The corner stone of contemporary science is proposed to be a Darwinism that works at all scales, with different symbols at different scales. This Darwinism is then proposed to be compatible with transcendental beliefs about God in agreement with the High Middle Ages Scholastic perspective where God is expected to be found also in Nature. Thus, this work shows that belief in God agrees quite well with contemporary science, without contemporary science specifically having a clear favoring of some religions over others. Rather, multiple religions are indicated here to have the capacity for a mutually beneficial dialogue with contemporary science. The first aspect of this work is to describe how free-will's existence is compatible with both contemporary science and the philosophic requirements. Next, we assess how the existence of free-will makes possible an objective definition of mental-health using the concept of Information that agrees with contemporary psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. The existence of free-will uses the fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics as one of its supporting pillars and the concept of God at a cosmological level is important across many religious traditions, thus it is important to assess Darwinism at the most fundamental level, that of Quantum Field Theory, which is done and where it is described a Darwinian approach for obtaining the space-time curvature, meaning gravity, as a consequence of the quantum fields establishing Information communication. The impossibility of finite amounts of Information simultaneously satisfying the completeness and consistency requirements of non-trivial axiomatic systems has direct consequences for the establishment of both economical and religious systems, hence the Enlightenment's expectation for the future triumph of Reason becomes void, as in most realistic circumstances the definition of the adequate option for value-maximization is both undecidable and subjective.
This work is thus a proposal that the Enlightenment perspective is obsolete since because the dynamics found in the Universe are beyond what Reason allows. A natural consequence of Kant's Enlightenment is that the deterministic causality is identical with Reason, hence only deterministic causality is reasonable. It is thus expected that defenders of the Enlightenment such as Bertrand Russel, David Hilbert and Albert Einstein would confront those who show its intrinsic flaws; respectively; Ludwig Wittgenstein, Kurt Gödel and Niels Bohr. But in the long run, it was the latter group that was vindicated, and it is that latter group that is highlighted in this work. Moreover, even in the pre-Enlightenment period when Isaac Newton's determinism was being counter-argued by Gottfried Leibniz's work on causation through Information acceptance, it is the latter's work that is highlighted here as it is increasingly being contemporarily vindicated because of its perspective on both system's complexity and evolutionary computation.
Following the perspective that the Enlightenment is obsolete allows the search for a balance between Ethics and the Universe that goes beyond the shackles of determinism, but because of the influence Plato/Aristotle's philosophy had in the High Middle Ages' Scholasticism, the Scholasticism's dependence on the Logical determinism of Plato/Aristotle implies that if we are to move beyond determinism, we need to also move beyond the constraints posed in Christian thought by such deterministic aspect of Scholasticism. This is what is aimed at in this work with the proposal of a statistical approach to Ethics, which although it is a new approach it has strong historical support in the writings of both ancient Christianity and ancient Buddhism.Finally, I make a brief description of how such a balance between science and religion affects my life.