IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 Islamic militarization by clarifying the role of social approach Islamic militarization by clarifying the role of social approach 1 24 2403 FA Mohammad Taabaan Ardeshir Shiri Mahdi Akbarnejad, Safoura Yousefian Journal Article 2016 10 06 The aim of this study was to assess and describe the Islamic militarization in the field of social. This method combines research was, qualitative study of qualitative content analysis and focus group and for the purpose of exploration_ Practical. Data gathered by the text and the interpretations of verses from the Holy Quran was. The study population consisted of eight people in the focus group of experts in the fields of management and Islamic jurisprudence, respectively.Findings: The content analysis utilizes the Quran was recognized early 483 code. After collecting the information, content analysis to extract and its components through select system components of the method of forming the final focus group was conducted. Islamic system components of the experts, in eight categories, including pervasive themes: Society has the right orbit, Social vision, Social spirituality, Ethical Communication, Social virtue, Consultation and participation-oriented, Meritocracy, transparency, selflessness and sacrifice is. Conclusion: After the formation of the focus group research model in terms of components: truth-oriented society, consultation and participation, meritocracy and transparency, the most important role in the militarization of social approach. The aim of this study was to assess and describe the Islamic militarization in the field of social. This method combines research was, qualitative study of qualitative content analysis and focus group and for the purpose of exploration_ Practical. Data gathered by the text and the interpretations of verses from the Holy Quran was. The study population consisted of eight people in the focus group of experts in the fields of management and Islamic jurisprudence, respectively.Findings: The content analysis utilizes the Quran was recognized early 483 code. After collecting the information, content analysis to extract and its components through select system components of the method of forming the final focus group was conducted. Islamic system components of the experts, in eight categories, including pervasive themes: Society has the right orbit, Social vision, Social spirituality, Ethical Communication, Social virtue, Consultation and participation-oriented, Meritocracy, transparency, selflessness and sacrifice is. Conclusion: After the formation of the focus group research model in terms of components: truth-oriented society, consultation and participation, meritocracy and transparency, the most important role in the militarization of social approach.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2403_3bc0497bfa8f9f3a5e4726564d7e87b9.pdf

IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 Philosophical analysis of Newberg’s view in Neurotheology )A model for relation between science and religion) Philosophical analysis of Newberg’s view in Neurotheology )A model for relation between science and religion) 25 42 2407 FA Ali Sanaee Journal Article 2016 08 14 Abstract Neurotheology as a research program try to represent a new possibility for integrating science and religion, in a manner that the autonomous and relative independence of science and religion will be maintained and none of them won’t reduced to each others. Newberg as a important figure of this field, want to determine the positive effects of religious beliefs and rituals on healthy of body and psyche. He suggests that the mystical experience is the root of all religions and want to determine the relation between every component of mystical experience with mechanisms of brain by integrating of phenomenology and neuroscience. Newberg claims that the neurotheology can show how the theological concepts was formed. By philosophical analysis I will be noticed that he despite his claims, reduce religion to science and this result in a contradiction in his view and on the other side, he is within the metaphysical discourse. Abstract Neurotheology as a research program try to represent a new possibility for integrating science and religion, in a manner that the autonomous and relative independence of science and religion will be maintained and none of them won’t reduced to each others. Newberg as a important figure of this field, want to determine the positive effects of religious beliefs and rituals on healthy of body and psyche. He suggests that the mystical experience is the root of all religions and want to determine the relation between every component of mystical experience with mechanisms of brain by integrating of phenomenology and neuroscience. Newberg claims that the neurotheology can show how the theological concepts was formed. By philosophical analysis I will be noticed that he despite his claims, reduce religion to science and this result in a contradiction in his view and on the other side, he is within the metaphysical discourse.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2407_49222d13230c59c4b658dfa9d95ac2c3.pdf

IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 نقد پلنتینگا بر تکامل‌باوری داوکینز نقد پلنتینگا بر تکامل‌باوری داوکینز 43 60 2409 FA Ali Sadeqi Morteza Fathizadeh Journal Article 2016 08 29 چکیده پس از آنکه در قرن هفدهم میلادی مدعای تعارض علم جدید و دین، در بستر مناقشات میان احکام نجوم جدید و آموزههای کتاب مقدس مسیحی، شکل گرفت، داروینیسمِ سربرآورده در قرن 19 جبهه جدیدی گشود و بر آتش تعارض در بسترمناقشه میان آفرینشگرایی، به منزله یکی از آموزههای اصلی کتاب مقدس مسیحی،و تکامل گرایی زیست شناختی دامن زد و مدعی شد که این آموزه دینی استحکام و اتقان علمی ندارد. ریچارد داوکینز، به عنوان یکی از مدافعان پر سر و صدای داروینیسم، نیروهای کور طبیعی را برای توضیح پیدایش انسان کافی دانست و به بینیازی از خدا حکم کرد. پلنتینگا، ضمن کوشش برای صورتبندی تکاملباوری، دو مدعای اصلی تکاملباوری، یعنی "تصادفی" بودن تکامل و همچنین مدعای منشأ مشترک، را به چالش میگیرد و تاکید می کند که نتایج مورد نظر تکاملباوران به طور خاص، و مدعیان تعارض علم و دین به طور عام، نه برعلم، بلکه بر پایه ترکیبی از علم و طبیعتگرایی متافیزیکی استوار است.اوافزوده طبیعتگرایی متافیزیکی به علم را نه پذیرفتنی میداند و نه ذاتی تبیینهای علمی،بلکه علم جدیدرا با باورهای دینی سازگارتر می پندارد. چکیده پس از آنکه در قرن هفدهم میلادی مدعای تعارض علم جدید و دین، در بستر مناقشات میان احکام نجوم جدید و آموزههای کتاب مقدس مسیحی، شکل گرفت، داروینیسمِ سربرآورده در قرن 19 جبهه جدیدی گشود و بر آتش تعارض در بسترمناقشه میان آفرینشگرایی، به منزله یکی از آموزههای اصلی کتاب مقدس مسیحی،و تکامل گرایی زیست شناختی دامن زد و مدعی شد که این آموزه دینی استحکام و اتقان علمی ندارد. ریچارد داوکینز، به عنوان یکی از مدافعان پر سر و صدای داروینیسم، نیروهای کور طبیعی را برای توضیح پیدایش انسان کافی دانست و به بینیازی از خدا حکم کرد. پلنتینگا، ضمن کوشش برای صورتبندی تکاملباوری، دو مدعای اصلی تکاملباوری، یعنی "تصادفی" بودن تکامل و همچنین مدعای منشأ مشترک، را به چالش میگیرد و تاکید می کند که نتایج مورد نظر تکاملباوران به طور خاص، و مدعیان تعارض علم و دین به طور عام، نه برعلم، بلکه بر پایه ترکیبی از علم و طبیعتگرایی متافیزیکی استوار است.اوافزوده طبیعتگرایی متافیزیکی به علم را نه پذیرفتنی میداند و نه ذاتی تبیینهای علمی،بلکه علم جدیدرا با باورهای دینی سازگارتر می پندارد.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2409_d1987ae6307fe082e5d1480cacdef4e7.pdf

IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 Leibniz’s Proof of the Existence of God Based on the Eternal Truths Leibniz’s Proof of the Existence of God Based on the Eternal Truths 61 78 2410 FA Ali Fath Taheri Journal Article 2016 10 29 Unlike Russell's assertion that Leibniz idea of God and his proof of God's existence is the weakest part of his philosophy, I believe that this part constitutes the most basic part of his philosophy. In his philosophical system without God nothing can exist or is possible to exist. Hence, proving the existence of God for him is a necessary task. One of his most important proofs of God's existence is the proof based on the eternal truth. Some are of the view that this proof is more convincing than ontological proof and even the latter depends on the former. This paper is an attempt to carry out a critical study of different versions of the same proof. Unlike Russell's assertion that Leibniz idea of God and his proof of God's existence is the weakest part of his philosophy, I believe that this part constitutes the most basic part of his philosophy. In his philosophical system without God nothing can exist or is possible to exist. Hence, proving the existence of God for him is a necessary task. One of his most important proofs of God's existence is the proof based on the eternal truth. Some are of the view that this proof is more convincing than ontological proof and even the latter depends on the former. This paper is an attempt to carry out a critical study of different versions of the same proof.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2410_99e9d389ee7ee4e0e8bc0acf6e405de9.pdf

IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 A Critical Analysis of Avicenna's Argument from Contingency and Mulla Sadra's Objection to It A Critical Analysis of Avicenna's Argument from Contingency and Mulla Sadra's Objection to It 79 95 2411 FA Shaker Lavaei Tayebe Rezaei Rah Journal Article 2016 09 02 The argument from contingency which was first put forward by Al-Farabi, was subsequently developed by Avicenna. Al-Farabi's argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regres, but Avicenna proves this imopssibility during his argument. So, to accept the Avicennian argument one doesn’t need to accept the impossibility of an infinite regres in advanced. This is one of the differences between Al-Farabi's and Avicenna's argument from contingency. Although Avicenna claims to have brought a greater innovation in Al-Isharat, and he maintains that this argument proves the existence of the necessary being even with the possibility of an infinite regress, his claim seems unjustified, since first, in contrast to Avicenna's claim and what is commonly believed, there is no crucial distinction between Avicenna's argument from contingency in Al-Isharat and the ones mentioned in Al-Mabdaa- wa-Al-maad and Al-Nijat. And second, his claim is not true about any of his arguments. Another major flaw in Avicennian argument is his stance on the criterion of the need for a cause. On the other hand, Mulla sadra's objection to this argument is not acceptable as well. He says contrary to Avicenna's claim, the chain of contingent things is not a contingent being. But Mulla sadra's argument has two problems. First, it's based on the premise that "existence is coextensive with unity" which can not be used as the middle term of an argument. Second, this objection is in conflict with his theory of the real unity of the universe. The argument from contingency which was first put forward by Al-Farabi, was subsequently developed by Avicenna. Al-Farabi's argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regres, but Avicenna proves this imopssibility during his argument. So, to accept the Avicennian argument one doesn’t need to accept the impossibility of an infinite regres in advanced. This is one of the differences between Al-Farabi's and Avicenna's argument from contingency. Although Avicenna claims to have brought a greater innovation in Al-Isharat, and he maintains that this argument proves the existence of the necessary being even with the possibility of an infinite regress, his claim seems unjustified, since first, in contrast to Avicenna's claim and what is commonly believed, there is no crucial distinction between Avicenna's argument from contingency in Al-Isharat and the ones mentioned in Al-Mabdaa- wa-Al-maad and Al-Nijat. And second, his claim is not true about any of his arguments. Another major flaw in Avicennian argument is his stance on the criterion of the need for a cause. On the other hand, Mulla sadra's objection to this argument is not acceptable as well. He says contrary to Avicenna's claim, the chain of contingent things is not a contingent being. But Mulla sadra's argument has two problems. First, it's based on the premise that "existence is coextensive with unity" which can not be used as the middle term of an argument. Second, this objection is in conflict with his theory of the real unity of the universe.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2411_6235e0f1eb9802dde43f5c3978aa34b2.pdf

IHCS Science and Religion Studies 38306462 7 14 2016 11 21 مقایسه‌ بین جوهرفرد از نظر متکلمان اسلامی و ذرات بنیادین در فیزیک نوین مقایسه‌ بین جوهرفرد از نظر متکلمان اسلامی و ذرات بنیادین در فیزیک نوین 97 116 2412 FA Hamed Naji Naser Ghasemi Journal Article 2016 11 17 چکیده جوهرفرد متکلمان اسلامی و ذرات بنیادین در فیزیک نوین، دو دیدگاه بظاهر متفاوت در تبیین ماهیت ماده در جهان قابل مشاهده است، این دو دیدگاه که هر یک با خاستگاه ها و روشها و پرسشهای خاص خود به نظاره عالم ماده نشسته اند ، در فرجام کار در موارد متعددی به هم اقتران یافته اند و گزاره های مشابهی را در تبیین ماده محسوس عرضه نموده اند. گفتار حاضر بر آن است که در ابتدا با بیان هر یک از این دو نظریه، به پیامدهای مشترک آنها اشاره کند، که در این میان توجه به غیر قابل انقسام بودن اجزای اولیه عالم ماده ، شکلمند بودن خاص این اجزاء و حرکتمند بودن داپمی آنها و چگونگی تبیین مفهوم خلأ بایسته ذکر است. چکیده جوهرفرد متکلمان اسلامی و ذرات بنیادین در فیزیک نوین، دو دیدگاه بظاهر متفاوت در تبیین ماهیت ماده در جهان قابل مشاهده است، این دو دیدگاه که هر یک با خاستگاه ها و روشها و پرسشهای خاص خود به نظاره عالم ماده نشسته اند ، در فرجام کار در موارد متعددی به هم اقتران یافته اند و گزاره های مشابهی را در تبیین ماده محسوس عرضه نموده اند. گفتار حاضر بر آن است که در ابتدا با بیان هر یک از این دو نظریه، به پیامدهای مشترک آنها اشاره کند، که در این میان توجه به غیر قابل انقسام بودن اجزای اولیه عالم ماده ، شکلمند بودن خاص این اجزاء و حرکتمند بودن داپمی آنها و چگونگی تبیین مفهوم خلأ بایسته ذکر است.

http://elmodin.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2412_d0a72c0cbdde0d462629b55a87eef3af.pdf