Qur’anic Statements and Protocol Sentences of Science Are “Protocol Sentences” of science and “Core Statements” of religion two mutually inconsistent foundations of the same worldview?


Authors
Mashhad Al-Allaf
Washington University in St. Louis
Abstract
In this paper I attempt to reconcile science and religion by appealing to thevery foundation of knowledge in each. Through the analysis of protocolsentences in science and core statements in religion I attempt to show that weare not talking about two mutually inconsistent worldviews; indeed they arejust different methods of structuring the same reality in two differentlanguages because they share the same logic. While the language of scienceis legitimate in world of physical reality, the religious language islegitimate for world of the unseen realm of reality, as well as for physicalreality.An analysis of the epistemological nature of the “basic statements” and“protocol sentences” in the legacy of the Vienna circle: Moritz Schlick andOtto Neurath, shows that their ultimate constituents are not “basic.” Thecontroversy over this issue is essential to contemporary philosophy, becausethe question of “how to justify the truth-value of certain scientific complexstatements” is first of all a question about “truth” and “certainty,” and second,“truth” in science and philosophy is usually discussed within an ontologicalframe, i.e., it reveals the ontological contents of both science and philosophy.Thus, a “foundation” of knowledge is not only an epistemological issue, butalso an ontological one. The title of Schlick’s famous article was “Uber dasFundament der Erkenntins” .Simultaneously and parallel to this I argue that religion has certainstatements that I call “core statements” that constitute the foundation of thelanguage of the non-physical realm of reality. These core statements ofreligion have an epistemological structure that is even more logicallyconsistent than that of scientific knowledge. Proving this will, at least, showthat the system of spirituality cannot be considered as less consistent or lessreliable than that of science
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,703
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Problem of Protocol Statements and Schlick's Concept of "Konstatierungen".Zhenming Zhai - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:15 - 23.
Science and Analysis of Language.Rudolf Carnap - 1994 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 2:291-294.
Propositional Logic.Kevin C. Klement - 2004 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Neurath’s Protocol Statements Revisited: Sketch of a Theory of Scientific Testimony.Thomas Uebel - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (1):4-13.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-01-31

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes