Social cognition can be based on two contrary axioms that answer the question of whether the society can provide for the universal survival of all of its members. The positive answer (absolutist, progressivist model of society) does not allow to scientifically explain the social life in all of the diversity of its contradictions: egoism, greed, violence, aggression and other negative phenomena are explained in this case by some inborn qualities of man, which are associated with overcoming the desire for the realization of humanitarian ideals.

Negative answer (relativist model of society) is more productive methodologically. The key notion here is the technosocial formula of society, the physical meaning of which is that the society as an aggregate of people needs bigger vital space than it can create, it needs bigger amount of vital resources than people are able to produce, the mass of lives lived through needs greater mass of lives spent. Relativistic model of society can be explained in terms of social life from the position of scientific rationality, but there are no objective grounds for the implementation of humanistic ideals in it.

The widely known formula of life says that the quantity of organisms is determined by the amount of food resources in their environment and it can not exceed the level of balance which is absolute. Society’s existence in its environment can also be described as a functioning and development of some organic system which maintains its existence by the consumption of the outer resources. So the mass of this system is limited by the mass of the available resources and changes together with it within the critical points of maximum and minimum. But, different from natural aggregations of living organisms, with the help of technics the society makes the use of the environment universal, permanently increases the resources and provides for its growing reproduction, constantly overcoming the maximum level, determined by the technological way of life.

Man managed to overcome the borders of natural balance when with help of technics he acquired additional means of survival beyond those given by the nature and thus increased his quantity in the same environment. His life activity is performed within the limits of production-natural balance, which develops from one level to another. On each stage of material and technical development the humankind reaches the utmost level of production and in order to survive has to switch to the use of a radically new resources base. At the same time the total mass of live labour which is spent to carry out the process of production is forestalling and thus the total mass of the produced means of life is not able to fill the required volume of consumption even in its average form in an equalizing variant of destribution: the mass of the mens of life always stays smaller compared to the mass that could provide for the survival of all of the participants of the production. Material and technical development allows the absolute growth of production of the means of life and the growth of population but under no circumstances it can overcome the effect of the given technosocial formula.

The technics of the period of primitive savagery, represented by the primitive manual tools, was, according to K.Marx’s picturesque description, an organ of human activity given by the nature itself, an organ which he attached to other organs of his body adding to their natural length. It allowed the man to broaden the ecological niche of his existence but it could not ensure the way out of the natural balance limits. The radical difference between the man and the animal here is that people, armed by technics, obtained resources not only directly from nature, but they did it also by capturing the resources, obtained by other people.The growth of man in nature was the result not only of the supplanting of other species but also of the intraspecific struggle which became the main factor of the development process.

The coming of the age of civilization manifested itself by the creation of the technics which allowed the man to universally use the environment as a source of means of his existence and thus to overcome the limits of natural balance. But in as much as the labour’s effectiveness is primordially negative when the expenditure of the labour force is higher than the produced effect, the conquest of nature is insufficient for the implementation of the production process, the conquest of the other man’s forces is necessary, when he is transformed into the talking tool only. The qualitative difference between the civilized society technics and the primitive technics is that the first allows to transform another man into the means of one’s expedient activity, to use him as a labour force given by the nature itself. Correspondingly, the entire technical history of civilization is characterized by the ambivalent relation of man towards the technics, which is manifested by the social division of people when some regard the technics as a means of life and their own development, while others serve as its living appendage, allowed to develop within the limits of the their performance of the prescribed to them certain technoservice function.

The main social relation of domination and submission, the existence of people in means-aids relation towards one another makes just as an important condition of material production as technics – these are equal and indissolubly connected aspects of the production process. This given social relation of “ends and means” does not, all by itself, as it is, depend on the level of material and technical development and remains the basic element of any social system. Only its historical forms change in the process of technical progress. As for the social revolutions, they come to the redistribution of positions in social differentiation, while not being able to eliminate it in principle.

So, the life beyond the limits of natural balance is an essential attribute of man as a special natural creature. Whether he uses electricity or lives with candles, travels by airplane or moves in carts, fights with firearms or “manually”, keeps the worker with the help of an iron collar or uses the salary to tie him to his workplace, - all this doesn’t indicate the human being proper and the criterion of social progress. Stability, the reserve of the survival assurance – this is the main indication for the mankind as a whole, there cannot be any value judgements here since the safe life is possible only on the basis of the disorganization of another life.

In accordance with the technosocial formula in society there are no objectively given norms of truth, good, beauty, as well as the the contrary to them lie, evil and ugliness, i.e. there is nothing else in society other than peole living together and fighting with each other. Their intellect and reason are only means of survival, which in the process of struggle creates a myth about the essence of reason as it is, of reason all by itself – whether it is an objectively existing absolute or some existential of subjective reality.

By birth each man has a right of life but the survival resources are not enough for everyone, not everybody can find his place in the survival space, someone turns out excessive since the people need bigger living space than the one that they are able to create. There is a total mass of life, on the one hand, and the total claim for life – on the other; the mass of life claimed exceeds the life granted. In other words there is a constant need for greater mass of life resources than the mass that people can produce. So the declared right of life means nothing else than the right of struggle with another life and thus it loses its status of right.

When the interaction of society and nature reached its allplanetary limit, the absolutist approach in estimation of social progress came to its end. This approach is based on the belief that mankind is able to provide for such harmonious state when the hunger, inequality, wars and different human vices will be eliminated, when unlimited possibilities to perfect the human being will be worked out and etc. This belief is based on the assumption of the unlimited material and technical development, progressing into the indefinite future. And now the humankind has reached the limit in the possibility of that ceaseless growth it has been used to and with which it has connected the progressivist ideas while all the mentioned above and similar problems are not eliminated and has become more acute.

The criterion of social progress, which cannot be expressed either in the type of the technics, or in the form of social organization, or in the volume of knowledge and spiritual striving, is reduced in the end to only one index – the ability of society’s survival and it doesn’t have any absolute value in space and time. In its turn, there is always a possibility to lose this ability in social development and this constitutes the integral contents of social risk.

Thus, the problem of realization of humanistic ideals in the absolutist model of society is reduced to the problem of understanding and alignment of the contractual relationship, but it is not beyond the scope of social utopias. In the relativistic model humanistic ideals belong to the mythological consciousness and are included in the ideological sphere as a means of struggle for survival. Religion is the universal general historical form of mythological consciousness.

With regard to the explanation of the nature science and religion are opposite to the original methodology. Science connects nature with the presence of natural laws, and rejects any spiritual, volitional acting start in objective reality. Religion, by contrast, proclaims the existence of objectively existing supernatural force, which determines the order, the harmony of life.

However, in terms of epistemology contrast between science and religion is relative because of the historical relativity of truth itself, regardless of its ideological affiliation. In other words, neither science nor religion can provide absolute reliability of their statements and require a prior recognition of certain basic assumptions. Scientism, signifying nothing but faith in science, finds its negation in antistsientizme, i.e. in undermining that belief. History demonstrates the change of the object and the nature of faith, but also finds it irresistible.

As for interpretation of the human way of life, and above all, spirituality, human existentiality, i.e. interpretation of man as “overnature” being, science and religion are equal. Moreover, religion is more active and productive, since it not only explains human life, but also sets the positive practical normativity, for instance, in the form of commandments, while the science is not able to offer neither one nor the other. There are no natural explanations of human existence as a human way of existence of a living. Science has nothing to do here, it does not try to explain sense-of-life function of the human being, but denies it and does not impose preach on man, while staying within the framework of pure rationality, which explains the natural foundation of life. Unlike international science religion does not show the way to universal brotherhood in its leading urge of their initiation to the Divine grace. It is always confined to the election, beyond which people who are not covered by this framework don’t have the right to human life.

Consequently, speaking about the man science and religion are not an alternative antipodes. On one hand, they opposed the fact that science does not give people any hope of eternal life, any freedom from fear of death, does not specify the meaning of life as an infinitely small moment in the face of eternity, full of empty vanity and suffering. But religion gives enough of it, moreover, it frees man from the ultimate responsibility for his sin, taken by God to himself. Nevertheless, the belief in the omnipotence of science, in fact, coincides with religious faith: the achievement of grace is postponed for the indefinite future, at a "later" when the eternal grace will be "out there". Moreover, science and religion interact and complement each other as a kind of division of labour in the uncompromising struggle for human existence. Religion stands for friends and foes, science provides the means of fighting for them.

In the new social reality technosocial formula of society has become clear. According to this formula social production, regardless of the level of development, in principle, can not provide for universal human survival, this results in violent nature and availability of social relations "purpose - means" as a fundamental social relations. This formula is not derived as a result of scientific research, it is a purely philosophical ontological product, which gives science methodology of research of social life and rational worldview scheme to religion which allows to become free from naive arguments about the normativity of human life. In particular, the technosocial formula perfectly fits the concept of original sin, redemption, repentance, sacrifice, etc. It offers equal opportunities to science, religion and philosophy in the construction of explanatory models of man.

Interpretation of the Bible in the context of the tehnosocial formula: punish human with labour (in your own sweat) and uncompromising struggle against the ones like you for existence, ultimately without having, no higher purpose or meaning, except for the very existence as such. Man paid this for his human way of life, i.e. for withdrawal from the natural balance of nature on the basis of knowledge, for the acquisition of the knowledge and pride, which is expressed in a desire to cover with his knowledge and transform the surrounding world, to subdue nature. It turns out that the primeval paradise is nothing but natural life of people in their primitive existence. Doom of f man to work is associated with its transition to civilization, producing way of life. Thus, original sin consists of the trial to break out of the natural balance of nature, the punishment for which has become the final positive outcome of the work.

It's one thing when you do not explain the meaning of the material existence of a man in frames of abstract progressivists absolutist approach, which propose the absence of borders expansion of material life and the achievement of a hypothetical communism, when everything is available to everyone, but it does not exceed its infinite smallness in the face of an infinitely large universe. It is another thing when in the context of the tehnosocial formula material life of man can not take place outside of the fight against their own kind, without making one person means of existence of another person, when the meaning of life is seen not just in life itself, but in the endless uncompromising struggle for it, the meaning of which can not explained by the very fact that life itself is meaningless. Religion does not explain human existence, it only justifies and calls for his resignation from the hopelessness of their existence.

When we feel the activity of techosocial formula it means that we have lost the last absolute, which was the last support of people when they had something to believe in, to rely on and to love. At first science displaced God from consciousness as well as the model of global saving. After that having rejected the idea of perpetum mobile it failed to provide global survival. God died. Science deceived people. And they were left alone in front of nature the only objective reality. And the condition is that in this coexistence one life is always an instrument of the other one.

Admission or rejection of God existence is just two different models of being. The historical necessity of religious formalization of social life comes not from abstract issues in admission or rejection of God but from practical social struggle. Social interests struggle is just a fight for survival which id intransigent and as a result absolute. It doesn’t have rational grounding and needs support in the form of ideological absolute which is global as the fight for survival itself. A struggle for your God is a struggle for your exceptional right to live and vice versa. A fight against strange God is justification of the fight against strange life.

There are neither true nor false ways of life in exceeding space of human being. There is only life itself which is valuable and has its own aim and sense. Different explanations of the world divide not into more or less true but into more or less effective as a way of survival. Who will answer the question - who is, or what man? The scientist, theologian or a philosopher? What is the beginning of man - his nature or essence? Science highlights the nature of man, his existence, and the essence cannot be understood by science, as it is not the existence, and it is experience of a person. It is no accident that theology says about the metaphysical nature of man, which is its essence.

Man has always been a mystery to himself. If you stay within the absolutist progressivism, it will be an endless weaving of intellectual lace in the human understanding with the absence of common assumptions in its consideration, without reliable criteria of truth. We must go forward and make the initial ontological premise, off an aura of mystery to the man, and then solve the problem of its understanding. As a rational way to justify the existence of a living human is impossible, but to live together and build relationships you need to have some positive assumptions. Theology inevitably comes to the forefront. In other words, you should go forward away from the endless weaving of patterns of ways searching to given the being, to solving the problems of unity of people.

The unity of science and religion means the socially constructed unity of the rational and mystical in relation to man, because without the sound (now Research) it is impossible to ensure the material existence, and without the mythological, which inevitably acquires mystical form, you can’t identify targets of human life and, consequently, it is impossible to have the motivation, the driving force of individual and social development.

Nevertheless, science was originally characterized by the unity of world view, culture is also increasingly internationalized and is close to unity, religions remain divided (churches as social institutions that define the forms of social organization), these are spheres of ideological struggle for the existence of communities. This is not an abstract question, either academics or practical engineer cannot stay away from this question.

In the boundless space of human existence there is no truth, nor the wrong direction of life, but there is only life itself, which is a value in itself and in itself contains the meaning and purpose. Various forms of explanation of the world are not divided into more or less true, but on a more or less effective as a means of survival.

The man, who understands the action tehnosocial formula is incapable of a particular action, even in the professed desire to turn people into means of its own existence, has no rational justification, it is futile and meaningless. It is impossible to rationally justify based purposeful. It is impossible to explain purpose and active living position. A person is active only in myth without reference to means of his formation in public or private consciousness whether it is psychotherapy, influence of hallucinogen, church exhortation or a speech of a leader. Any faith is irrational but it provides the exploration of human activity. The absence of faith determines the absence of will to live as without spiritual part the will of an organism is blind. Combination of strong faith and strong will gives us purposeful active personality.