Varese – the relationship between science and faith - or, if you prefer, between science and religion – is one of the major themes of contemporary thought. Not only contribute to the debate philosophers, as many believe, but also scientists. Are aware of the many works that Albert Einstein wrote about. Numerous, however, well as scientists of our time reflecting on the topic by proposing solutions of various types but, anyhow, interesting. Paul Musso, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Insubria, provides a summary of the debate in a book published by Edizioni Mimesis: "Science and the idea of reason. Knowledge, philosophy and religion from Galileo to the holes blacks and beyond ". The author frames the issue in the broader context of our knowledge of the natural, emphasizing at the outset that this is not the only kind of knowledge that we have. The controversy over this statement is still wide open. It can first be noted that not only are there different kinds of scientific knowledge, but also knowledge that protrude from the scope of science. Who supports a similar position is often accused of not properly distinguish between the cognitive process and the mere expression of subjective feelings. And, to understand why the opposition occurs above, you need some brief history. He was of the opinion positivists of the last century that modern science had occupied the entire field of knowledge, including those spaces that, traditionally, were reserved to the philosophy. The scientific spirit was therefore transferred without hesitation in the philosophical and, in this regard, the Viennese Moritz Schlick said that a philosopher who knew nothing philosophy was like "a knife blade without handle and without". By that he meant that the philosopher had to be an expert in at least one scientific discipline if he wanted to talk with a sense of utter. Only in science gives true knowledge, and statements of philosophy and religion (but also ethics) are nothing more than meaningless utterances. The positivists, therefore, attribute value only to those analytical and empirical statements of logic and mathematics. Knowledge is only one empirical, based on the immediate data, and the scientific conception of the world is characterized by the method of logical analysis. A key role is carried out, within this vision, by modern formal logic (o matematica) because with its help you can get the utmost rigor in the definitions and assertions in; using it, also, you can formalize the intuitive inferential processes that are of common language, translating this into a form automatically controlled through the mechanism of the symbols. Musso note that these theories are based on an assumption rather strong background in, according to which only science has the character of objectivity, while all the other manifestations of human culture would be subjective. Or, to put it in an even more radical, Science is the only rational, while other forms that can take our culture would be irrational. Ne gets, according to the author, the emergence of the "disease of the century", namely the inability to understand the meaning and role of the feeling, "And this, paradoxically, at the very moment in which it is exalted as perhaps has never happened in any other era of human history ". The reason is conceived as a cold calculation capacity, closed in on itself, while the feeling is reduced to pure reactivity of the instant. It can not be so if it is recalled that enhances the feeling the reason instead of diminishing it. And this is important when addressing the issue of relations between science and faith. Einstein himself said that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ". The great physicist was not referring to any particular religious faith, but intended to emphasize that the surprise experienced by each of us, given the complexity and beauty of the world around us can not be reduced to a mere matter of calculation. Note that Galileo himself to the study of self-restraint "affections" applied only to the case of "natural substances", which means for the experimental science. The author rightly notes that "this not only does not exclude, but on the contrary, guarantees that others are also possible forms of knowledge, as it means, note, that experimental science does not deal with the whole experience, but only a part of it ". The religious quest is, at bottom, the attempt to discover the "sense of the whole", to answer the question about the meaning of everything that exists. Of course, if you find an answer to this question, it should not be imposed on those who have opinions different from our own, but - as far as possible - Shared. It involves sharing, again, finding the right balance between reason and feeling.