mehdi golshani

Abrahamic faiths, which are among the divine revelations, consider science to be the knowledge of the universe and humans. The proper understanding of science is the study of the natural world through the lens of religious metaphysics which takes into account all relevant factors from a religious viewpoint.This study aims to survey the effect of religious worldview on the metaphysical principles that govern science, and deals with the following questions:1) What effect do religious metaphysical foundations have on the interpretation of scientific theories? 2) How scientific work, in the light of the divine worldview, ensures the material and spiritual needs of mankind? 3) Is experimental science influenced by religious and philosophical values and insights? 4) Are various human and natural sciences far from value judgments?In this paper, we use the fact that all scientific theories are based on some metaphysical assumptions that are not taken from these sciences but are rooted in philosophies or religions and provide a worldview for the scientist. Furthermore, these worldviews affect scientists’ motivations and their choices of theories.We argue that the worldview of monotheistic religions puts the totality of scientific issues in the context of religious metaphysics.

One of the ways to develop any science is to rethink of its foundations and assumptions. Considering the increasing progress of various sciences in the new era, and the weakening of humanities, the necessity of rethinking in humanities is a vital matter, Since the human sciences are directly related to the knowledge of man, as the role of man in the new age has become more prominent, one should seek a more complete knowledge of humans at the individual and the social levels. Unfortunately, despite the multifaceted nature of human existence, the presuppositions governing the present humanities are still dominated by positivist paradigms, and when it comes to other perspectives such as exegetical or postmodern, they remain at the level of slogans, and researches and theories are limited. But the science of physics, by entering into some philosophical and metaphysical concepts, is moving towards a unitary paradigm. Unitarian theories of physics, which emphasize the multi-dimensional nature of existence, present a new point of view in which the inability of experience or human mind to recognize a phenomenon does not mean that it does not exist. In this research, with the help of content analysis method, we investigate the existing gaps in the five paradigms of the contemporary science, and in order to solve these gaps, we introduce unitary ontology.

The importance of leadership on the one hand and the plurality of opinions in this field on the other hand increase the need to rethink and conduct research in this regard. The purpose of this exploratory research is to identify gaps in existing leadership theories and to present a new meta-theory to address these gaps. In this library research, we used meta-theory, which is one of the effective research methods for rethinking science. The statistical community is all the articles that investigated leadership theories. Sampling by judgmental method reached the number of 200 articles until theoretical saturation. In this research, we first categorized leadership theories based on the five paradigms of science and then identified theoretical gaps. Based on the research findings, the gaps in the organization's leadership theories go back to the material ontology that governs them, and the solution is to change the perspective towards the unificationist meta-theory and human knowledge in higher dimensions. We have presented our metatheoretical view based on unificationist theories of physics, because unificationist ontology, emphasizing the multiplicity of dimensions and the unity of forces in existence, considers the truth to be something beyond the material world.

 Before the emergence of modern science ,Philosophy was dominant over all sciences, including the empirical ones. But with the advent ofpositivistic school of philosophy during the first half of the nineteenth century  and its dominance until 1960’s, both religion and philosophy were put aside  formally , and scientists sought the answer to all human questions from empirical science.But, during the second half of the twentieth century ,it be came clear that science per se Cannot account for moral values and cannot answer humanity’s ultimate questions and is full of metaphysical assumptions. Therefore ,philosophy (especially  metaphysics ) has been revived by some eminent scientists, and they  are looking for a comprehensive worldview which can take care of scientists’ questions, and some of them have proposed a religious worldview for this purpose.

Research ethics in common practice is a branch of ethics, including the rules and principles governing research; that is, it is aimed at preventing errors and ethical violations in the field of science. On the other hand, research ethics means compliance with rules such as avoiding plagiarism or bias in data analysis or data manipulation. But here I mean a more general concept; But here I mean a more general concept; That is, anomalies that have a value aspect and occur in all theoretical and practical fields; It harms the long-term progress of science at the theoretical level or has practical harmful effects for humans and the environment. Science deals with the study of natural phenomena and ethics deals with right and wrong and good and bad in actions and behavior. But at the human level, these two intersect. That is, moral values can affect the line of research and scientific decisions of scientists. The well-being and comfort of the human society also depends on whether scholars observe moral values or not. In the last two centuries, great progress has been made in science and technology. But the new science has also led to much destruction. Because the forces of nature have been used to conquer nations and destroy the environment, and gaining power and wealth has become the main justification for spending money in some areas. Therefore, the question arises why, despite the predictions, in the second half of the 19th century and in the 20th century, the progress of science and technology has not led to the comfort of humanity at the general level? In response to this question, the view of some prominent contemporary scientists is that the worldview governing popular science should be changed, and a comprehensive worldview should rule over scientific fields that takes into account both ethical considerations and answers to all human concerns.

Is philosophy useful for physics? Many physicists and philosophers believe that it is; but there are those who challenge the usefulness of philosophy for science. Three major objections can be identified in their reasoning: 1. Philosophy’s death diagnosis, which states that philosophy is dead and has nothing new to teach us. 2. Historic-agnostic argument/challenge, which states that there is no historical evidence for the claim that philosophy is useful for science, or if it is, it is unknown to us. 3. The division of property argument, which states that philosophy and science are two distinct fields. The purpose of this article is to respond to these three objections by examining the case study of the relationship between general relativity and philosophy. By looking at the history of the formation and development of general relativity, we will argue that: 1. Philosophy has led to a refinement and deep understanding of the important concepts of covariance and invariance. 2. There is clear historical evidence for the positive influence of philosophy on the development of the core concepts of general relativity, as one of the most important physical theories, as well as the undeniable evidence for the key role of some philosophers in the development of the theory. 3. Physics and philosophy, in seeking answers to fundamental questions, are two highly intertwined fields.

From ancient times until the beginning of the new science, philosophy ruled over the sciences. Subsequently, with the rise of positivism in the first half of the nineteenth century, philosophy flourished in the scientific community. But with the emergence of some schools of philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century, it became clear that all sciences were based on some general metaphysical (metaphysical) principle. After that, some of the leaders of contemporary science gradually realized the role of philosophy in science. In recent decades, some important Western universities, including some important Western engineering universities such as MIT, have established philosophy departments in the United States, and in the last ten years, some of the top European and American universities have had good collaborations between philosophers. and the scientists of the experimental sciences have succeeded, and in this short time they have had fruitful results.

Before the advent of Modern Science, philosophy ruled over sciences. But, after the emergence of modern science, with the appearance of philosophers like Locke and Hume, empiricism which relied only on sense data became prevalent in most scientific circles. This was fortified by the advent of positivism of Aguste Comte which gave value only to the knowledge obtained from sensory experience. Thus, philosophy lost its status among scientists. But with the emergence of some schools of philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century, it became evident that all sciences are based on some general supra-scientific (metaphysical) principles. Then, some eminent physicists recognized the significant role of philosophy and several coalitions was formed between some eminent philosophers and physicists in several important universities of UK and USA, which has yielded fruitful results. With the revival of philosophy, religious studies, too, got momentum, and theists have used philosophical arguments to refute the challenges of atheists against theism.

As generally accepted, consciousness or mind and material brain are closely related to each other; but how? Quantum mechanics is a new pathway to understand the hard problem of consciousness and its relation to the brain. Consciousness has specific properties such as unity, irreducibility, non-locality, etc. The completely different features of classical physics (locality, reducibility, determinacy, etc.) hindered the success of scientists to study consciousness. But quantum mechanics with its features (non-locality, irreducibility, indeterminacy, etc.) gave scientists hope to study consciousness. Several quantum approaches to consciousness have been proposed in recent decades; the most important point about these approaches is that each one has used its own philosophy to determine its viewpoint about the mind’s nature and even its quantum approach. In general, all scientific theories are based on some metaphysical principles which come from the worldview of scientists. In this article four contemporary approaches are discussed: The Eccles-Beck, Stapp, Penrose-Hameroff, and Avicenna-Bohm theories; philosophical and scientific points are highlighted for each of them. Finally, the theory of Top-Down Causation is discussed because we think it can provide a fertile philosophical ground for theories of “mind-brain relation” and “quantum consciousness”.

Although for a couple of centuries empiricism was prevalent in physics circles , the development of various schools of philosophy of science, during the second half of the twentieth century, made it clear we do not encounter nature with empty minds and that scientists always use some assumptions in their scientific work. In this article. We argue that metaphysical assumptions play an important role at various stages of science activity. But these assumptions are usually taken from various schools of philosophy or religions. Monotheistic religions can provide such principles. Thus, metaphysics works as a bridge between science and religion.

From the old times dualism, i.e. human beings' ownership of a body and a spirit , has been a controversial problem. With the dominance of positivism in modern times, the dominant view was the principality of matter and that spirit is a byproduct of matter.In recent decades a number of scientists consider the spirit to be material but it cannot be explained in terms of present science. On the other hand, some believe that due to its complexity it can never be explained by science. But some very eminent scientist of our era believe that it is immaterial. Among this group some consider the human spirit to be an effusion from God

Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the greatest living traditionalist philosopher in contemporary world, has defined a fundamental element as a principle for Sophia Perennis which is metaphysical distinction between Intellectus and Ratio. To him, The Sacred Knowledge is the fruit of Divine Intuitive Intelligence but Science or Modern Philosophical Schools is the result of human Rational Faculty, thus distinguishes The Sacred Knowledge, by clarification of its inherent essence, from Philosophy. According to him, the Ratio is the reflection and reverberation of Universal Intellect upon human mind and thus the logical rationalization is purely the formal and exterior expression of The Subject from experience of The Object which is metaphysical Reality and is prior to Ratio and Subject Itself who processing the act of Reasoning. The outcome of Nasr’s argumentum is the ‘Illuminative’ and Donated characteristics of Sacred Knowledge which diffuses from Universal Origin upon the human Hearts, the seat of Intelligence, unlike philosophy which is attainable by acquisition. Mystically speaking, the Sacred Knowledge is as ‘State’ and not as ‘Station’, thus it is considered as ‘The Bestowals’ not ‘The Earnings’. Referring to the essential works by Nasr and other Traditionalists, in this article which has been done in analytical-descriptive method, first we analyze the metaphysical principles of the Sacred Knowledge which is the Traditional Oriental Metaphysics both in East and West and then study its relationship with Philosophy and Theology.

As the theory of the Big bang is being supported increasingly by experimental evidences other competitor theories, like steady state, was set aside. Also the ancient debate namely Hodooth and Eternity, was started again. But this time theologians support the Hodooth theory by quantum and relativity theory. In this paper we try to study the Bigbang theory from Islamic philosophy and we will:Keywords: expanding universe, Hubble constant, CMB, Active Intellect, fourth causes, substantial motion.

From the view of Aristotle, Muslim philosophers and the Christian Philosophers of the middle ages, all sciences were under the umbrella of philosophy. But, after the development of modern science and the growth of empiricism, philosophy lost its glory and attention was given primarily to specialized sciences.
But during the second half of the twentieth century, the defects of empiricism became apparent and several trends emerged:(1) Some scholars mentioned that science can’t answer all questions of human concern and there is a need for a more general framework.
(2) There was a movement towards interdisciplinary studies, and there was a revival of philosophy among scientists.
(3) Positivists spoke of unified science, i.e. all sciences could be reduced to a single science, e. g. Physics.
(4) Many distinguished scientists mentioned that different specialties should be pursued under a holistic view, so they recommended to look for a worldview that works as an umbrella for all sciences.

Advancements made in the biological-physical sciences in the past two hundred years have unprecedentedly increased our recognition of the world. Besides, progress, in applied dimensions of science, has given much vigor to mankind for using nature and control of human minds. But the outcomes of science and technology have been both beneficial and non-beneficial for man; for example, technical and scientific knowhow has produced more means of human welfare and promoted living standard considerably. On the other hand, this knowledge has been used for human destruction and dilapidation of the ecology and future of mankind is being threatened by burden of balefulness. To us, this balefulness, once being emerged, emanates from separation of knowledge from wisdom and rooted within sovereign universalism of secularism in the modern scientific communities. Nowadays, scientific investigations are conducted to secure desires of scientific communities or the powerful people and knowledge-wisdom separation triggers anxiety, lack of sense of security and weakness of ethics and spirituality. The learned people believing in such universalism appreciate the results of their actions and forget that science should serve people rather than exploit them. But in a deistic field, science accompanies wisdom and is applied for solving problems of man and human communities; an objective where God is pleased and man is prosperous. In this belief, nature is regarded as divine endowment which is up to man to keep it preserved. In this way, all plans related to technological and scientific advancements should be coordination with divine order and meet legitimate requirements of people and human communities.

The vision of most scientist and scholars in the first half of the twentieth century was empiricism. They gave more importance to observable experiences and phenomena, and the only valid criterion for them was observability of quantities. Although this view contributed to some advances in the twentieth century, but its drawbacks and misunderstandings caused some proponents of this school to criticize it and to become against it. In this paper, the views of some of the most prominent contemporary physicists, who themselves became one of the followers of this school, is reviewed. We have also mentioned some of the great physicists who pointed out the most important criticisms agaist this school. Furthermore, we have explained the reasons for changing the view of physicists in line with positivism, based on logical criteria and philosophical reasoning. In the end, we look at the views of some of the contemporary physicists who have opposed positivism or have gone through positivism to deny the existence of God.

The first condition for the materialization of religious science is to perceive it correctly. The present article tries to offer a correct explication of religious science and to describe its external instances. On the basis of this study, the theist worldview is present in the presuppositions of religious science’s different phases, and the very worldview determines its orientation and applications, and sets the scene for the development of a civilization consistent with it. Not only is religious science a necessity for the future of Islamic world, but also one can easily observe its real materialization throughout the history.

In this paper two viewpoints about scientific theories will be introduced. These two viewpoints are: 1- received view and 2- semantic view about scientific theories. It should be emphasized that our major focus is on the semantic view to scientific theories. The first one، now، does not have any considerable adherents and mainly logical positivist philosophers were its defenders. The received view has two important problems: 1- it is highly impractical that we want to formalize the scientific theories in the first order logic language and 2- its characterization of role and status of models in the scientific theories is inappropriate. We will notice that the semantic view، in particular the version that da Costa and French introduced، by its use of structure، can dissolve these problems and many problems that this view is involved with and this approach is in agreement with what scientists do in reality، in particular physicists try to model natural phenomena.

Cosmology started as a common ground for philosophy، religion، and science. In the Islamic culture، cosmology was either based on creation ex nihilo (the view of theologians) or on old universe (the view of philosophers)، and the problem of multiverse was not mentioned so much. After the introduction of the so-called ‘anthropic principle’ in the early 1970’s، the idea of multiverse entered the realm of cosmology. There were two views among earlier Muslim thinkers concerning the creation of the universe. Muslim theologians believed in the temporal creation of the universe، but Muslim philosophers predominantly believed that our universe is temporally old. As far the uniqueness or multiplicity of universe of the created universe is concerned، there were different views about this among Muslim scientists، philosophers and theologians. Here we mention several views concerning the multiplicity of the universe among some well-known Muslim scholars.

The acceleration of the universe has been confirmed through various cosmological observations since 1998. Nevertheless، there are many models proposed to explain this acceleration and there is no broad agreement on the fact. A concordance model titled “ΛCMD” suggests that the energy of the vacuum space، with a negative pressure، is the origin of the universe acceleration. However the nature of this energy is unknown، and so it is called “Dark Energy”، and we have only a phenomenological equation of state (EOS) for it. The cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss’ thesis، based on a specific value of EOS parameter، predicts a static universe of our local supercluster surrounded by a void، in the future. According to Krauss، the late time intelligentswill not have any access to the pillars of the modern cosmology، and so the “End of Cosmology” will be expected. This paper surveys Krauss’ thesis and examinesits assumptions and consequences. An unavoidable uncertainty in the prediction of the fate of accelerating universe is vindicated.

This paper aims toward the formulation of unificationist approach in the development process of standard quantum mechanics (SQM) during the years 1913-1927، focusing on Bohr and Heisenberg as the two prominent founder scientists of ‘Copenhagen’ quantum mechanics. In this investigation، we formulate various types of unificationist approaches involving reductionist، analogist، and holistic forms of unificationism، within Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s main works. Thus، one part of this paper is devoted to description and articulation of several kinds of unificationism from philosophical point of view. Another part is devoted to the conceptual and philosophical analysis of main works of Bohr (including atomic model، correspondence principle، and complementarily) and Heisenberg (Matrix mechanics and indeterminacy relations). This analysis includes origins، methods، contents، and consequences of their works on physics، in the specific period of SQM development.