Enrique Moros, professor at the School Ecclesiastic of PhilosophyEnrique Moros, professor at the Ecclesiastical University of Madrid, has given the seminar 'Can the Philosophy be a natural science? On the project of naturalization of the Philosophy'. The activity has been organized by the group of research 'Science, Reason and Faith' (CRYF).

Professor Moros presented Alvin Plantinga's argument that sample the irrationality of naturalism associated with evolutionism: "If the only function of human Schools is survival and reproduction, then the same doubt that distressed Darwin may arise in us: how can we trust our cognitive Schools if they come from those of apes? And the fact is that we cannot.

In this sense, he affirmed that if naturalism is maintained "we fall into a self-contradiction when affirming any theory that pretends to be knowledge true of reality".

"But the naturalism to which this argument makes reference letter is not that of the methodology of the natural sciences, but that which holds that the natural sciences provide a complete explanation of all forms of existence and that there is no aspect of human existence - the self, knowledge or freedom - that transcends the methods and explanations of the biological sciences," he said.

The uniqueness of man

On the other hand, he indicated that culture today presents "a contradiction in our own image: on the one hand, we are authentic animals who have nothing special in relation to others, but on the other hand, we have the obligation to treat everyone well, to progress the world, to make it more humane.

"Now then," he continued, "if we are only animals one can know nothing about what it all means. You don't even know what it might consist of to have some subject of responsibility."

For Professor Moros, core topic is the uniqueness of man: "Some argue that we are just another animal. Others think that what is unique about human beings is not exactly natural, that biology can study, but that it is natural for us to be rational: to give and ask for reasons and that the reasons we give and ask for are true or false and what we do with them is good or bad and that confers on us a responsibility or a guilt".

Finally, the professor of the School Ecclesiastical Philosophy indicated that science has nothing to do with these questions and that, in reality, it is a cultural problem. "The culture in which we live is not capable of assimilating for itself the human features of authentic science, nor is it capable of keeping pace with the constant development of its contents. For the culture, science is generally that which has already been discarded - that which perhaps was science the day before yesterday - or the promises of that which has not yet been achieved."

Thus, he stressed that in order for "culture to be more sensible and to take into account more and more scientific experience and advances in science, it must be more philosophical, it must invest more in Humanities".