چکیده:
The emergence of epistemological tendencies such as empiricism, scientism, positivism, and the like from the Enlightenment era to the early twentieth century strengthened a type of epistemology that apparently placed the rational defense of religious thought in a dilemma. From the beginning of the twentieth century, numerous and different schools of epistemology emerged which, although they had different foundations and methods, converged at one point: that demonstrative and empiricist epistemological conceptions, which claim a kind of certainty and the knowledge of a single truth as an objective reality, are indefensible. The present article examines which of these multiple but convergent contemporary tendencies in epistemology they were and how they have been able to open a new space for rational theology.
خلاصه ماشینی:
From the beginning of the twentieth century, numerous and different schools of epistemology emerged which, although they had different foundations and methods, converged on one point: that positivist and empiricist epistemological conceptions, which claim a kind of certainty and the objective knowledge of a single truth, are indefensible.
To the extent that it seemed, in the second half of the twentieth century, few philosophers and theologians would dare to express that they could provide a definitive reason to prove the existence of God. But this was not the end of the matter; defending religion is not merely proving the truth of religious propositions.
The limitations of science in the Middle Ages, which—at least according to the famous account—found its dramatic manifestation in the trial of Galileo, and the emergence of new mathematical-empirical science, which found its most prominent form in Newton's discovery of the law of gravitation, caused the eighteenth century to hastily agree, by granting certain degrees of concession, to slowly exclude religion from the circle of knowledge.
This science of hermeneutics was among the tools that, through various readings which were recognized as official or even deemed inevitable, and especially considering the rejection of an objective criterion for distinguishing correct interpretation from incorrect or permissible from impermissible, was able to provide a ground so that, in the words of Kurt Furrer, enlightened interpretations of the contents of holy books, including the Quran, could be obtained that would not conflict with established modern values.
(
, 
, 
)
