Suchergebnisse

A typical scientist has no responsibility other than to explain how a natural event occurred. However, when a philosopher asks about the conditions under which a scientist's explanation is true, he is, in fact, raising an ultimate question, the concept which Karl Popper used for the first time. Answering this question requires that no elements are neglected in the explanation, and no significant factors in the explanation are overlooked. In other words, in explainingphenomenon, at any level of its explanation, there should be no remainder. These requirements can be achieved through the full explanation. In the present article, by drawing on concepts such as theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination of theory by evidence, and the role of models and metaphors in developing a scientific theory, it is illustrated thatcomplete explanation includes both a scientific explanation and personal explanation. A personal explanation comprises mental properties such as belief, desire, and intention, which are irreducible to physical properties. Therefore, we cannot provide a personal explanation while restricting ourselves to scientific methods. Consequently, it is argued in this article first, the personal explanation is irreducible to a scientific explanation. Second, the personal explanation is inevitable in order to provide a full explanation. Third, (methodological) naturalists claim that the ultimate judgment of what is natural and unnatural is possible only by scientific inquiry. Finally, accepting these three premises entails the inability of a naturalist to answer ultimate questions.

It is often assumed that there is a confrontation between science and Islam, especially in religious communities. Biological evolution is often one of the constant sources of contention due to its metaphysical implications. Although there are some empirical data showing low acceptance of evolution and understanding its basic principles in Sunni-majority countries, there has been a categorical lack of data about Iran as the most influential Shiite-majority state. Therefore, in order to reach a better understanding of the culture and world-view of Iranians, we implemented two established questionnaires and phone interviews to assess educated Iranians' attitude toward evolution. We reach an important conclusion, which is supported by extensive quantitative data obtained from two separate questionnaires, that most Iranians accept both underlying principles as well as controversial topics such as human evolution in a striking rate. Additionally, key concepts of evolution were greatly understood by a large fraction of our participants. Finally, the research exhibited that Iranians did not consider evolution and their religious belief system as two rival systems, regardless of identifying themselves as religious or non-religious individuals. To investigate the reason for this cultural phenomenon that is unique among major Islamic countries, we suggest that it is due to three reasons. Central national education system implementing evolutionary science at both high school and university levels, explosive accessibility of academic atmosphere for the public, and more science-friendly interpretation of Islam are thought to be responsible factors for such a high level of acceptance and understanding. This study has crucial implications for revisiting the nature of Science-Islam interaction among various Muslim communities, Shiite Iranians included.

The article offers a different interpretation of Antony Flew's views about the problem of religious language. This interpretation shows that Flew's ideas can be perceived as a critique of belief in the content of religious statements, rather than a critique of their meaning. By interpreting his thought in this way, it is clear that Flew's approach is not new and we can find similar ideas in the history of theological thought. In connection with this interpretation, the authors analyze prevalent theories related to this problem in order to identify the principal doctrines used to find a new solution. In this regard, the new potential solution is assessed in order to complete the approach previously undertaken. The main idea is to merge two distinct and also contrasting concepts found in the literature: "natural" and "sacred". Such a merging can begin with the concept of natural language as a theory drawn from the literature on the philosophy of language. According to the principles of the philosophy of language adopted by this article, religious language is rooted in natural language, but it is distinct from other forms in that it is the customized use of natural language by the saints of a particular religion. By offering an explanation to natural language, it is possible to view saints as the ones who used natural language in order to talk about the divine sacred realm. Similar to previous thinkers who spoke about religious language, the authors offer their own analogy. This analogy is compared and contrasted with previous ones to reveal the advantages of the proposed new view of the problem of religious language. The authors propose a new type of natural language with the special characteristic of being sacred.