حمیدرضا شاکرین

An important debate in new theology, philosophy of religion and ethics is how to evaluate the relationship between religion and morality. Daniel Dennett concerns the problem pessimistically. He has narrated the useful moral functions of religion, declared by the proponents of religion and objected them in several ways. One of the mentioned affairs in this field, is the relation between religion and moral action, in which he persuades religious malfunction. Therefore, the present issue is to study Dennett’s critics on religious function in moral behavior and evaluate it from the viewpoint of Islamic philosophers. The method of research in the context of discovery is library study, and in the context of evaluation id rational-analytical one. The result is that scientific standards do not agree with Dennett’s view, and he has not followed them in the ground. His judgements are objected by composition of several fallacies, lacking appropriate credibility.

Studying the relation between religion and morality is an essential problem in the new theology, philosophy of religion and ethics. Danniel C. Dennett, the contemporary physicalist philosopher of mind and a horseman of new atheism is one of the researchers of the subject. Some parts of his studies include the way of achieving ethical knowledge, specialy from the view point of its relation to religion. Not only he rejects relying on religion in this field, but also introduces it as far away from human understanding. Therefor he knows ethical naturalism and secularization of morality something unavoidable. The present issue, however, is to study the mentioned view and evaluate it by a rational analytical glance. The conclusion is that Dennett has not pressented an exact report of religious ethical knowledge, nor has given a reliable evaluation of it. He can not also replace a better idea and his evolutionary foundation can bring about no considerable outco.

An important problem in modern cosmology is the universe's fine tuning, anthropic principle and their relations with explanation of the world. A plenty of thinkers and physicists agree with the theistic explanation and a few of them, suggest the multiverse theory as an alternative one. The present issue is to study and evaluate this suggestion through a rational analytical method. The result is that the multiverse, as an alternative explanation of the world, is affected by several objections. It lacks scientific standards such as clarity, experimental verification, falsifiability, simplicity, predictability; as consisting of some ambiguities and additional presuppositions. The mentioned idea, on the other hand, is objected to by several fallacies like the inverse gambler's fallacy and Boltzmann brain paradox. In addition, not only is not the multiverse an alternative of Divine explanation of the world, but is completely concordant with it. The theistic explanation of the world is prefered by several aspects, such as simplicity, rational justification and inclusive horizon of explanation. Besides, it is inevitable, for the multiverse, like the universe theory of the world.

The proposed theories about the beginning and end of the world in modern cosmology are one of the most important points of intersection between science and religion. Some common models and theories in quantum cosmology, as a naturalistic and godless explanation of the world, have become a tool to oppose religious beliefs about creation. This is the model presented by Stephen Hawking in collaboration with James Hartl. In this model, Hawking disagreed with the theories that considered the world to be open, eternal, and infinitely extended in the past, and he admits the limitation and finitude of the world. At the same time, he believes that the world was not an accident or a beginning, it is non-eternal and non-accidental, and as a result, it has always been, is, and will be. Therefore, the world does not have a beginning to be in need to a beginner as God, and it does not have an end, nor a resurrection. The following article aims to introduce the mentioned point of view in a descriptive way with regard to the imaginary time that plays an important foundational role in Hawking's cosmology. Then evaluate it in a rational-analytical way and recognize its theological implications. The result of the research is that the above-mentioned model, given its correctness, in addition to scientifically and logically requiring further investigation, does not imply Hawking's ontological naturalism.

The rule of experimental science in stablishing the modern civilization and changes in human life is an object of multidimensional studies. It has brought about different approaches, one of them is scientism which has had noticeable effects on human culture and thought, especially on the western one. The mentioned approach has especial indications also in ontology, epistemology and methodology of knowledge, which invites the philosophers of science and religion to deep thinking on it. It is because of having important implications concerning religious studies and relations between religion and science, which is at least absolute governance of science on religion and religious understanding methods.

The present issue is to study and identify the above approach and its reasons by descriptive method and evaluate it by rational-analytical one.

The result is however, necessity of understanding the diference between science and scientism. Factually scientism is not based on a logical standpoint, nor will it have a useful function in the field of science and human knowledge.

From the religiouse epistemologic point of view, thre is no important difference between the week scientism and the strong one. The latter, however, indicates that religious understanding and interpretation should be everchanged on the basis of what the modern scienc imposes.
Contemplation on scientism and its reasons indicates that:Not the main idea is coherentive, nor is it based on the sound epistemic foundations.
The reasons of scientism are even affected by lack of logial consistency or failure to justify it.
Not only scientism has no beneficial rule in science, but also has a detrimental one.

A fundamental and profound cosmological question concerns the ultimate cause of the existence of our universe. Some physicists, based on quantum cosmology, believe that it originated from nothing. Edward Tryon claims that our universe emerged spontaneously from quantum vacuum as a virtual particle. On the other hand, Alexander Vilenkin proclaims that it came into being from nothing through quantum tunneling, without the need for a pre-vacuum state. The present issue is to study these explanations using a biblical-descriptive method and evaluate them through a rational analytical approach. The result shows that these suggestions lack some scientific standards. Moreover, they offer nothing more than a hypothesis about how the universe came into being, without addressing the question of why it happened. Therefore, they cannot negate the necessity of a metaphysical explanation of the world

Studying the basis of origination and persistence of religion is an important issue in the scientific study of religion.  Richard Dawkinz, the contemporary evolutionary biologist, however, introduces religion as an accidental by-product of evolution. According to this view, religion is not however, an adaptive object, rather is produced by misfunction of the other adaptive ones. Dawkinz has tried to find the adaptive objects wich religion may be made of, and explain the relation between them and religion. The present issue is to study and evaluate this idea. The conclusion is that the above mentioned explanation of religion is affected by some general and special objections. Therefor it is not able to deliver a reliable scientific explanation of religion.

A noteworthy problem in modern cosmology, wich is noted by scientists, philosophers and religious scholars is the question of why and how did our universe come to being. Some physicians try to explain it from nothing by chance, withought need of Divine creation. Lawrence M. Krauss has tried to do this on the basis of quantom cosmology and completes the answer by explaining the laws of nature through chance and multiverse theory. Concequently he thinks that Divinly explanation of the world is somehow contradictory with simplicity principle. The present issue is to study the mentioned explanation with biblical-descriptive method and evaluate it by rational analythical one. The result is that it is affected by several scientific and logical deficiencies, as well as being objected by Ockham,s razor.

Methodological naturalism, which is called Methodological Materialism or Methodological Atheism also, and introduced as a metaparadigm of the modern science, does not tolerate any theory or proposition which relates natural phenomenon to the supernatural causes and entities. Such an approach is divided into the week and strong ones, each one has its own necessities and outcomings. Studying and contemplating on such an approach is the aim of many components of philosophy of science and religion. It, however, identifies the limits and regulations governing the relationships between science and religion. Therefor researching the problem is a necessary obligation for the components of theological studies and those pretending the reformation of science based on religious doctrine.

The present issue studies the subject with biblical and analytical research method.

The result is that methodological naturalism is not based on authentic logical and epistemological foundations, nor is it a rational and coherent claim, and is not able to fulfill the promised expectations of it.

1.The history of science shows that several supernatural explanations have been the best explanations of natural phenomenon, and have boon simpler than the pure natural explanations. It indicates: (a) Insufficiency of stint to pure natural explanation, (b) Essential correlation between science and naturalism, (c) Sophistry of adopting naturalism to simplicity principle. 2.Epistemological and methodological attitudes are interpenetrated to the ontological views. Therefore, there is no room for naturalistic attitude in the former without it in the latter. It somehow leads to selfcontradiction also. 3. From the functional point of view methodological naturalism leads to: (a) Several limitations and disaffiliations, (b) Disconnecting science and technology from moral values, which is at last very harmful for humankind.

Having believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, the contemporary biologist and animal behaviorist, Richard Dawkins has tried to present a naturalistic and atheistic account of the theory during several decades thus basing atheism upon evolutionism. His strongest support for such an account is natural selection which he considers as a clue to decipher the mystery of being, invincible though blind, bereft of any orientation, in an accumulated way, along with some sort of luck, and based not on intelligence or awareness. In his paper, the author goes to study and assess Dawkins' view and arguments.The upshot of this research is Dawkins' many mistakes in his very claims, arguments, results, and at last his failure in imposing his naturalistic metaphysics on the evolution theory thus his so-called scientifically atheistic explanation. Furthermore and contrary to Dawkins' assumption, not only the theory of evolution is compatible with monotheistic approach, but also divine and wise calculations are the best explanation and infrastructure for the cognitive value of evolution theory.

Studying the relation between religion, morality and spirituality is an important issue in religious studies and ethics. It, also has followed several disputes between thinkers through human history of thinking. In the contemporary era, regarding several changes in western societies, the subject has survived stronger, and had some recent ideas being appeared. Some of the ideas, which seems to lead to a misgiving about religion and its function, is the idea of contradiction between morality and religion. This issue is to study and evaluate this idea as suggested by Nietzsche, Rachels and Hospers. The conclusion is that it is nether compatible with moral teachings of religion, nor with religious or moral conduct. Regarding the first era, it seems that morality is an unseparable part of religion. Regarding the second also, they are so associated that separation of moralities from religion makes it very limited, unsubstantial, with very week motivation power.

Among the topics raised about Mahbang cosmology is its relationship to core religious beliefs, namely divine creation. Despite the fact that a large number of thinkers consider Mahabang in favor of a religious worldview; Some consider it contrary to belief in God and consistent with the naturalistic and unjustified interpretation of the world. In the statements of this group of researchers, two interpretations based on quantum cosmology are more important, one is the Hawking interpretation based on gravity and the other is the Welenkin interpretation based on quantum tunneling. This article aims to present the two aforementioned explanations using the descriptive library method, then evaluate them in a rational analytical way, and reveal their theological results. The results of the research are that the two explanations mentioned, regardless of their scientific sufficiency or inadequacy, do not contain any support for the theory of the existence of the universe without a cause, and although Mahbang cosmology does not directly prove the existence of God, it can be One of the two premises could be the proof of the occurrence of the world, which indicates the world's need for a cause, which is God Almighty.

One of the main claims of evolutionary naturalists and the leaders of neo-atheism is the incompatibility of the evolution theory with the leading role of God in the process of life creation and biodiversity. They believe that the evolutionary theory puts a scientific end to theism. The main notion adopted by this group is the subject of “chance” and its position in the biological evolution process. Notwithstanding the accuracy or inaccuracy of the theory of evolution, the article at hand set out to explore the various meanings and applications of the concept of accident in biology to examine its logical relationship with the role of God in this regard. The study used document analysis and library research to collect data, and applied intellectual-analytical means to analyze the data. The results of the study indicated that none of the common applications of the term “accident” in biology in general and in the theory of evolution in particular has a conflict with the functioning of God in it; rather, what can lead to such a conflict is the philosophical understanding of accident. Moreover, some maximalist views in the explication of the evolutionary accident – that have no scientific support – can only imply the limitation of the role of God in this regard rather than its complete rejection.

Anthropological naturalism is amongst the foundations of new atheism in which some of religious beliefs and instructions are refused. This subfield of naturalism is also underscored in the philosophy of humanities and some branches of humanities such as evolutionary psychology rely on it. Therefore, thinkers in theology and researchers in the philosophy of humanities, and interdisciplinary researchers in humanities-social sciences are required to examine it thoroughly. Eliminative physicalism is one of the new naturalist approaches which stands in sharp and fanatic contrast with religious beliefs and brings about some new challenges. Thus, the present research intended to study and criticize anthropological naturalism. In addition to that, eliminative physicalism is also analyzed and evaluated. The study has used documentary research to collect data and adopted a logical-analytical approach to interpreting them.  It was concluded that all types of anthropological naturalism, especially physicalism are rejected. Also, the study approves of substantial dualism through employing some methods in Islamic psychology and philosophy of mind and rejects the emerging challenge of eliminative physicalism.

Ontological naturalism is one of the most important foundations of the new atheism, but also its main basis and foundation, and, therefore, its study is inevitably vital for seekers of doctrinal issues. This kind of naturalism has also been considered in the philosophy of science and some have considered it as an essential presupposition of empirical knowledge. As a result, research on this issue and its assessment is inevitable for those interested in the field of philosophy of science, especially those who claim the evolution of science and the pioneers of the production of religious science. Thus, the main issue of the present article is to examine this approach and value judgments about it. The research method is in the position of document collection and in the position of descriptive-analytical judgment. The result of the research is that ontological naturalism is neither a logically coherent and rational claim, nor is it supported by science and philosophy, nor will it be a necessary presupposition of empirical knowledge.

Naturalism has a noble rule in the modern science, specially in determining the methods, realms, and functions of it. Likewise it has specified the regulations and limits of relation between religion, ethics and science. Moreover naturalism is somehow found as the unique reference of what is to be or not, and what can be called knowledge or not. Such a position necessitates to research it deeply by philosophers of science, religion, ethics, theologians and specially those who pretend to make reform in science, based on the religious doctrine.  The present issue is, therefore, to study the ontological and methodological naturalism and their relation with science with rational analytical method. The result is that ontological and strong methodological naturalism are not rational and coherent claims, nor are they protected by science and philosophy, and never can be the necessary presupposition of science. Likewise, the weak methodological naturalism is unable to fulfill a useful function in development of science, nor is it a necessary disciplinarian of science. Besides, it is affected by lacking the logic of division of scientific and non- scientific works; as like as lack of the logic of dissolving probable contradictions between them.

During the recent decades, several works have been published concerning the two theological schools, namely the philosophical and Tafkiki ones. The present issue studies the methodological similarities and dissimilarities of the above mentined schools. This comparative model of study is useful to evaluate the outcomes and shortcomings of each of them and indicates the stage of their success in purity, depth and development of theological knowledge.

The method of discovery in this issue is biblical and the method of evaluation is rational analythic.

The main finding of this issue is examining better efficiency of contemplative rationality than the Tafkiki,s one in theological studies, and exposition of shortcomings of the latter.

Philosophical theology is more successful than Tafkiki,s one, likewise the latter is defeated by the followins objections: 1. Lack of coherence and justifiability, 2. Disability in fulfilling the main functions of theology, such as deduction, explanation, justification and defence of religious beliefs, 3. It, somehow, causes contradiction between ration, science and religion, 4. It has no success in the purity of religious knowledge.

The common understanding of Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism in quantum physics is that it is a negation of causal relationships. Having the relationship between the existence of God and causality in mind, some advocates of ontological naturalism assert that by negating causality in modern physics, there remains no room for belief in God as the necessary cause of the world and His actions in it. To examine this claim, I will explain briefly the quantum theory, Copenhagen interpretation of uncertainty principle, and its epistemological position. Next, I will investigate its relationship with causality and divine actions. The article concludes that not only is there no conflict between Copenhagen interpretation and causality, but the former is based on the latter and has complete coherence with the belief in God and His actions in the world. Compared to classical physics, its consistency with direct and special divine actions in the world is more.

Paying attention to the early views on the definition of knowledge, Mulla Sadra offers an existential definition based on his existential foundations that are the turning point in the epistemology of transcendent wisdom. In this view, knowledge is a kind of existence of one thing for another. This definition and its consequence have led to a new explanation by Mulla Sadra about divine knowledge. This explanation has a terrific contribution to shaping the epistemological geometry of divine knowledge in Islamic philosophy. These are some of the angles of this geometry: non - redundancy of divine knowledge to God's essence; the intuitiveness of divine knowledge; the denial of any forms in divine knowledge; the acceptance of God's detailed knowledge of individuals; The immediacy of what God knows; the union of knowledge, knower and the known in God; God's knowledge of Himself, and the identification of His non-detailed knowledge of others with the detailed revealing of others. The study reveals that paying attention to Mulla Sadra's existential explanation of knowledge allows understanding the way of forming his theory, its innovative aspects, and its distinction from others in the field.

The function of religion is one of the most important topics in modern religious studies. Mr. Mostafa Malekian is one of the scholars who has looked at the function of religion in his theological courses with a dualistic view, in other words, equal positive and negative aspects, and he believes that religion only makes good better and bad worse. The present article examines this claim with an analytical method and exposes it to judgment, and in addition to its theoretical aspects, examines its functions and practical outputs in the field of education. The result is that the above view is harmful in many ways, such as: lack of theoretical support, lack of reliance on valid scientific and historical research, No distinction between religion and religiosity, lack of distinction between claiming religiosity and true religiosity; Far disregard for Degrees of religiosity and religious knowledge, the fallacy of taking non-causal instead of causal, inefficiency of religious education in the face of social harms and etc.

Dawkins, a contemporary evolutionary biologist and one of the pioneers of modern atheism, while deeply believing in Darwinchr('39')s theory of evolution and offering an atheistic reading of it, has devoted part of his efforts to presenting various objections agains the belief in the existence of God. The point of the forthcoming research is to examine and measure these objections. In this study, in terms of gathering, the library-documental method, and in terms of assessment, the analytical method have been used. The results of the research show that Dawkins was wrong in all these objections, he was caught in many fallacies, and contrary to his belief, the belief in the Almighty God is the best rational explanation in the world.