scientism and atheism; reading in logical paradoxes of steven hawking’s arguments and metaphysical field

This paper deals with the main characteristics of scientism and examines its ability to demonstrate that science is able to transcend its objective area to other fields that do not appeal to the conditions of scientific research. instead of using the kantian analysis which concluded that when the reason exceeds its objective area it gets involved in contradictions and there is no way out, we see that science when it goes beyond its objective area and tries to answer philosophical questions related to objective fields far from its conditions and mechanisms, it gets involved in inevitable contradictions that undermine its efforts in this aspect. the result of our argument concerning one of the models of scientism )steven hawking) is that science has indelible limits linked to the objective arena in which it can play with talent and creativity, and we have demonstrated the paradoxes of sliding into fields strange to its subject, especially the philosophical and metaphysical field.the consequences of our argument for stephen hawking, and of scientism as an ideological cover through which he thinks, are: first, science has indeterminate limits, including internal and external borders, and in the middle field it can create and innovate.the second result is that stephen hawking confused metaphysics and physics after he claimed the death of metaphysics, then raised metaphysics issues, and tried to address them with his material methodological tools, and the paradox occurred. he denied metaphysics, later he tried to prove its subjects negatively, then proved it where he abolished. the other paradox is that he denied the existence of the creator and at the same time confirmed the premises of inductive evidence for the existence of the creator, the order, and the great creation!hawking said: “traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. it has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. as a result, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge”. (stephen hawking: grand design, p.5.).if philosophy is dead, and metaphysics is a part of it, if not its essence, then metaphysics is necessarily dead.but hawking replaced philosophy by physics! when he claims that the traditional philosophical questions like: “how can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? how does the universe behave? what is the nature of reality? where did all this come from? did the universe need a creator?” are not of philosophy or metaphysics but of physics!yes, when we come to evaluate hawking's statement that “philosophy is dead” we find that it is a philosophical, not scientific statement. “therefore, his statement that philosophy is dead contradicts itself.”this means he himself enrolled in metaphysics of science, not in a pure science (lennox j, stephen hawking and god, p18). this is what we called a paradox in his argument.in this paper, we tried to apply a new epistemological method that deals with induction as an applied probability. according to this method, the inference divided into two sections: the inference of objective generation and the inference of autogenous generation. by first we mean that every knowledge in the reason necessarily coexists with something in the outside world. by the second we mean that the new knowledge is generated on the basis of the necessary coextension of the two knowledges themselves (no through their objective aspects). that was al sadr’s theory of autogenous generation.therefore, the inference to prove or deny the designer of the great design is not based on one phenomenon or one law but requires a series of supporting phenomena and another series of negative phenomena, and the theory of probabilities is the one that settles the situation based on the axioms and confiscation required by the stage of autogenous generation.