Zeinab Salari; Morteza Fathizadeh
Abstract
In the thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg , God is the absolute determinant of reality, and his divinity covers the whole existence and creation, including nature .Hence, Pannenberg thinks that the interaction and dialogue between theology with the center of God and science with the focus of nature is ineludible. ...
Read More
In the thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg , God is the absolute determinant of reality, and his divinity covers the whole existence and creation, including nature .Hence, Pannenberg thinks that the interaction and dialogue between theology with the center of God and science with the focus of nature is ineludible. From his point of view, to know that how this interaction and dialogue is possible, we must compare this tow realms, more than anything else, based on their specific methodologies . Such a comparison leads to review on the nature and extent of science and theology and to accept the possibility of engagement and dialogue beyond their particular realms, and on the third level, philosophical reflections. pannenberg has not succeeded in explaining the possibility of this dialogue based on his key claims, but has certainly been an influential and inspirational pioneer in this field
Ali Sadeqi; Morteza Fathizadeh
Volume 7, Issue 14 , March 2017, , Pages 43-60
Abstract
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 ...
Read More
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.
Morteza Fathizadeh
Volume 4, Issue 8 , July 2014, , Pages 111-128
Abstract
Explicating and interpreting natural phenomena is a complex process because many factors including observation, logic, and a variety of methodological, ontological and religious beliefs play a role in it. Using the metaphysical and methodological approaches, scientific naturalism tries to simplify this ...
Read More
Explicating and interpreting natural phenomena is a complex process because many factors including observation, logic, and a variety of methodological, ontological and religious beliefs play a role in it. Using the metaphysical and methodological approaches, scientific naturalism tries to simplify this interpretation by excluding some of the above-mentioned factors. It claims that the methodological naturalism is a necessary part of science and prescribes that in explaining natural phenomena, one should act as if reality consists of nothing but matter. Moreover, it assumes that one can act as if the existence of nonmaterial causes, whether created (mind, spirit) or uncreated (God), does not make a difference in our understanding of the material world. In this paper, this claim will be reviewed.
Morteza Fathizadeh; Mehdi Mohhamadi Asl
Volume 2, Issue 4 , April 2012, , Pages 55-79
Abstract
Ian Barbour, American physicist and theologian, undoubtedly is a prominent and effective figure in new debates about the relation between science and religion. Some of his works count as a turning point and the beginning of recent discussions about science and religion. He divides views or suggested ...
Read More
Ian Barbour, American physicist and theologian, undoubtedly is a prominent and effective figure in new debates about the relation between science and religion. Some of his works count as a turning point and the beginning of recent discussions about science and religion. He divides views or suggested models about relation between them in four groups: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integrity. His personal analysis tends to dialogue with an apparent tendency towards integrity and unity that is consistent with his process thought and critical realism.
