Fundamental Scientific Theories and the Problem of Metaphysical Impartiality: Comments on Stenmark’s Response to Golshani
In Vol. 3, No. 1 of the journal Theology and Science, a discussion took place between Mehdi Golshani and Mikael Stenmark on the concept of “Theistic Science.” Although both have much in common, their core disagreement revolves around the possibility of value-free science. Stenmark argues that as far...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2022
|
| In: |
Theology and science
Year: 2022, Volume: 20, Issue: 4, Pages: 463-473 |
| IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism BJ Islam |
| Further subjects: | B
theistic science
B Islamic Philosophy B naturalistic science B Science and religion B neutral science |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In Vol. 3, No. 1 of the journal Theology and Science, a discussion took place between Mehdi Golshani and Mikael Stenmark on the concept of “Theistic Science.” Although both have much in common, their core disagreement revolves around the possibility of value-free science. Stenmark argues that as far as the epistemic validation of fundamental scientific theories is concerned, that such validation can be metaphysically impartial. I will explore two of the critiques Stenmark presented in his counter-response, then I will examine his example of an impartial fundamental science. Finally, I will assess Stenmark's notion of “religiously relevant science” from an Islamicate philosophical perspective. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2022.2124482 |