It can be considered that the main source of faith in many thinkers lies in the great enigma of the origin of the Universe, the matter, that in all rigor current science is incapable of solve. Scientific activity in its most advanced forms, and the most elaborate concerns only the transformations of matter, once it is there as a datum, a raw existent. She therefore, this activity is entirely situated below the great mystery. And the two conceivable attitudes in this respect are, in terms of philosophical, options of principle. Faced with the relativism that seems to dominate contemporary epistemology, the effort to distinguish the scientific approach from the reality of religious and philosophical approaches may seem reckless and outmoded. Yet it is an urgent task if we want to avoid the banal «All is good» that places all forms of knowledge at the same level of uncertainty and confusion. How to distinguish religious spirit, scientific spirit and philosophical thought in order to fully understand the respective scope and their limits? There is a lucid conception of human knowledge. This article attempts to provide an interdisciplinary answer to the difficult question of the originality of the scientific reflection through the examination of the main currents of thought that have crossed the epistemology, mainly in the twentieth century. The article is an attempt of exploring the possible ways to address the question of meaning and truth via an interdisciplinary approach of Science (answering the question of How and addresses facts), Philosophy (trying to answer the question of Why?) and Religion (answering Ultimate questions, values) by exposing the epistemological limits, the objects and the methods of scrutinizing human experience and the reality as a whole We still remember that Einstein clearly stated that «Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind»2. Does it make sense to philosophically re-think the nature of the relation between Science and Religion? What is the situation of the philosophy of religion today? What about the relation between science and philosophy? These are essential questions addressed human intelligence and questioning both the totality of his experience, culture and of his presence-in- the-world, and how he makes sense of nature and his understanding of the world. What are today the areas of possible interdisciplinary re-conciliation between the ideal of philosophy, religion and science as differential modes expression of our understanding of reality as such?

From Plato to Aristotle, from Augustine to Aquinas from Pascal to Freud and Heidegger the world and philosophical thought has continually interpreted the human nature, the source of morality and religion, specifically what we call (metaphysics). Man of antiquity, the medieval, modern and contemporary has his attitude towards the sacred. But what is happening with the man of our age, what relation does it have nowadays with the sacred, what is his attitude and what are the reasons for this relationship with the sacred. All the above are part of this scientific research paper. To give readers an overview of attitudes of philosophical thought of different times in front of the sacred, what are its meanings at different times and how is the attitude toward the sacred today. Descriptive analysis of the philosophical and religious issues.

The aim of this paper is to examine the complex relations between philosophy and practical wisdom, and to show how religious (in particular the Christian) traditions are exemplars of this kind of wisdom. Following Nussbaum’s analysis of Aristotle’s idea of practical wisdom, the first section defines wisdom as a life-orientating kind of knowledge. This means that practical wisdom is always about the ultimate particular (human) fact, yet without forgetting the importance of the universal rule. In the second section, the specific turn of modern philosophy and its fateful consequences for practical wisdom will be discussed, resulting in the insight that the claim of modern philosophy to offer humankind true wisdom has failed. The reason for this lies in the fact that modern philosophy tended to define wisdom exclusively in terms of scientific knowledge, thus depriving practical wisdom of its inevitable fragile character. Kant’s diverging approaches of wisdom, namely as scientifically objective versus morally subjective, serves as an illustration of the problematic nature of modern philosophy’s relation to practical wisdom. The third section discusses, from a systematic perspective, how philosophy can reconnect with practical wisdom. Following Ricoeur, practical wisdom consists in the capacity for discerning the right rule in difficult situations requiring action. The exercise of this virtue is inseparable from the personal quality of the wise human being. The need for practical wisdom arises when the universalism of moral principles is confronted with the recognition of the positive values belonging to the (particular) historical and communitarian (religious and secular) contexts of the realization of these rules. Therefore, practical wisdom is fragile, always open to reconsideration, so that it can never propose, let alone impose one single response to people’s quest for a truthful life orientation. The final section analyzes how this idea of practical wisdom is realized in a specific element of the Christian tradition of faith, namely Catholic social teaching. In order to actualize the fundamental (Christian) value of justice in the lives of people here and now, this teaching does not opt for a uniform top down model, but rather for a dialogue with those who take her moral guidelines to heart, and look for ways to put them into practice in various societal contexts.

Some reflections about theology, science and philosophy as modes of rationality I. MULTIPLE RATIONALITIES AND METHODS One thing is as sure as death and taxes: theology, philosophy and sciences are all rational disciplines. They all ask questions and try to answer them; they look for explanations; they forge and use concepts, reasonings and specific languages; they use methods. But each of them is rational in its own way. I would like here to distinguish between two kinds of discourse: first, the discourse of sciences and technology, which is usually formal or can be formalized, and aims at an operation oriented description of the world, i.e. a description which can give rise to acting on it. The second kind deals with art, religions, myths, and so on: it was present at the dawn of humanity and is still there in our technological age. Let's call this kind of discourse " meaningful discourse " because it conveys questions and reflections on the meaning of life, on man's place in the cosmos, and the reasons why things are as they are. Scientific and technological discourse implements its own method, usually called " scientific method " ; it implies scientific objectivity (the individual subject with his emotions and peculiarities is set aside for the sake of universality and axiological neutrality), and the studied object's determinate limits; each science investigates a field of its own and loses its relevance within other fields of reality. Science is also critical in the sense that it uses arguments to sustain its theses, and those arguments may always be contested by others; objections have to be taken into account and answered. Finally, as already mentioned, a science's discourse aims at some kind of action on reality. Contrastingly, meaningful discourse is open to reality as a whole: asking for the meaning of things is to consider reality as a whole and, by the way, include oneself in the issue; scientific objectivity is definitely irrelevant here. There is no need here for critical arguments either: meaningful discourses usually proceed from simple assertions which are alleged to stand on their own and by the light they shed on certain complicated or difficult questions. Their aims are various: creation of art works, justification of rites and ethical habits, elucidation of enigmatic situations, arousing the emotions, and so on. II. ARTICULATION OF BOTH KINDS OF DISCOURSE. THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY Now the question, especially today, is: how to hold together and articulate these two kinds of discourse, because, as we can see, they don't share many properties save the fact of being rational? Since the 18th century, scientific and technological discourse has gone from strength to strength and even now, in one sense, has the upper hand, but 'meaningful discourse' remains very important for man is always seeking answers to urgent existential issues.

The emerging of new practices in the domain of philosophy, motivated by the desire to philosophize, which is expressed by the wider public since a few years, leads us to ponder the nature of this philosophizing, perhaps, in part, to answer those who question the legitimacy of this recent popularization of the philosophical impulse. In order to better capture its manifold manifestations, the present work will approach this new phenomenon from various angles: from the angle of the attitudes, as astonishment or radicality (fundamentalism), for example; also, from the angle of the skills involved therein, like analysis or argumentation, or again like problematization and conceptualization. But, we will also discuss about dialectic, intuition, philosophical consultation and so on.

As an introduction to the case studies collected in the current special issue, this review article provides a brief, and by no means exhaustive, overview of research that proves to be relevant to the development of a concept of an aesthetics of knowledge in the academic study of religion and in science and technology studies. Finally, it briefly discusses recent work explicitly addressing the aesthetic entangle-ment of science and religion.

The article observes the role and significance of philosophical wisdom in the formation of person's worldview. It is also demonstrates the efficient ways of its usage, methods and conditions. It is noted that throughout ages Philosophy has mainly been studying the imagination, logic and abstract thinking of humans where the formation of personality is determined in its subjective existence. It is not secret that each phase of the development of civilization dictates new approaches and ideas, opinions and beliefs, values and standards, in other words, a new philosophy of life and being. Such transformations lead to the change of human being, to the modernization of his image and to the adaptation of a person to current demands. However, as a result of research and comparative analysis, we have come to the conclusion that, in spite of change in the mode of life and activities of a person, the main components characterizing the essence of a person remain unchanged. Among these comp...