Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Student of Philosophy of Scince and Technology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran;

2 Philosophy of Science Department, Sharif University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor in Philosophy Department, Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Inconsistency of methodological naturalism and religious beliefs has been the most important reason for theists to oppose methodological naturalism. But some philosophers defend methodological naturalism based on their theological dispositions. They believe that theological motivations can lead to a naturalistic methodology. In this paper we review and criticize two prominent types of these arguments and show their deficiencies: First we review arguments which concentrate on difficulties of “Divine Action” problem. According to them rejecting methodological naturalism leads to God of Gaps theology which is awkward and non-religious. Secondly we discuss arguments which aim to prove that supernatural entities could not be described via limited scientific method. The main claim of these arguments is that supernatural entities are too transcendent to be referred in a scientific theory.

Keywords

یغمایی، ابوتراب. (1395). "فعل الهی غیرمداخله گرایانه و نظریه علیت نوصدرایی". فصلنامۀ اندیشه دینی دانشگاه شیراز. دورۀ 16. شمارۀ 4. صفحات 131-144.
گلشنی، مهدی. (1385). دیدگاه‌های فلسفی فیزیکدانان معاصر. چاپ چهارم. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
گلشنی، مهدی. (1393 ). از علم سکولار تا علم دینی. چاپ هفتم. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
Applegate, Kathryn. (2013).” A Defense of Methodological Naturalism”. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, No.65, pp 37-45
Allen, Diogense. (1989). Christian Belief in a Postmodern World .Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Bishop, Robert. (2013). “God and Methodological Naturalism in the Scientific Revolution and beyond”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 65, No. 1.pp10-23
Bultmann, Rudolf. (1984) . New Testament and Mythology and other Basic Writings Selected, Edited and Translated by Schubert Ogden, Philadelhpia: Fortress Press.
Halvorson, Hans .(2016). “Why Methodological Naturalism?. In The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, Editted by Kelly James Clarck, Published by John Wiley and Sons Inc, West Susse UK, pp136-149.
Macquarrie, John. (1977). Principles of Christian Theology. 2nd Edition, London: SCM Press
McMullin, Ernan. (2001). “Plantinga’s Defence of Special Creation”, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited br Robert Pennock, MIT Press Massachusettsm,pp165-196
Pennock, Robert. (2011). ” Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited” , Synthese, Vol.178, No.2, pp 177-206.
Plantinga, Alvin. (1997a). “Methodological Naturalism I”,Philosophical Analysis Origins & Design, 18:1.
Plantinga, Alvin. (1997b). “Methodological Naturalism II”,Philosophical Analysis Origins & Design, 18:1.
Plantinga , Alvin. (2009). “Games Scientists Play”, The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion, edited by Jeffrey Schloss and MichaelMurray. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Origins & Design 18:2. pp139-167.
Plantinga, Alvin. (2011). Where The Conflict Really Lie, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ruse, Michael. (2005). “Methodological Naturalism Under Attack”, South African Journal of Philosophy, 24:1,pp 44-60.
Stoeger, William. R. (2009). ” Describing God’s Action in the World in Light of Scientific Reality”. Philosophy, Science and Divine Action, Edited by F.LeRon Shults, Nancey Murphy, and John Robert Russell. Published by: Brill. Leiden, Boston.
Stanley, Mathew. (2011). ”The Uniformity of Natural Laws in Victorian Britain: Naturalism, Theism, and Scientific Practice”, Zygon, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp 536-560.
Torrance , Andrew. (2017). “Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?”. Zygon, vol. 52, no. 3, pp 691-725.