In the first part of this paper it has been shown that choosing a worldview has effects on the process of development and selection between competitive theories in science and also has practical consequences in the development and application of scientific theories. In the next part, the relation between two main combatant and influential worldviews, namely the theistic and naturalistic ones will be examined. In this part, by focusing on Plantinga’s and Golshani’s views it has been stressed that theism has scored more against naturalism in providing a foundation for explanation of our scientific inquiries and theories, and also in showing to be more compatible with existing accepted scientific theories. It will be concluded that not only theistic science, that is a science based on theistic worldview, is conceptually possible but also it is rational to be pursued and developed.
., .. (2013). A Comparison between the Philosophical Foundations of Religious Science and Naturalistic Science. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(72), 31-54.
MLA
. .. "A Comparison between the Philosophical Foundations of Religious Science and Naturalistic Science". Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18, 72, 2013, 31-54.
HARVARD
., .. (2013). 'A Comparison between the Philosophical Foundations of Religious Science and Naturalistic Science', Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(72), pp. 31-54.
VANCOUVER
., .. A Comparison between the Philosophical Foundations of Religious Science and Naturalistic Science. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2013; 18(72): 31-54.
)