Masoud Toossi Saeidi
Abstract
In order to examine the rationality of the belief in the “disparity in the relationship between science and religion in the cases of evolutionary biology and cosmology,” this article focuses on evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities. ...
Read More
In order to examine the rationality of the belief in the “disparity in the relationship between science and religion in the cases of evolutionary biology and cosmology,” this article focuses on evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities. Accordingly, the disparity between these epistemic entities refers to the difference in the way they logically align with each other. Initially, the approach and assumptions accepted for establishing this argument are explained. In this section, it is clarified that the approach of this article is to present an evidential argument, and its most important assumption is the epistemic independence of evolutionary biology and cosmology from each other. Additionally, it is explained that by religion, the belief in the existence of a concept of God that implies the purposiveness of divine action is meant. Subsequently, the main middle term of this argument, which is the analysis of the implications of evolutionary biology and cosmology for purposiveness, is discussed in detail. In this discussion, purposiveness is precisely defined, and the content of existing and conventional theories and models in evolutionary biology and cosmology is considered, rather than the philosophical debates of biology or cosmology or philosophical interpretations of theories. Thus, the content of the premises of the argument is obtained, and its conclusion is presented at the end of this section. However, due to the fundamental nature of this claim, the logical-formal structure of the argument used to support the claim is explained further. This formal structure, which is explained based on the logic of probabilities, clarifies the degree of validity of the conclusion and the type of relationship between it and the premises. Following this, some of the important implications of this conclusion are mentioned.KeywordsRelationship between Science and Religion, Theology, Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, Guidedness1. IntroductionThe application of the term “Science and Religion Relationship” in the current era has gained a refined and specific meaning since the mid-1960s. The establishment and publication of the journal Zygon and the release of Ian Barbour's book Issues in Science and Religion (1966) both in 1966 symbolize the beginning of a prolific period of philosophical discussions and intellectual explorations concerning the relationship between science and religion from that time to the present. In this article, the relationship between science and religion will be considered in the context of these discussions.In one sense, this beginning has undergone two stages up to today. The first stage, starting from the 1960s and extending to around 1990, is characterized by a holistic view concerning the relationship between science and religion. By holistic view, it is meant that during the specified historical period, the relationship between science and religion is considered as a general category, and efforts are made to analyze the description of this relationship (e.g., independence or conflict). The second stage of the discussions, starting from the 1990s and continuing to the present, analyzes the relationship between specific theories in science and specific notions in theology in detail (De Cruz 2022, sec. 1.1. & 3). The following titles are examples from the discussions of the past three decades:The theory of evolution, the doctrine of creation, and the existence of an intelligent designerFundamental constants in cosmology and the fine-tuning of the universeQuantum uncertainty, specific divine action, and miracleChaos theory and divine actionComplexities of natural hierarchies and the afterlifeSimilarly, during this period, the discussions in the philosophy of science regarding biology and physics have become specialized. From the famous debate by J. J. C. Smart about biology not being a science (Smart 1959, 365–67) to the distinction between the two fields of the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology and their further detailed development as separate disciplines, all pertain to the same period and have paralleled discussions on science and religion. These two historical trends form the academic and specialized literature background for the subject of this article.To examine the rationality of the belief in a "Disparity in the Relationship of Science and Religion in the Two Cases of Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology," this article considers evolutionary biology, cosmology, and religion (theology) from the perspective of epistemic entities.2. Materials and MethodsThe breadth and diversity of evolutionary biology and cosmology theories and their implications, the existence of borderline issues and different interpretations, and the continuous advancements in science make evolutionary biology and cosmology very broad and dynamic epistemic entities. This breadth and dynamism create a very broad context for examining their relationship with religion.The broad range of topics that can be emphasized to examine the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion necessitates focusing on a subset of these topics. In this article, the emphasis on "purposefulness" provides this requirement. Limiting the scope of the examination, along with the continuous developments in sciences and the breadth of their conceptual scope, makes the final conclusion not definitive and deductive, as the examination conducted is limited. Therefore, the type of argument in this regard is evidential and probabilistic (as opposed to deductive); that is, the analyses and content of the argument's premises support its conclusion.3. Discussion and ResultThe fundamental difference between these epistemic entities refers to their logical compatibility with each other: Consider three propositions p, q, and r. If the simultaneous truth of p and q is possible, but the simultaneous truth of p and r is impossible, then there is a fundamental difference in the relationship between q and r with p. The term "fundamental difference" in this article refers to such a relationship, and the investigation into whether such a difference exists in the relationship between evolutionary biology and cosmology with religion is conducted through evaluating their implications on "purposefulness."If we denote the implication of religion on purposefulness as T, the implication of evolutionary biology on purposefulness as EB, and the implication of cosmology on purposefulness as C, then:T asserts that the universe must be purposeful.EB claims that the universe, in terms of characteristics related to various biological levels, beneficial and harmful traits, and biodiversity (at least from the perspective of adaptation), cannot be considered purposeful.C posits that the universe, in terms of its fundamental equations, laws, and constants, can be considered purposeful.Therefore, at first glance, it seems that the simultaneous truth of T and EB is impossible – or, more accurately, as will be the basis in the paper, this assumption has fundamental challenges – but the simultaneous truth of T and C is possible.4. ConclusionThe argument presented in this paper has an important implication: believing in a fundamental difference in the relationship between science and religion in the two cases of biology and physics is a rational belief. Based on this, we should speak of the "relationships" between science and religion, rather than a singular "relationship."
Vahideh Rahimimehr
Abstract
Throughout human history, godly thoughts and beliefs exist as a part of culture and have caused the appearance of religious beliefs. In the meantime, architecture as a platform for these cultures has created special religious buildings. One of the religious buildings whose physical structure was influenced ...
Read More
Throughout human history, godly thoughts and beliefs exist as a part of culture and have caused the appearance of religious beliefs. In the meantime, architecture as a platform for these cultures has created special religious buildings. One of the religious buildings whose physical structure was influenced by religion is a place of worship. In the meantime, the Sabean temples are one of the very strange examples that no traces of their original buildings remain, but they are mentioned in historical texts as mysterious buildings that have not been investigated separately in research. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative research is to explain the typology and the roots of diversity in the physical structure of the structures of this ritual. This research intends to examine the religious foundations of the Harran Sabian faith in the architecture of temples from the examination of historical evidence and texts and to explain the structure of the buildings and the relationship between the structure and the hidden meaning of the architecture. The results show that different spatial elements are used in religious architecture to express the beliefs of religions, and an element such as a symbol and a sign is used in the form of an artistic work as a bridge to convey and instill religious concepts.
alireza monajemi
Abstract
The studies of science and religion, which turned into an academic field since the 1960s, have been fortunate enough to maintain their multi-discipline-inter-discipline nature and avoid becoming disciplinary. The specialization of research fields such as "science and religion" will cause the field of ...
Read More
The studies of science and religion, which turned into an academic field since the 1960s, have been fortunate enough to maintain their multi-discipline-inter-discipline nature and avoid becoming disciplinary. The specialization of research fields such as "science and religion" will cause the field of discussion and debate between thinkers of different fields, including scientists, theologians, and philosophers, to become such a specialized field that no one understands their language except for a few specialists. This multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary nature can be recognized not only in the variety of topics and disciplines involved but also in the range of research methods in this field, from comparative studies to historical-philosophical analysis.
Ebrahim Noei; Aabas Izadpanah; shareat Aghajari
Abstract
Hadith scholars and the consequences of dealing with theology(Study of epistemological and methodological consequences)Theology is a religious science that has not had a uniform history. Some believe it is necessary to address it. Some also oppose addressing it. Scholars of hadith have given several ...
Read More
Hadith scholars and the consequences of dealing with theology(Study of epistemological and methodological consequences)Theology is a religious science that has not had a uniform history. Some believe it is necessary to address it. Some also oppose addressing it. Scholars of hadith have given several reasons for this opposition. They also enumerated the wrong consequences for addressing this knowledge. Those consequences for any other knowledge should be avoided. The question of the present article is that which epistemological and methodological consequences have the scholars of hadith considered for theology? Does theology really have such consequences? It seems that this effort of the scholars of hadith only makes the scholars of theology aware of some dangers that they may face when dealing with this science. And of course, these dangers are not specific to theology, and anyone who does not follow the correct conditions for research in a science may be caught in such errors. Theologians have also paid attention to these consequences and have tried to avoid getting caught up in them. Even if one of the theologians has made a mistake, it cannot be said that theology should be abandoned.
Amin Shahverdi; Kazem Sam Daliri
Abstract
In the paper, the interaction between physics and theology is confirmed and it is shown that rise of Quantum physics in early of twentieth century caused not only changes in bases of classical physics, but also new subjects in domain of theology. For this purpose, an explanation of complementarity which ...
Read More
In the paper, the interaction between physics and theology is confirmed and it is shown that rise of Quantum physics in early of twentieth century caused not only changes in bases of classical physics, but also new subjects in domain of theology. For this purpose, an explanation of complementarity which is one of the most important Bohr’s achievements in elucidating of Quantum phenomena is given, and then the effect of complementarity in advent of theology discourse is represented. Therefore, it is cleared that complementarity had been effective on Mackay in explicating the relation between science and theology and his view about distinguish among various standpoints. On the other hand, the Bohr’s complementarity is indebted to Kierkegaard’s teaching about faith and it’s contradiction to objectivity. Finally, apart form confirming or denying of complementarity usage in theology subjects like it’s usage in physics, it is claimed that complementarity can deepen the various levels of theology doctrines which describe the religious truths.
Reza Berenjkar; Um al-Banin Khalegian
Volume 5, Issue 10 , February 2015, , Pages 1-25
Abstract
There has been disagreement among different schools of thought over the concept of reason and its applications. Therefore, the study at hand presents the viewpoint of the Kufa school of thought about the concept of reason, and reports on the rationalism that was adopted by the outstanding figures of ...
Read More
There has been disagreement among different schools of thought over the concept of reason and its applications. Therefore, the study at hand presents the viewpoint of the Kufa school of thought about the concept of reason, and reports on the rationalism that was adopted by the outstanding figures of this school. This study is comprised of two sections discussing the concept of reason and the Kufa School’s rationalist approaches, respectively. In the first section, issues such as reason’s status, authoritativeness, consequences, impediments, and domain have been discussed. In the second part, the rationalism indices – the manifestations of reason in Imams and their companions in the Kufa school of thought – are presented in three subsections which regard the Imams, the Imams and their companions, and the Imam’s companions. Issues such as religious discussions, inquiries and examinations regarding the religious issues, obtaining the derivative principles from the fundamental principles, examination of anomalous transferred words, and composing refutations are among these indices.
This study, which has adopted the library research method and has been conducted mainly identification and extrapolation of the narrations, presents the importance and the great reliance of the Kufa school of thought on reason, and meanwhile, its consideration of the redlines. Moreover, it recounts the breadth of the reason’s performance and the rationalism indices in relation to the Revelation and in the light of the companions’ adherence to the Imams in the Kufa school of thought.