roozbeh zare

The issue of this article is to introduce the general field of science and religion and explain its importance. For this purpose, after defining the desired meanings for "science", "religion" and "theology", we address the question "Why does theology relate to science?". After that, we will describe the various stages that non-sensory knowledge will enter into the process of scientific theorizing, and in this section, we will refer to some of the accepted theses of the philosophy of science of the second half of the 20th century. Then, we will define naturalism and show its place as one of the irreplaceable foundations of the modern experimental science, and we will depict the theological consequences of its acceptance. Finally, looking at the contrast of naturalism with theism on the one hand and the falseness of naturalism on the other hand, we will establish the necessity of a monotheistic worldview in the process of understanding nature.

Faitheists consider faith to be self-founded and based on internal components, which derives its validity from sources of knowledge other than reason. Whether faith does not need reason or is in conflict with reason, or whether the epistemological and metaphysical domains of faith and reason are separate. C. S. Lewis proposes another kind of faithism, according to which, although faith is rational based on rational reasoning in the first step, after the realization of faith and person’s devotion to God, he no longer is not interested in reason and evidence against faith, and is right in this matter; Because there, one should listen to the unseen and faith is no longer a part of scientific issues which scientist must always be aware of the agreeable or opposed evidence. The most important challenge of this approach in escape from reason of faith is the failure to explain the two stages of faith, and it is not clear what the essential and existential relationship between faith based on reason and faith based on stubbornness. If the truth of faith is the belief based on rationality, the faith of the second stage does not have an independent truth. If the truth of faith is disregarding the opposite evidence, then its initial rationality is meaningless. This article seeks to explain and analyze Lewis's point of view by rereading his foundations and claims. This research is organized in a descriptive-analytical way and based on the analysis of the theory's internal coherence and its consistency with previous philosophical foundations.

Natural theology has entered a new phase in the contemporary period and empirical evidence or explanatory gaps of the new natural sciences take a significant role in this project. On the other hand, Theism has been wounded by a strategy in which the epistemological unknowns were argued in favour of the existence of God (God of the Gaps). In this article, the problems faced by the strategy of the god of the gaps and their proposed solutions are reviewed, and accordingly, two points have been declared: 1) Separation of boundary or limit questions from scientific questions are recognized and accepted, then a criterion is provided for this distinction based on the definition of Muslim philosophers for philosophical statements. 2) The activity of supernatural agents, including God, is comprehensively portrayed from the perspective of Islamic wisdom, and based on it, both the contemporary natural theology and its rival project (naturalism) have been rejected.

Modern science has a unique and undeniable role in the formation of a new western civilization. The success of this modern type of human inquiry in solving epistemological problems within the scope of its subject matter and its practical achievements in improving many aspects of human life gradually led to the formation of a doctrine that seeks to extend the boundaries of science and the scientific method to other fields of human knowledge or other aspects of human life. This doctrine is called "scientism".

The purpose of this article is to introduce a clear picture or conceptual schema of the doctrine of scientism, distinguish its different types clearly and ultimately propose an integrated or comprehensive version of that doctrine. It is claimed that this task only could be done completely by showing the relation of scientism with other related concepts. These concepts together make a family resemblance through which the claim of scientism could be understood rightly. So some other doctrine like Naturalism, Physicalism, Materialism, Reductionism, and Mechanism is also described briefly and finally focused on the synthesis of epistemic scientism and methodological naturalism.

According to the close correlation between scientism and the modern notion of science, this paper begins with the history of the generation and development of the idea of scientism and traces it back to the 17th century when modern science was generated. Then different types of scientism are formulated and the discussion of the types of scientism was ended up with a comprehensive definition. Epistemic scientism is declared as the comprehensive notion of scientism which claims that any true knowledge or genuine explanation should be gained through the method of science. In the next step, the main concepts related to this doctrine are listed and the similarities between them are stated, finally, naturalism proposes as the most important and modified version of the idea lies behind all these related concepts. So naturalism is analyzed carefully and the two branches of naturalism (i.e. Methodological Naturalism and Ontological or Metaphysical Naturalism) are distinguished and discussed. It is claimed that the hardcore scientific method is restricted by methodological naturalism that states the neutrality of scientific explanation according to supernatural entities. Methodological Naturalism takes the role of the regulatory principle for the scientific method.

it is summed up that scientism leads to impermissible expansion of science and cannot also make a suitable justification for science itself. Naturalism also ends up with an incomplete explanation for natural phenomena. The synthesis of scientism and naturalism also implies atheism and cannot be compatible with the theistic worldview. Also, we should not equate modern science and empirical knowledge or sense data. Modern science is a modified system that is based on some philosophical premises like naturalism. These premises are given a priory and as a dogma that also challenges the position of empirical knowledge.

The main issue of this article is how to harmonize determinism and moral responsibility (the classic problem of free will) by reconsidering the philosophy of Avicenna. Certainly, Avicenna believes in determinism and in various works has emphasized the necessity of the effect by its sufficient cause. Avicenna, on the other hand, certainly believes in the moral responsibility of autonomous agents, including human beings. We have shown in the first step that he denies free will in the libertarian sense (the ability to do otherwise) for any agents; Because this notion of free will requires objective possibilities and is not compatible with causal determinism. Avicenna has identified a new type of voluntary agent who does not need to have an over-intentional intention to do something. Here, he looks very similar to proponents of agent causation; His idea, however, was not intended to defend a libertarian notion of free will, but to get rid of the challenge of the infinite regress of wills. Hence, Avicenna can be considered one of the few proponents of the "compatibilist agent causation." In the second step, an overview of Avicenna's theory of action is drawn. Here, in particular, emphasis is placed on the activity of the soul in the stages of the causal process leading to action, and the quality of these activities is introduced as a criterion for the morality degree of the agent..

The theory of evolution gave rise to various philosophical and religious oppositions from the very onset. The conventional modern interpretation of this theory is also regarded in opposition to theism. Naturally, some attempts have been made, since the emergence of this theory, to show the consistency or inconsistency of the claims of this theory with religious doctrines. Elliot Sober, the prominent contemporary biological philosopher, has offered a novel account of the relationship of the evolution theory and theism. He attempts to show the presumptive nature of that theory and prove its consistency with the existence of the hidden determining factors (including God) on the one hand, and investigate the relationship between the claim of unguided nature of the biological mutations and theism on the other hand. The final achievement of his investigations is that the evolution theory is neutral regarding the theistic claims and thus observes the naturalistic methodological rules. In this article, we have expounded Sober’s position and have finally evaluated it. It seems that the image he presents of the unguided nature of evolution based on empirical evidences is incomplete, and he has unduly been transferred from unguided mutations to unguided evolution.

In contemporary analytic philosophy, the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) has been attacked due to its controversial results. Among these results, necessarianism (modal collapse) is the most significant one. Indeed, our intuition indicates that there are some things around us which are contingent which means that they could be in another way. Accepting the PSR seems to conflict with this common intuition; if all things have a sufficient reason, is it possible to have contingency or would all things be necessary? In response to this problem, several answers have been presented which we will recount briefly in this paper , nevertheless the main points that we have emphasized in this paper are: 1. explaining the problem of necessarianism based on the text of one of the pioneer thinkers in this regard (Van Inwagen) who refuted the principle and 2. an answer to this problem from one of the most important researchers on the issue (Pruss) who tries to solve the problem by denying causal necessity. Finally, we examine the solution of Muslim philosophers especially Ibn-Sina (Avicenna) who solved the problem without refuting causal necessity.

Usually, an explanation regarded as the answer to Why questions and therefore the ultimate explanation is to be the answer to the question of “why there is anything rather than nothing?”. In this article after clarifying the notion of explanation and ultimate explanation, first of all, the rational role of seeking for ultimate explanation is confirmed and then argued that an ultimate explanation, by principle, never obtained in the realm of scientific explanations. Scientific explanations, although fruitful and inevitable, deal with contingency and this remains the intelligible question of why there is so. Demanding an ultimate explanation can only be satisfied in the realm of metaphysics, as the ultimate question is also a metaphysical question. The most acceptable kind of such an explanation is to explain contingency with necessity. During the process of this article, the focus is on O'Connor’s ideas and his thoughts are described and analyzed through the investigation of the problem of ultimate explanation. We found some useful ideas in O’Connor’s approach especially his treatment with the problem of ultimate explanation and using it as a proof for God existence regarded as a kind of Leibnizian cosmological argument. But his special notion of agent causation that he uses to conquest the objection of modal collapse doesn't seem to be acceptable.

Intelligent Design (ID) is an attempt to defend the idea that the order of nature bears marks of its Creator. This image of the concept has a historical root in ancient Greek philosophy. ID argues that science and theology support each other, when they are rightly understood. Under the influence of investigations of modern sciences –especially biology and cosmology- ID became the most serious battle in contemporary debates between theists and atheists. In this article, after an introduction for describing ID in general, Sober’s view point on the subject is described and criticized. Sober’s main claim is that ID is not testable and so should be rejected from scientific enterprise. In this article, we show that (1) his notion of testability is not complete and (2) ID can satisfy the testability criterion with some considerations. Sober's critics mainly underlie his notion of designer (divine) intervention in nature. The first response of this article is not only a deductive proof for ID, but also a critique of methodological naturalism.

The temporality of the world is a historical issue which has been considered by philosophers and theosophists. This matter in Islamic thought, because of its relation to religious contents, has been attractive issue as if it leads to several viewpoints among Muslim thinkers throughout the Islamic history and has been discussed in the philosophy, mysticism and theology.Mulla Sadra has accepted main streamlines of his ancestors’ doctrine at once; he has delivered a creative doctrine on temporality of the world by his doctrine of substantial motion. Moreover, Tabatabaei has twofold perspective on the subject in question. He has accepted Mulla Sadra’s doctrine on renewal origination of all segments of the world, on the one hand, and contrary to Mulla Sadra, he believes in temporality of the world as a whole, on the other hand. At this paper after some introduction, we have explained Mulla Sadra and Tabatabaei’s Ideas on temporality of the natural world and evaluated their thought.

Realism and Anti-Realism debate is one of the philosophical problems that remain prominent during the history of human''s thought. The discussion of this issue reaches to new and varied forms under the light of contemporary branches of philosophy especially second order philosophies. In philosophy of science، this debate is discussed in a narrow especial sense that entails some various discussions. In this article، Kosso''s innovative thesis of «Realistic Realism» is described and criticized.

The well-known American philosopher and theologian، William Lane Craig has been known as the reviver of a particular cosmological argument which he calls «Kalam cosmological argument». The main part of this argument is that the universe has some temporal beginning (temporal origination). To prove this important premise of his argument، Craig appeals to four reasons two of which are a priori (philosophical) and two others are a posteriori (scientific). In the present article، after depicting the beginning of the universe as Craig thinks، one of his a priori arguments for this claim is introduced and assessed. Finally، the article comes to the conclusion that، though Craig''s picture of the beginning of the universe is consistent and coherent، it is not able to prove that such a picture may be realized in the external world.