مجله پژوهش های علم و دین
سال چهارم شماره 2 (پاییز و زمستان 1392)

In his explanation of the conflict of evolution and doctrine of creation، Plantinga analyzes the Theory of Evolution. He describes the Theory of Evolution as the «Grand Evolutionary Story» and considers it as consisting of several notions. He takes a stand against the Theory of Common Ancestry، which is a part of the evolutionary theory. He believes that atheist interpretations of the Theory of Evolution are caused by inappropriate naturalistic conceptions of the Theory. Instead، as Plantinga holds، theistic interpretations of the Theory can be defended using some scientific and religious theories. He also takes a stance towards science، and advocates and argues for Augustinian science، which is a religious science theory. In this paper، the criticisms leveled against the stance of Plantinga by Hasker and McMullin are discussed and some of Plantinga’s responses are analyzed. Then، we will examine his views and present a critical evaluation of the criticisms. By doing so، we will show how Hasker and McMullin have not understood the core of Plantinga’s ideas. Finally، the failure of Plantinga’s theory in providing a religious interpretation of evolution will be shown.

Both science and religion have propositions about the nature. The discovery and cognition of the laws of the nature، scientists of natural sciences claim، is a function of science، while the religious knowers defend the uncontested truth of the religious propositions about the nature. This initiated the conflict between science and religion by which some of the scientists and religious knowers were influenced and whoever was concerned with this problem tried to provide an answer to it. By presenting an interpretation of Islam harmonious with human developments، Motahhari as a Moslem intellectual made an effort to show the compatibility between science and religion. Sometimes، he spoke of human’s need for both of them and the compatibility between them in this regard، and sometimes، he tried to show in detail that there is no conflict between science and religion، as he did about the theory of evolution. Relying on the relativity of scientific laws and eternity of religious doctrines، he sometimes defended the religion and interpretability of science. In this paper، the origin of the problem is discussed and the viewpoint of Motahhari regarding this problem is analyzed.

The first hadith of the chapter ‘Huduth al-Asma’ in Usul al-Kafi، which is one of the most difficult and problematic hadiths and is known as the hadith of ‘Huduth al-Asma’، consists of significant knowledge prevalent in the narratives of the Ahl al-Bayt (A. S.). Because of its attractive content، the hadith has been an object of various interpretations. According to this hadith، which accounts for the sequence، degree، and plurality of the Divine Names، the first creature is a name with four components، one of which is under the veil of the three others. Each of these three components or names has four pillars، and each pillar has thirty names. Thus، the sum total of the names amounts to three hundred and sixty names. At the end of the hadith، there is an exegesis of the 110th Verse of Surat Al-''Isrā'' that says “Say، ‘Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names. ’” Among the different interpretations of this hadith، the ones by Mulla Sadra in Sharh Usul al-Kafi and Allameh Tabataba’i in Al-Mizan and Risalah al-Asma are the most important and influential interpretations. In this paper، the two interpretations are explained and analyzed comparatively.

With the emergence of the scientific movement and the development of natural sciences، science and religion have faced many challenges in their relationship، and different viewpoints have been set forth on how they are related. In addition to conflict theory، which believes that religion and sciences are contradictory، there are other theories on the relationship between the two such as contrast، contact، and confirmation theories. Morteza Motahhari and Mehdi Bazargan as two Muslim thinkers with two different approaches have tried to show that there is no conflict between religion and science. Motahhari tries to solve the so-called conflicts by referring to philosophical presuppositions. He believes that religion confirms scientific developments and humans need both religion and science. On the other hand، Bazargan uses scientific data to show that religion and science correspond to each other and religion is in conformity to science. Indeed، he believes that science and religion have similar accomplishments. Bazargan’s ideas on the relation between religion and science became more oriented to contrast theory in the final years of his life.

The primary aim of the current paper is to critically examine the Standard Objection to a new revision of Design Argument. It refers to an epistemic challenge based on a philosophical interpretation of the Anthropic Principle (AP)، i. e. Anthropic Objection (AO) to the Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument (CFTA). According to AO، being surprised by observing the Life-Permitting Universe (LPU)، which has a very low antecedent probability، is improper، because human cannot find himself in a universe which is not compatible with his existence. The argument، therefore، is accused to infer results that arise from the Observation Selection Effect (OSE) and has no other value. To respond to this objection، we point out and clarify two mistakes: first، an epistemological one، and second، a methodological one. First، we will show that AO is rooted in Hume’s criticism of Analogical Design Argument (ADA)، according to which the source of abstraction of the notion of Design is a kind of illusion. We claim that AP is not tautological or trivial، but rather it is verifiable، and corresponds to reality and state of affairs. Secondly، we argue that stepping out from Argument from Design to Argument to Design is a methodological mistake committed by Elliott Sober. Finally، we defend the rationality of CFTA against the Standard Objection

Explicating and interpreting natural phenomena is a complex process because many factors including observation، logic، and a variety of methodological، ontological and religious beliefs play a role in it. Using the metaphysical and methodological approaches، scientific naturalism tries to simplify this interpretation by excluding some of the above-mentioned factors. It claims that the methodological naturalism is a necessary part of science and prescribes that in explaining natural phenomena، one should act as if reality consists of nothing but matter. Moreover، it assumes that one can act as if the existence of nonmaterial causes، whether created (mind، spirit) or uncreated (God)، does not make a difference in our understanding of the material world. In this paper، this claim will be reviewed.

Maslow’s human motivation theory has been considered as one of the most influential theories of psychology since its emergence. In this theory، basic human needs are ranked in a pyramid. Based on this hierarchy، basic needs، such as physiological needs، safety needs، etc.، should be met first. In this hierarchy، the need for self-actualization and transcendence are placed at the highest level. Thus، an inevitable order and hierarchy of needs govern the fulfillment of the needs. Using a qualitative comparative approach and content analysis method، this study tries to critically review Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory from the point of view of Islam and The Holy Quran. The results of the study show that in order to achieve self-actualization and transcendence defined by The Quran، it is not necessary to fulfill all the prior needs. Even in some cases، it is necessary for humans to disregard some or all their prior needs. Some examples of contradiction mentioned in The Quran include fasting، avoiding hypocrisy، martyrdom، and divine trials.