مجتبی وظیفه دوست خلج

  Comparing the views of two thinkers of the Christian world, Alvin Plantinga and Hans Kong, helps in examining the relationship between science and religion and some effective fields in it. The way they look at science and religion has a serious effect on the model and relationship between science and religion. Both thinkers are contemporary philosophers and theologians in the field of Christianity. Plantinga is a fundamentalist and has a Protestant religion, and the other believes in Catholicism and is inclined towards modernity. It is also mentioned that Hans Kong studied other religions and studied them, but Plantinga himself states that he did not pay attention to other religions. In the second chapter, religion is examined from the perspective of these two philosophers and issues such as the approach to religion, the origin and reason of religion, and the sources of religion such as the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible are discussed. Both reasons do not accept the existence of God, but Hans Kung speaks of a fundamental trust and Plantinga uses a divine sense for justification. Hans Kung does not equate the church and its declarations with religion and uses the Bible as a basis, but criticizes its validity and does not consider its language to be scientific. Plantinga is loyal to both the Church and the Bible, which he considers both authentic and inclusive. In the third chapter, we discussed the nature of science and its validity. These two philosophers have a serious difference both in terms of examples of science and in terms of nature. Plantinga believes that the believer should see science with all his knowledge as revelation and does not accept any kind of theory under the title of science, such as evolution. But Hans Kong does not have such an approach. Both elites agree in some cases, such as that science should not be involved in metaphysical issues. In the fourth chapter, the relationship between science and religion and some of its examples are examined from the perspective of Hans Kong and Plantinga according to their contexts and approaches. Finally, their model and their common points and differences are stated.