Science and Religion Studies

Science and Religion Studies

An analysis of Mehdi Golshani's Theory of Religious Science Based on Golshani – Stanmark Debate

Document Type : .

Authors
Hamid Hasani 1
Babak Dadashpour 2
Kamran Ghayoomzadeh 1
1 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
2 Masters student of Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
10.30465/srs.2022.40120.1952
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 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".
Keywords
Religious Science
Impartiality
Metaphysical Framework
Golshani
Stenmark
ترخان، قاسم (1393) «تأملی بر نظریه­ی علم دینی دکتر گلشنی»، کتاب نقد، 72 و 73، 167-206.
حسنی، سید حمیدرضا و دیگران (1387) علم دینی؛ دیدگاه­ها و ملاحظات، چاپ چهارم، قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
عبودیت، عبدالرسول (1382) «آیا فلسفه اسلامی داریم؟»، معرفت فلسفی، 1(1)، 27-42.
علی­تبار، رمضان (1393) «نقد و بررسی نظریه علم دینی دکتر گلشنی»، کتاب نقد، 72 و 73، 141-166.
غزالی، محمد بن محمد (1382) تهافت الفلاسفه. دنیا، سلیمان، جلد 1، تهران: شمس تبریزی.
گلشنی، مهدی (1377) از علم سکولار تا علم دینی، چاپ اول، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
______ (1398) «بررسی نقش دین در علم»، نقد و نظر، 24(2)، 5-21.
یغمائی، ابوتراب (1394) «نقش ارزش­های غیرمعرفتی در ارزیابی معرفتی نظریه­های علمی»، راهبرد فرهنگ، 31، 31-48.
 
Göhner, Julia & Schrenk, Markus (2019) Metaphysics of Science. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, < https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/>.
Golshani, Mehdi (2000a) How to Make Sense of Islamic Science, American Journal of Islamic Social Science, 17/3 (2000): 54–69
_______ (2000b) Islam and the Sciences of Nature: Some Fundamental Questions, Islamic Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Islam and Science (Winter 2000): 597-611
_______ (2003) Values and Ethical Issues in Science and Technology: A Muslim Perspective, Islamic Studies, 42 (2003): 317–330
_______ (2005) Comment on ‘‘A Religiously Partisan Science? Islamic and Christian Perspectives’’, Theology and Science, Vol. 3, No. 1: 88-91
_______ (2019) A Consideration of the Role of Religion in Science, Naqd va Nazar, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Summer 2019): 5-21 (In Persian)
Plantinga, Alvin (1996) Science: Augustinian or Duhemian. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3): 368-394.
_______  (1997). Methodological Naturalism. Origins and Design 18 (1): 18-27.
Stenmark, Mikael (2005a) A Religiously Partisan Science? Islamic and Christian Perspectives, Theology and Science, 3(1): 23-38
________ (2005b) A Counter-response on “A Religiously Partisan Science”, Theology and Science, 3(1): 92-95.