آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 44 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,298 |
| تعداد مقالات | 15,883 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 52,116,584 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,887,932 |
The Problem of Certainty in Religion and Science: Two Critically Rational Solutions to the Feynman Dilemma | ||
| مجله پژوهش های فلسفی | ||
| مقاله 26، دوره 17، شماره 42، خرداد 1402، صفحه 352-373 اصل مقاله (403.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی- پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jpiut.2023.16592 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Shuja Zaidi | ||
| London- England | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The influential physicist Richard Feynman became interested in the relationship between religion and science during a mid-career phase. He proposed that their interface was embroiled in unresolvable difficulties. He felt that science demanded an attitude of uncertainty for its claims, while religion contrarily required certain belief in its core doctrines. Though possessing several non-contradictory dimensions, Feynman felt that the nature of the truth claims of science and religion suffered from insurmountable elemental conflicts. This was by contrast to Karl Popper, the leading critical rationalist of the 20th century, who argued that there could be no tension between science and religion. This paper will argue that the ‘Feynman Problem’ is not as insoluble as it appears. Rather, several solutions exist within critical rationalism. Two will be presented-the first revolves around the conjectural basis of knowledge and is already a well characterised critical rationalist notion. The second is a novel solution based on the separate categorisation of psychological, pragmatic, and epistemological attitudes to religion and science. Karl Popper’s view of religion-science dissimilarity was a minimalist point of departure for critical rationalists, who have developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks for investigating the relationship between faith and reason. Critical rationalism represents an equally inspirational methodology for the pursuit of scientific and religious truth. Though both Feynman and Popper’s views on religion were underdeveloped, they foreshadowed the religion-science frameworks advocated by many late 20th century scientists, especially in the form of New Atheism and Gould’s NOMA theory. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Critical rationalism؛ Feynman؛ Popper؛ science and religion | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Albert, H. (1997). The conflict of science and religion: Religious metaphysics and the scientific world view as alternatives. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/ Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 153(1), 216-234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753000 Al-Ghazālī. (2000). The incoherence of the Philosophers. Brigham Young University Press, Translated by Michael E. Marmura Al-Ṣadūq, S. (2009). Kitāb al-tawḥīd (the book of divine unity). The Saviour Foundation-Jamkaran Publication, Eds. Morrow, John Andrew; Rizvi, Ali Raza, Vittor, Luis Alberto & Castleton, Barbara Ball, P. (2016). The tyranny of simple explanations. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/ Blackburn, S. (2016). Oxford dictionary of philosophy. 3rd ed, Oxford University Press. Brian, D. (1995). The voice of genius: conversations with Nobel Scientists and other luminaries. Perseus Publishing. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Bantam Press. Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell. Penguin Books. Dyson, F. (1998). Imagined worlds. Harvard University Press. Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and opinions. Crown Publishers, Inc. Feyerabend, P. (1993, [1975]). Against method. 3rd ed. Verso. Feynman, R. P. (1997 [1985]). Surely you’re joking, Mr Feynman: Adventures of a curious character. Online edition Vo1.2, updated 24.2.2010 Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out. Ed. J. Robbins, Perseus Books. Gleick, J. (2011 [1992]). Genius. Open Road Integrated Media. Gregory, J. (2005). Fred Hoyle’s universe. Oxford University Press. Hawking, S. & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The grand design. Bantam Books. Melchert, C. (2021). The inquisition outside Baghdad. Journal of the American Oriental Society 141(1), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.141.1.0201 Miller, D. (1994). Critical rationalism: A restatement and defence. Open Court. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2 (2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 Paya, A. (2018). Islam, modernity and a new millennium: Themes from a critical rationalist reading of Islam. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. Philips, R. (2013). In retrospect: the Feynman lectures on physics. Nature, Vol. 504, 30-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/504030a Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientific turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12006 Polyportis, A., Kokkinaki, F., Horváth, C, & Christopoulos, G. (2020). Incidental emotions and hedonic forecasting: the role of (un)certainty. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(11), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.536376 Popper, K. (2002 [1959]). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics. Popper, K. (2002 [1963]). Conjectures and refutations. Routledge Classics. Popper, K. (2011 [1945]). The open society and its enemies. Routledge Classics. Popper, K. (2012). After the open society. Eds. Shearmur, J. & Turner, P. N., Routledge Classics. Seidel, E., Pfabigan, D. M., Hahn, A., Sladky, R., Grahl, A., Paul, K. … & Lamm, C. (2015). Uncertainty during pain anticipation: the adaptive value of preparatory processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36(2), 744-755. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22661 Shakir, M. S. (2002). Holy Qurʾan. Ansariyan Publications. Shearmur, J. (2010). Why the ‘hopeless war’? Approaching intelligent design. Sophia, 49(4), 475-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-010-0221-5 Stenger, V. J. (2012). God and the folly of faith. Prometheus Books. Takim, L. (2022). Shiʿism revisited: Ijtihād & reformation in contemporary times. Oxford University Press. Trubody, B. (2016). Richard Feynman’s philosophy of science. Philosophy Now, 116, 10-12. Retrieved from https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 481 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 235 |
||