would refer to the wonder and admiration of classical philosophy and contemplation sapienzale religions. It also emphasizes the scientific discourse as appropriate to their field, which allows to overcome the current estrangement and lack of communication of knowledge, without affecting the specificity and reconciliation, therefore, their autonomy, freedom, specificity, relational and socio-cultural competence and communicative.
In this way the various disciplines, and communicate with each other and with other disciplines, can better define the cultural meanings of their research to the key themes of culture. Recent developments in the thought of on science and provide the best evidence for this dialogue. The new scientific vision of a world where order and disorder, necessity and chance, chaos and complexity are no longer absolute laws, but measured ingredients, to create a design information and intelligence officer, once again, in new forms, perennial problems of highest level of humanistic and cultural. Order to analyze the wealth metaphysics, religion and theology must, however, also deal with the extreme complexity epistemological, heuristic and epistemological. This wealth allows to exploit the considerable ethical and heuristic content of some characteristic of the scientific attitudes such as intention, purpose, freedom, responsibility, the historicity, the situatedness, the social, cultural, solidarity, justice and development their capability.
The "experienced" scientific evidence, then, that reality is intelligible, immensely rich, varied and complex. Therefore, it is inexhaustible and cognitively in endless perspectives of interpretation and understanding. This means that each subject area and all knowledge, expressing only a of infinite perspectives, can hold only one point, extremely limited, the immense and inexhaustible reality. This calls to increase, rather than limiting, the perspectives and cognitive tools (approaches, assumptions, ideas, words, concepts, methods). And the growing perception of the inexhaustible intelligibility of reality, the limitless prospects of research and the limitations unsurpassed knowledge of the various shows that they should be interchangeable as far as possible, their acquisitions, constantly refine their models, logic and cognitive methods, and consider approaches naturalistic, impersonal and objective enough to solve the problems of the emergence of life, intelligence and man. However, as shown well the Galileo and later that of the historical sciences, the emergence of new ways of approaching the study of natural phenomena still requires a clarification of all the disciplines of learning, to better define its scope, its optical or perspective of approach, methods, the exact scope of its claims, a more rigorous understanding of its nature and role. For theology and Christian thought, too, is important to consider, without uncertainty or precipitation data that may seem to contradict the truth of faith. Ultimately, beyond the partial conflicting visions, causing a mutual misunderstanding, every time there has emerged a broader view, able to include them and overcome them (see results of the Pontifical Commission for the Study of the dispute-Ptolemy and Copernicus Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , 31.10.1992, in Poupard, 1996 ).
3. Relationship between faith and knowledge . The reductionist approach of modern science are even more inadequate in the face of relationships between people and between them and the environment or the world. Also, now, challenge the search. We have already seen that Christian thought considers it essential personal perspective, focused on truth and human dignity and about meaning, purpose, meaning and value of human endeavor in the world and in history. We add, moreover, the relational perspective, which places the general relations as a condition of reality. Starting from the fact that in real social and nothing exists except in relation, also emphasizes the relatedness in comparison with other disciplines of science and knowledge. Applying it, they can: enrich each other's perspectives, in accordance with different functions, properly connect their claims and theories, changing and discontinuous for the purposes, meanings and values \u200b\u200bof the last stable and continuous, to overcome the excessive pluralism of philosophical reflection, to reopening ' Last question, comprehensive and total. To this way, human intelligence, with its inexhaustible need for truth and meaning, together with awareness of their finitude and mutability, may well be open to faith. Only this, in fact, announced to all knowledge and culture that the "right" or "intelligence" that presides over the universe, such as law and profound inner nature of things, not only rationality, but also freedom, justice, ethics, goodness and love.
The person, therefore, not from below (the world of things), but from (Intelligence). The Logos as Intelligence-Wisdom- reason, before people, knowledge and things, transcends history and embraces the creation, from the earliest origins to the last end (cf. Acts 17.28; Rom 1:20; Jn 1:14, Jesus Christ, the revelation and incarnation of the Logos II) . Faith, understood in this way, introducing the man, the universe and theological knowledge in the hope of the future last, that of eschatology. Faith, hope and wisdom illuminate Christian metaphysics and the value that has meaning for science and that science has for metaphysics. They give ethical and cultural aspects more typical of the commitment and scientific knowledge: intent, purpose, freedom, rationality, responsibility, historical, situational, social, cultural, solidarity, justice, capacity building, etc.. Their wisdom and theological re-reading highlights the ethical and cultural values \u200b\u200bof science, beyond the instrumental and utilitarian conceptions. Metaphysics, centered on truth and dignity of persons, makes a significant physical and natural sciences for men and cultures (cf. Veritatis Splendor , 1, 47; Fides et Ratio, 88). The discovery of the Anthropic Principle, for example, shows that it is the man to give meaning to the universe and not vice versa. While the physical-naturalistic perspective allowed cultural reflections relatively small, personal and relational perspectives raise questions of value on the humanistic and cultural purpose, meaning, significance and value of conscience, knowledge, freedom, responsibility, of human experience, but also on the complexity and the presence of evil.
Culture and Society qualify the scope of the subjects, characterized by interpersonal relationships, and inner consciousness, for which the logic of natural, physical and biological properties are not sufficient. The infinitely large and infinitely small, fast speeds, the immense energies of the universe and the complexity of living raise issues extremely fascinating. However, it is the hypercomplex people, society and culture to raise those questions more culturally significant (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , 27.10.1998, nos. 1-3). Since culture is a social and historical reality, the scientific effort, also for his social nature, has firsthand the problems concerning the development of socioculture (nuclear war, peace, bioethics, quality of life, health, sense of death etc...) It interferes, therefore, with great aspirations for dignity and freedom. Hence the need of the forces of science and religion, not only to avoid conflicts but also work together to support individuals and groups in addressing the great Full development challenges, combining their powers spiritual, intellectual, moral and technical (see Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , 29.10.1990, nos. 5-6. Even in this context, it follows the direction of 'ad Soter (salvation), doxological (glory) and eschatological (end) about man, the universe and history. The faith will manifest Christ as divine-human love (teandrico) which frees the man and the cosmos from the negative consequences of human projects (selfishness, violence, sin), antagonists of the divine covenant-love-salvation. Who suffers from anxiety and feelings of absurdity, faith proclaims Christ that guides the evolution dynamics of creation, the regeneration new humanity and save the cultural values, initiated at the splendor of eternal glory of God in everything and everyone. To those who fear suffering and pain, faith shows that the Redemption and the Kingdom did not implement them in an ideal world, but interwoven with selfishness, violence, regression, regressions, misappropriation and abuse of power, which constitute the history of every man, society and culture (see ibid , nos. 4-5).
VI. Concluding remarks: Christian thought and cultural development of science
In light of this proclamation and witness, reflection on knowledge, faith and culture takes on its full depth and relevance: a) culture harmoniously integrates knowledge, wisdom, knowledge, arts, technical and social organization; b) the more these elements are specific, require much more integration, c) in the culture and knowledge, the everything is essential to understand the parts and pieces are essential to understanding the whole; d) any cultural synthesis is never a simple sum of the previous implementations, but their complex and profound revision, according to new perspectives, and) new insights and perspectives culture do not emerge from a pure accumulation of data or rigorous formalism, but with new insights and inspiration from new and original; f) the cultural commitment to harmonize critical sense and confidence, creativity and hope g) the cultural renewal are not painless, having to struggle with the knowledge and the dominant interests, criteria, and the axioms of the most inveterate habits of thought. With regard to these problems and situations, the NT has very suggestive images: the creation groaning in travail (cf. Rom 8.22); labor generous contribution not of death but of life and glory (cf. Jn 11.4), the metanoia or conversion, which results in radical changes (cf. Mt 3.2), the understanding and understanding, which stem not from the "flesh and blood" (from below), but Spirit (top) (See Mt 16:17).
These figures underline that universe, man and history move towards something that science and philosophy tell us they do not know. Revelation and the Christian faith, however, announced that they move to anyone but even more so that anyone first moves towards us. This announcement over and fills the basic needs is a genuine humanism that of a true scientific culture: culturally enhances the immense potentialities of scientific knowledge, and implements a peaceful dialogue between the normal and knowledge (science, philosophy, ethics, theology). In this context, are also included those points which seem cause friction between science and faith, as the relationship between creation from nothing, creation and evolution continues, the dynamic nature of the universe and the role which mankind deals with the relationship between the concept of eternity and space-time structure of the universe physical. Christian thought knows that it is difficult to develop culturally science. However, it is possible through serious and serene dialogue of all knowledge, on the many issues outlined above, but even more on those of culture and life, both general (purpose, meaning, truth, dignity and worth of the universe, man and history), that more specific (intelligence, Revelation, reason, metaphysics, ethics, religion).
If the second half of the second millennium was characterized by exclusion, misunderstanding, division and conflict between their knowledge and culture, the new century, which opens a new millennium can be characterized by a passionate search for their inclusion, understanding , meeting and reconciliation. Methods and tools there. The atmosphere seems more conducive to new interpretations of reality and a peaceful dialogue between science, epistemology, history of science, philosophy, ethics and theology. Develop a new culture is a significant commitment and challenging for everyone: believers, non believers, philosophers, theologians, cultural and scientific workers. Develop a techno-scientific culture, humanism and mystical is much greater commitment. Its purpose is to bring the person to transcendence, to teach him to follow the path that starts from the experience intellectual and human, to get to know the Creator, wise use of the best acquisitions of modern science, in the light of right reason, in awareness that science alone can not capture the essence of human experience nor the intrinsic reality of things (see for a pastoral approach to culture , 11).
This challenge and need of the third millennium will not become the protagonists of utopia where knowledge and culture will discuss cooperate in good faith and constructively to integration and mutual harmony. A knowledge and cultures who are looking in many directions, often without finding it, their meaning and destiny, the Biblical-Christian faith, tempered by a plurimillennial discussion and dialogue with cultures, societies and knowledge of every time and place, offers hope in the light of Wisdom and the power of Logos .
Bibliography:
L. Febvre (ed.), Civilisation, the mot et l'idée , Gallimard, Paris 1939; R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture , Harper, New York 1951; D. BIDNEY, Theoretical Anthropology, Columbia University Press, New York, 1953; R. WILLIAMS, Culture and Society, Columbia University Press, New York 1958; L. GEYMONAT, P. Filiaşi CARCANO, A. GUZZI, scientific knowledge and philosophical , Sansoni, Florence 1962, JD Bernal, The Social Function of the Science (1939), MIT Press, Cambridge (MA) 1967, C. Kluckhohn, AL Kroeber, The concept of culture, Il Mulino, Bologna 1972; A. Bausola, Critical analysis of the concept of culture , in "Christianity and Culture. Proceedings of the XLVI cultural refresher course at the Catholic University "Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1975, pp. 16-35; E. BERTI, Reason scientific and philosophical reason in modern thought , The goliardic, Rome, 1977, P. SNOW, The Two Cultures (1959-61), Feltrinelli, Milano 1977; G. Gismondi, Critics and ethics in scientific research , Marietti, Torino 19782, J. Thief, The risks of rationality , SEI, Torino 1978, CH Waddington, The Man-made Future, St. Martin's Press, New York 1978, Unesco, Declaration of Mexico City. Final Report. World Conference on Cultural Policies , 26.7 - 6.8 1982 CLT / MDI, Paris 1982, F. The paradox of the sacred FERRAROTTI , Laterza, Roma-Bari 1983; FJ EILERS, Communicating Between Cultures , Pont. Gregorian University, Rome 1987; E. Cantor, The man of science. The meaning of humanistic science , EDB, Bologna 1988, J. SZASZKIEWICZ, Philosophy of Culture, Pont. Gregorian University, Rome 1988; DL HULL, Science as a Process: an Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science , University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988; H. CARRIER, culture and future of , New Town, Rome 1988; L. NEGRI, Man and culture in the teaching of John Paul II , Jaca Book, Milano 1988; G. Holton, Science, education and public interest , Il Mulino, Bologna 1990; B. BERNARDI, Men, culture and society. Introduction to demo-ethno-anthropological studies. Cultural Anthropology and Social , F. Angeli, Milan 1991; A. CORDERO, Scientific Knowledge and Contemporary Wisdom , in "Science et Sagesse", edited by E. Agazzi, Editions Universitaires, Fribourg 1991, pp. 127-153; E. Agazzi, The good the bad and the science , Rusconi, Milano 1992; G. Gismondi, New Evangelization and Culture, EDB, Bologna 1993; G. Gismondi, technological culture and Christian hope, again, Milan 1995a, G. Gismondi, Faith, science, ethics, from Gaudium et Spes in Veritatis Splendor , "Antonianum 70 (1995b), pp. 475-574; P. Poupard (ed.), The new image of the world. The dialogue between faith and science after Galileo , Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1996; L. Malus, Faith and Philosophy: a historical introduction to the problem of Christian philosophy , "Working Papers temple" 9 (1996), pp. 13-26, P. DONATI, Christian Social Thought and post-modern society , AVE, Rome 1997; G. Gismondi, fundamental ethics of science , Cittadella, Assisi 1997; PAPAL COUNCIL OF CULTURE, for a pastoral approach to culture , LEV, Vatican City, 1999; G. Gismondi, Science, consciousness, knowledge. Traditions and Culture 2000, Cittadella, Assisi 1999.
