چکیده:
Alvin Plantinga believes that what is presented in scientific societies, journals, and educational and research centers as scientific theories is sometimes only true with atheistic assumptions; if these assumptions are set aside, their validity disappears. In fact, he attempts to show that modern science, contrary to what is generally claimed, is not religiously neutral or impartial; therefore, if the use of atheistic assumptions does not harm the scientific nature of a project, why shouldn't Christian scientists use their religious assumptions in the process of scientific research? This article, with an analytical approach, explains Plantinga's arguments regarding the possibility of religious science (Augustinian) that utilizes religious knowledge in the process of scientific activity, and by citing examples, rejects the claim of methodological neutrality of science (dualistic science). The final part of the article examines the flaws raised or potentially raised against Plantinga's account of religious science.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Although the precursor to this thought in the modern era is William Alston's enduring work, namely Perceiving God4, in which the justification of religious belief is defended by assuming the existence of religious experiences, undoubtedly, Alvin Plantinga's role in systematizing the pattern of Reformed epistemology and demonstrating how it can be applied in Christian theology is greater than anyone else's.
Perhaps in response to this objection, like social constructivists, Plantinga defends the essence of science itself from the influence of external factors such as the goals and purposes of scientists, by referring to the importance of science in the evolutionary life of humans, considering the nature of science used in the City of God to be completely different from the usual science in the earthly city.
Fundamentally, the space of existence in this thought is limited to matter and material factors; therefore, there is no place for religious science—that is, a science that is organized in the light of religion and, in its set of explanatory components, resorts to non-material matters such as God. Some defenders of philosophical materialism, who consider the universe to be material, use words that are used in religious language, but their God is certainly within the same domain of the material world and, unlike the God of monotheistic religions, does not have a transcendent existence; therefore, when people like Auguste Comte or John Dewey speak of God, they mean something like humanity or the sum total of human material desires that have not yet been realized2 (Plantinga, 1996).
(
, 
, 
)
