The influential physicist Richard Feynman became interested in the relationship between RELIGION AND SCIENCE during a mid-career phase. He proposed that their interface was embroiled in unresolvable difficulties. He felt that SCIENCE demANDed an attitude of uncertainty for its claims, while RELIGION contrarily required certain belief in its core doctrines. Though possessing several non-contradictory dimensions, Feynman felt that the nature of the truth claims of SCIENCE AND RELIGION suffered from insurmountable elemental conflicts. This was by contrast to Karl Popper, the leading critical rationalist of the 20th century, who argued that there could be no tension between SCIENCE AND RELIGION. This paper will argue that the ‘Feynman Problem’ is not as insoluble as it appears. Rather, several solutions exist within critical rationalism. Two will be presented-the first revolves around the conjectural basis of knowledge AND is already a well characterised critical rationalist notion. The second is a novel solution based on the separate categorisation of psychological, pragmatic, AND epistemological attitudes to RELIGION AND SCIENCE. Karl Popper’s view of RELIGION-SCIENCE dissimilarity was a minimalist point of departure for critical rationalists, who have developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks for investigating the relationship between faith AND reason. Critical rationalism represents an equally inspirational methodology for the pursuit of scientific AND religious truth. Though both Feynman AND Popper’s views on RELIGION were underdeveloped, they foreshadowed the RELIGION-SCIENCE frameworks advocated by many late 20th century scientists, especially in the form of New Atheism AND Gould’s NOMA theory.

Introduction: From a long time ago, benefiting from technology has been an inevitable thing for human interests, which is born AND based on SCIENCE. It can be claimed that there is harmony between ethics, SCIENCE AND technology, which promote each other. In this article, the researcher discusses this harmony AND compatibility. Material AND Methods: The current review study was descriptive AND using the study of sources AND research keywords among the books AND articles published in the databases of Thomson Information Institute, SCIENCE Direct AND Pub Med. Conclusion: As SCIENCE AND technology continue to advance AND become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical considerations become increasingly important. For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions about the potential implications of creating machines that can make autonomous decisions AND take actions. If SCIENCE AND technology were considered as a tool, it should have been able to subjugate humans AND influence all aspects of behavior AND values. While it has become a problem that eventually becomes aligned with morality by applying reason, AND people now seek help from it as a tool.

2The current research was conducted with the aim of compiling AND validating the educational package of the 10th grade RELIGION AND life lesson based on Choice Theory. The research method for the stage of designing AND compiling the educational package was descriptive-analytical method mixed . The main themes of the training package AND the time required for training were taken from written sources such as the model of G schools AND internal AND external research projects. To validate the package, while using the face validity method, the content validity method was used in a qualitative AND quantitative way. It was used with a panel of 14 experts. 14 experts were considered as the statistical population, 10 of them were in the field of psychology, two were in the field of curriculum planning, AND two were in the field of education. In addition, two relative coefficients of content validity AND content validity index were used. The minimum AND maximum relative content validity coefficients for each item of the package were calculated as 1 AND 0.71, AND the content validity index in most sessions reached the number (0.85) for all goals in the educational protocol. The results revealed that the educational package of the RELIGION AND Life lesson based on Choice Theory for 10th grade students have good formal AND content validity AND has the necessary validity for educational applications AND research use.

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, AND as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions AND decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been.  My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of SCIENCE. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure AND inter-relations of the social institutions of SCIENCE, or offer a politics of SCIENCE in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open AND closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority AND leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical AND rational approach AND his insistence on openness AND intellectual honesty are still important today.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual AND, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power AND domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. AND in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah AND industry of RELIGION in Ibn Khaldun's thought AND social control through self-technology AND discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah AND Foucault's late works

Our analysis of Popper’s philosophy of SCIENCE focuses on his concepts of tradition AND situational analysis. These concepts represent innovative Popperian contributions to a historical AND hermeneutical turn in philosophy of SCIENCE that most of his critics, especially Kuhn, fail to recognize. According to his historical view, Popper conceives SCIENCEs as a complex of traditions in continuous transformation AND progress by means of rational discussion of theories. In order to grasp the rational progress of scientific traditions, Popper proposes an original method that he calls “situational analysis”. This hermeneutical method seeks to understAND the concepts, hypotheses, actions, practices, controversies AND products that scientists made to solve problems in their specific historical contexts to improve the truth content of theories. In addition to his historical AND hermeneutical turn, Popper also inquired about the social AND political conditions for the progress of scientific traditions by means of intersubjective criticism of theories AND conjectures. According to him, the rational discussion of ideas requires, as necessary conditions, plurality of ideas, intellectual humility, AND freedom of thought AND communication that can only exist in an open AND democratic society. With these considerations, we may say that in addition to a historical AND hermeneutical turn, Popper also contributed to a social AND political turn in the philosophy of SCIENCE

The Abrahamic RELIGIONs include the three monotheistic RELIGIONs of Judaism, Christianity, AND Islam. All of these RELIGIONs consider Abraham as their ancestor, AND they consider SCIENCE to be the knowledge of the universe AND humanity, which are divine revelations. The framework of SCIENCE in the Abrahamic RELIGIONs uses three basic concepts: 1) monotheism (as a fundamental principle, a single AND all-encompassing Divine vision) 2) the universe (as a divine creation) 3) SCIENCE (as an all-encompassing knowledge about the world as the sign of God). The purpose of writing this paper is to find the common principles governing SCIENCE among Abrahamic RELIGIONs, using a descriptive-analytical method based on library sources. The results of this research is an intellectual attempt to draw on the commonalities between various Abrahamic RELIGIONs in the areas of constructive dialogue in the field of globalization, based on revelatory AND spiritual teachings, to achieve the unification of the world, which is one of the divine promises AND is rooted in the natural foundations of humanity.

The idea that SCIENCE is objective, or able to achieve objectivity, is in large part responsible for the role that SCIENCE plays within society. But what is objectivity? The idea of objectivity is ambiguous. This paper distinguishes between three basic forms of objectivity. The first form of objectivity is ontological objectivity: the world as it is in itself does not depend upon what we think about it; it is independent of human thought, language, conceptual activity or experience. The second form of objectivity is the objectivity of truth: truth does not depend upon what we believe or justifiably believe; truth depends upon the way reality itself is. The third form of objectivity is epistemic objectivity: this form of objectivity resides in the scientific method which ensures that subjective factors are excluded, AND only epistemically relevant factors play a role in scientific inquiry. The paper considers two problems that arise for the notion of epistemic objectivity: the theory-dependence of observation AND the variability of the methods of SCIENCE. It is argued that the use of shared stANDard procedures ensures the objectivity of observation despite theory-dependence. It is argued that the variability of methods need not lead to an epistemic relativism about SCIENCE. The paper concludes with the realist suggestion that the best explanation of the success of the SCIENCEs is that the methods employed in the SCIENCEs are highly reliable truth-conducive tools of inquiry. The objectivity of the methods of the SCIENCEs leads to the objective truth about the objective world.

The viewpoint of INDEPENDENCE of the two fields of SCIENCE AND RELIGION attempts to first, end the conflict of these two fields AND second, stress the role of SCIENCE in managing the unspecific religious fields.Ayatullah Javadi Amoli asserts that this segregation of SCIENCE AND RELIGION is the product of a wrong image of SCIENCE AND RELIGION. He believes that the correct relationship between SCIENCE AND RELIGION is based on the position of intellect in the geometry of religious knowledge.In this view, intellect along with Quran AND Sunnat provides religious knowledge. Therefore, intellectual epistemology AND scientific knowledge are not outside the jurisprudence of religious epistemology AND never contrast with RELIGION. In fact, intellect contrasts word-of-mouth not RELIGION. In this view, SCIENCE is completely religious AND there is no such thing as secular SCIENCE. In this article, the bases AND assumptions of this theory are stated, AND the theory's applicability in picturing scientific RELIGION AND Islamization of SCIENCEs are studied.

Background: The expansion of the use of audio AND video media technology has faced society with many medical, cultural AND economic challenges. In the meantime, excessive use of mobile phones can cause many problems. Objective: The aim of this study was to construct AND validate a questionnaire on physical AND psychological injuries of mobile phones. Method: The method of the present study was descriptive-correlational AND confirmatory factor analysis. The statistical population of the study consisted of all citizens of Khorramabad with a diploma or higher in 1399, which was selected as a statistical sample by available sampling method of 200 people online AND virtual. Results: The results showed that the factorized physical AND psychological harm questionnaire of cell phone with 42 questions AND 10 components (fear of loss, vibration syndrome, duck syndrome, nomophobia, insomnia, hearing problem, eye syndrome, tunnel AND neck syndrome SMS) AND has good reliability, validity AND flexibility in terms of psychometrics. Discussion AND Conclusion: The questionnaire of factor analysis of physical AND psychological injuries of mobile phones can be used to identify AND study the physical AND psychological injuries of mobile phones.