English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Fundamental Scientific Theories and the Problem of Metaphysical Impartiality: Comments on Stenmark’s Response to Golshani