Görüntüleme
20
İndirme
6
This study aims to reveal that all religion-science debates, which deal with religion and science in a comparative way, present them as alternatives to each other and show the two sides as if they are in competition, are essentially fictional. This debate, which emerged as a reflex against the discourses produced about the religion-science relations in the Middle Ages after the scientific revolution and modern thought in the West, took place in different forms in the Islamic world. However, we observe that almost all of the discourses produced in this way take place in a way that accepts the authority of science and centers science by affirming all aspects. In other words, in the religion-science debate that took place after the aforementioned periods, science has always been defined as a legitimate field that is not open to discussion, and religious discourse has been compelled to act in accordance with the scientific data of the period. In such an approach, science is elevated to a position that expresses the absolute truth in every situation, and religion is forced to comply with this exemplary institution of truth. However, some changes in the world of science in the last century show that science does not actually provide us with the perfect truth, that scientific data is accepted according to periodic usefulness, and these acceptances are also affected by some personal and social factors. That is, science does not offer us objective reality, but the practical form in which reality is perceived in our minds. The most influential theory that reveals that science is not perfect and does not have absolute objectivity and certainty is Thomas S. Kuhn's theory of paradigms. With this theory, Kuhn revealed the invalidity of the claims of infallibility and immutability imposed on them, without devaluing scientific claims and without falling into a rigid subjectivism, and laid the foundations of a new view towards science, parallel to the shaking of the idea of unlimited trust in reason in philosophy. Some other developments in the world of science also show us that scientific data is always open to change. So, equating science with religion, which is a field of discourse that is open to being affected by periodic and personal conditions and therefore dependent on change, will be a problematic approach in terms of the universal claims of religion. In order to overcome this problem, the borders of religion and science should be well drawn, and the point at which these two fields can come together should be clearly revealed. As a result of this effort, it will be understood that religion and science are two different fields that do not aim to offer alternatives to each other. In other words, a scientific data should never be put into discussion with the data of religion. This situation does not seem possible from a theoretical and methodological point of view. For example, by combining the theory of evolution, which is a scientific claim, with religions' narratives of creation, to initiate a debate between religion and science, or to declare one of the two claims true and the other false; It will mean that religion, which aims to make a statement about the subject, is put into a fictional struggle. Or, by juxtaposing a narrative about the history of the prophets with the claims of the science of history, to seek support from the science of history or to conclude that there is an inconsistency between them would be to force two distant claims together. Religious texts are not the ground on which the accuracy of scientific claims about the formation of humanity will be checked. Or the narratives about the first man in religious texts should not be considered as the thesis or antithesis of a scientific claim. In this study, based on Thomas S. Kuhn's views on the extent to which scientific claims can represent absolute truth, we argue that the fact that religion and science, which have different goals, are presented in competition as alternatives to each other, is not actually compatible with the essence of both fields, that is, between religion and science. We aim to justify that the alleged debates or tensions are actually fictions that have no reality.
This study aims to reveal that all religious-scientific discussions that are comparative to religion and science and present each other as an alternative and show both sides as in a competition are in the essence of a fiction. After the scientific revolution and modern thought in the West, this debate, which appeared in a reflection of the statements produced about the religious-scientific relations in the Middle Ages, has also appeared in different forms in the Islamic world. But we observe that almost all of the speeches produced in this minval occur in a way that accepts the authority of science and is focused on the optimization of science in all aspects. Thus, in the religious-scientific debate that took place after the mentioned periods, science has always been defined as a legitimate field closed to discussion and has been forced to act in accordance with the scientific data of the religious speech period. In such a approach, science is upgraded to a position that expresses absolute truth in every case, and religion is forced to follow this truth timsali institution. But some changes in the world of science in the last century actually show that science does not provide us with the perfect truth, that scientific data are accepted according to the usefulness of periodic work, and that these perceptions are also influenced by some personal and social elements. That is, science offers us the practical form in which reality is perceived in our minds, not the objective reality. The most effective theory that shows that science is not perfect, that it does not carry absolute objectivity and certainty is the paradigm theory of Thomas S. Kuhn. With this theory, Kuhn revealed the invalidity of the claims of illusion and immutability incurred upon them, without devaluating both the scientific claims and with a firm subjectivism, and set the foundation of a new view of science in parallel with the trembling of the idea of unlimited confidence in philosophy. Some other developments in the world of science again show us that scientific data is open to constant change. Thus, the equalization of science with religion, which is open to influence by periodic and personal conditions, and therefore a speech area dependent on change, will be a problematic approach in terms of religious universal claims. In order to overcome the issue, the boundaries of religion and science must be well drawn up, and the subject must be clearly revealed in which points these two fields can come together. As a result of this effort, it will be clear that there are two different fields of religion and science that are not actually aimed at offering alternatives to each other. Therefore, a scientific data should not in any case be discussed with the data of religion. This is not theoretically and methodologically possible. For example, by combining the theory of evolution that has the character of being a scientific claim with the narratives of the creation of religions, it will mean starting a debate between religion and science or declaring one of the two claims correct and the other wrong, it will mean putting the religion into a fictional struggle with the science, which aims to make a scientific explanation of the fact, to make an explanation of the value and meaning of the world and life. Or to seek support from the history science by bringing a story about history to the side of the claims of history science or to come to a conclusion in the form of an incoherence between them, it will be forcing the two claims to combine away from each other. The truth of the scientific claims about the formation of mankind is not the ground religious texts. Or the stories about the first person in the religious texts should not be considered a thesis or an anti-thesis of a scientific claim. In this study, we also aim to move from Thomas S. Kuhn’s opinions about the extent to which scientific claims can represent absolute truth, to establish that the religious and scientific presentations in a competition as an alternative to each other are not actually in accordance with the essence of both fields, that is, that the alleged discussions or tensions between religious sciences are actually a non-real philosophy.
Alan : İlahiyat
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
