Hamid Hasani; Babak Dadashpour; Kamran Ghayoomzadeh
Abstract
In trying to explain the "Religious Science", Mehdi Golshani maintains that science is divided into religious and secular not only in terms of the direction and application of science, but also in terms of the metaphysical framework of theories. He argues that because neutral science - in the justification ...
Read More
In trying to explain the "Religious Science", Mehdi Golshani maintains that science is divided into religious and secular not only in terms of the direction and application of science, but also in terms of the metaphysical framework of theories. He argues that because neutral science - in the justification phase- is unrealistic and difficult, science must be non-impartial (and at religion's side). Michael Stanmark believes that "religiously partisan science" is quite possible and even inevitable at the direction and application phases, but rejects the Golshani's argument that impartial science is unrealistic in justification phase of science. Golshani responds that his argument is about fundamental theories such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life. He also contends that counterexamples of his theory are results of Muslim scholars' differing interpretations of religious beliefs. Stanmark challenges Golshani on the evidence of the unrealisticness of impartiality in fundamental theories, citing some counterexamples. In this article, we use descriptive-analytic method to deal with this debate, and then we will make a new argument to show that the metaphysical presuppositions in Golshani's argument are chosen by the scientist primarily because of their "rationality", not because their "religiosity".
