علم و الهیات؛ طبیعی‌گرایی روش‌شناختی و جهان‌بینی توحیدی

موضوع این مقاله معرفی حوزه عمومی مباحث علم و دین و تبیین اهمیت آن است و هدف آن این است که ضرورت ورود جهان‌بینی توحیدی به چهارچوب نظری دانش تجربی را نمایان کند. برای تثبیت این هدف، در گام اول نشان داده ایم که ورود معارف غیرحسی به ساحت نظریه‌پردازی علمی اجتناب‌ناپذیر است و در گام بعدی استدلال کرده ایم که طبیعی‌گرایی روشی اولاً یکی از مهم‌ترین مبانی علم جدید است و ثانیاً با ارکان اساسی جهان‌بینی توحیدی قابل جمع نیست. در طول مقاله، پس از تعیین معانی مورد نظر برای «علم»، «دین» و «الهیات»، به این پرسش می‌پردازیم که «چرا الهیات با علم نسبت پیدا می‌کند؟ ». پس از آن، مراحل متنوعی که معرفت غیرحسی وارد فرایند نظریه‌پردازی علمی خواهد شد را تشریح می‌نماییم و در این بخش به برخی از آموزه‌های پذیرفته‌شده فلسفه علم نیمه دوم قرن بیستم نیز استشهاد خواهیم کرد. سپس طبیعی‌گرایی را تعریف کرده و جایگاه آنرا به عنوان یکی از مبانی بی‌بدیل علم تجربی جدید نمایان می‌کنیم و تبعات الهیاتی پذیرش آنرا به تصویر خواهیم کشید. نهایتاً ناظر به تقابل طبیعی‌گرایی با خداباوری از یک سو و نادرستی طبیعی‌گرایی از سوی دیگر، ضرورت ورود جهان‌بینی توحیدی در فرایند شناخت طبیعت را تثبیت خواهیم کرد.

science & theology: methodological naturalism and monotheistic worldview

introduction: the issue of this article is to introduce the generalfield of science and religion and explain its importance. here by“science” i mean the epistemic system that endorses methodological naturalism and was established in the 17th century. so to be scientific is at least to explain a phenomenon or event by using only anothernatural event or a natural law. “religion” or “theology” in this paperrefers to a theistic world view according to it any event or objectexists by god’s providence.methodology: the present research uses an analytic rationalmethod to examine the relationship between science and religion.findings: to highlight the question why does theology relate toscience?, i describe the various stages that non sensory knowledgewill enter into the process of scientific theorizing. here i refer to someof the accepted theses of the philosophy of science of the second halfof the 20th century. such as the theory ladenness of observations, therole of theoretical knowledge in forming protocol sentences(immediate experience or basic statements), the popperian thesis thatscientific investigation begins with a problem, not raw observations,the importance of pre experience guesses about effective causes and factors in occurrence of the event that a scientist wants to explain, justification of a scientific hypothesis and underdetermination of theories by data or evidence with referring to duhem’s thesis, and finally generalization of a scientific hypothesis. it has beenemphasized that in each of the above steps of scientific theorizing,non empirical knowledge will be introduced inevitably.when it comes to modern science and its theoretical framework, itis clear that naturalism, even in its methodological form, contradictstheism; because according to theism, each and every event isexplained completely only when the role of divine action is significantin its existence. while to keep naturalism is to ignore the role of anysupernatural entity in explaining a natural event and god is one of theclearest samples of a supernatural being.since methodological naturalism is one of the irreplaceablefoundations of modern science and according to its contrast withtheism, the necessity of a monotheistic worldview in the process ofunderstanding nature is inferred. i complete this inference by a briefdiscussion of the flaws of naturalism and by bringing up the schema ofdivine action of muslim philosophers.conclusion: in short, empirical knowledge cannot be without the needfor a priori knowledge; also, it cannot be unrelated to theology. therefore,the believers must develop a model according to which they try to use allhuman knowledge sources in their place and to the extent that they can beuseful in discovering reality or prescribing the correct path for the exerciseof human will. when we follow this model to discover the truths of nature and systematize those discoveries, we have reached an example of knowledge about the natural world that does not suffer from the defects of methodological naturalism and the one sidedness of epistemological naturalism (scientism).