Hossein Khatibi; rasoul rasoulipour; Amirabbas Alizamani
Volume 10, Issue 2 , March 2022, , Pages 169-187
Abstract
The Divine hiddenness argument, as presented by Canadian philosopher, John L. Schellenberg, is one of the atheistic arguments based on which, lack of sufficient evidence for theism is itself an evidence against theism. Since the argument was set forth, a lot of thinkers have made some efforts to rebut ...
Read More
The Divine hiddenness argument, as presented by Canadian philosopher, John L. Schellenberg, is one of the atheistic arguments based on which, lack of sufficient evidence for theism is itself an evidence against theism. Since the argument was set forth, a lot of thinkers have made some efforts to rebut it, a lot of which have opted a super-structural attitude while others have gone for a sub-structural approach, one of whom is Michael C. Rea. He holds that through considering some misconstrued conceptions and presuppositions which are hidden behind the hiddenness argument, one can figure the confutation of this argument. After briefly articulating the hiddenness argument itself and Rea's responses to the argument, this article aims at inspecting and critically analyzing his rebuttal. The conclusion which will be eventually put forth is that although Rea has pointed us toward a betted direction in order to analyze and inspect the hiddenness argument, but if we use a reflexive approach and use his methodology on his own ideas, one will be able to discern that they can't reach to their desired target.
hamideh Haji mohammad Hosein Tehrani; Amirabbas Alizamani
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 221-244
Abstract
After Schellenberg proposed the argument of divine hiddenness, many theologians and thinkers have criticized this argument in different ways. In his argument, focusing on the attributes of the God of monotheistic religions, especially the attribute of love, introduces the concealment of God an evidence ...
Read More
After Schellenberg proposed the argument of divine hiddenness, many theologians and thinkers have criticized this argument in different ways. In his argument, focusing on the attributes of the God of monotheistic religions, especially the attribute of love, introduces the concealment of God an evidence to atheism and believes that the God of love never allows his servants to be blamed with inculpable non-belief. Using the free will theodicy that justifies moral evil, Michael Murray, along with the Augustine theology of divine punishment, proposes a theodicy called “coercion” and critiques the argument from divine hiddenness. He claims morally significant free will cannot exercise by individual to be a believer under impulsion of God revelation.
seyed mohammad javad banisaeed langaroudi; seyyed Javad Miri; Amirabbas Alizamani
Volume 9, Issue 2 , January 2020, , Pages 225-244
Abstract
The present article deals with what human happiness is and its relation to the religious knowledge of God. Saint Thomas Aquinas in the tradition of Christian philosophy, and Allameh Tabatabai in the tradition of Sadraian philosophy within Islamic philosophy have dealt with this issue and both know ...
Read More
The present article deals with what human happiness is and its relation to the religious knowledge of God. Saint Thomas Aquinas in the tradition of Christian philosophy, and Allameh Tabatabai in the tradition of Sadraian philosophy within Islamic philosophy have dealt with this issue and both know true happiness in knowing and oneness with God and believe that because true happiness for man, and about His ultimate goal is used, whenever man reaches full actuality in his attribute, which is the power of intellect, and realizes the highest form of intellection, s/he has attained happiness. Both interpret this complete knowledge as vision and consider it as a kind of existential union within the limits of human capacity with the transcendent origin. On this basis, the faith professed by average folk in God cannot lead them to true happiness; however, based on the principles of both philosophers, a way can be found for this problematique.
Fateme Saeedi; Abdolrasoul Kashfi; Amirabbas Alizamani
Volume 8, Issue 1 , May 2019, , Pages 1-23
Abstract
Skeptical theism is one of the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil. This approach which is included of different ideas, with emphasizing on human cognitive limitations and complicated axiological reality, casts doubt on the claim of gratuitous evil. This article is based on Bergmann’s ...
Read More
Skeptical theism is one of the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil. This approach which is included of different ideas, with emphasizing on human cognitive limitations and complicated axiological reality, casts doubt on the claim of gratuitous evil. This article is based on Bergmann’s idea, who is one of the prominent philosopher in this sphere. He challenges William Rowe’s inductive argument with his skeptical theses which are based on “representative” principle. Bergmann’s articles in this sphere are influential and highly controversial. One of the main objections to his idea is that his skeptical theses lead to moral impasse, both in theoretical (moral justification) and pragmatic aspect. This is against our approach in our everyday moral life. Since this position is not acceptable in everyday moral life, skeptical theism is not acceptable either. Although Bergmann accepts limitations in sphere of value, he doesn’t think it makes problem for skeptical theism. This article first introduce representative approach of Bergmann then considering objections and responses to them. At least it becomes clear that Bergmann’s solutions does not response objections rightly.
mehdi abutalebiyazdi; rasoul rasoulipour; Amirabbas Alizamani; Ghorban Elmi,; Mohsen Javadi
Volume 6, Issue 2 , February 2018, , Pages 1-24
Abstract
Open theism as a new approach in the realm of theology and philosophy of religion, has put forward theories and views that have attracted the attention of many contemporary thinkers- both philosophically and theologically. The main claim of the supporters of this approach is that many of the common doctrines ...
Read More
Open theism as a new approach in the realm of theology and philosophy of religion, has put forward theories and views that have attracted the attention of many contemporary thinkers- both philosophically and theologically. The main claim of the supporters of this approach is that many of the common doctrines about the nature and attributes of God (in particular, the attributes such as divine foreknowledge, immutability, impassibility and timelessness) derived from the Greek philosophies, in particular neoplatonic tradition and they are affected by it , and for this reason, these attributes separated from their original path, which is the same path of the Bible. Therefore, in order to remove the false philosophical notions from the true attributes of God in the Bible, we must revisit them again. Since the founders and defenders of this school claim that their views are rooted in the tradition of theism and classical theism, with a historical look at this theological movement and examining the path of its development, we evaluate the validity of their claims. Some contemporary theologians and philosophers of religion consider the open theism as a traditional theism, Some others consider it as a deviation in the traditional theism and some also consider it as heretical school that does not have a place in the orthodoxy tradition. However, although not much time has passed since the beginning of this movement, it has been able to attract opinions -opponent or compliant; A large number of writings confirming or denying this school, have witnessed this claim. Therefore, we should also enter into new areas of theology and philosophy of religion by using our very rich sources in the theological - philosophical tradition of Islam and by fully understanding of this approach.
Habib Mazaheri; Amirabbas Alizamani
Volume 6, Issue 1 , January 2017, , Pages 89-107
Abstract
The link between ‘freedom’ and ‘suffering’ is not intuitively obvious. At first glance, freedom apparently implies just positive implicit implications, but freedom has a dark side which is associated with existential suffering. From the perspective of the human being, the Creator ...
Read More
The link between ‘freedom’ and ‘suffering’ is not intuitively obvious. At first glance, freedom apparently implies just positive implicit implications, but freedom has a dark side which is associated with existential suffering. From the perspective of the human being, the Creator is psychologically overflowing with anxiety because we are responsible, in deepest sense, not only for the inner world, but also for the outside world. The duty of each person is to make his/her world and his/her humanity. Man cannot avoid this responsibility and this freedom. The most important factor in the suffering of liberty in the thought of Yalom is the kind of existential epistemology based on which man has been thrown into the world and has no pattern or law on which build himself/herself, and there is also no guiding God in this construction. But in the epistemology of Rumi, there are both God and law, and what provokes suffering is how to act on the law.
Amirabbas Alizamani; batul zarkande
Volume 3, Issue 2 , April 2015, , Pages 53-72
Abstract
In recent decades, many philosophers of religion have tried to address instances in order to prove the argument of Gratuitous Evil. One of these examples is the divine concealment which presented first time by John L. Schellenberg as an argument against theism. Based on the argument, in spite of that ...
Read More
In recent decades, many philosophers of religion have tried to address instances in order to prove the argument of Gratuitous Evil. One of these examples is the divine concealment which presented first time by John L. Schellenberg as an argument against theism. Based on the argument, in spite of that many of God’s servants want honestly and insistently to observe or perceive Him somehow, He denies giving them some signs of his existence and continues to his hiddenness. Schellenberg claims that if God exists then there is no justification to his hiddenness since through his appearance he can bring about His servant’s salvation and happiness. Our question in this paper is whether the concealment of God can be seen as an instant of evil? Is there really no excuse for hiding God?
