Hossein Shoorvazi; Mohammad Sa’idi Mehr; Azam Qasemi; Reza Maahoozi
Volume 7, Issue 2 , February 2018, , Pages 103-127
Abstract
The issue of the nature of God's knowledge is one of the problems that have long been caused by the minds of thinkers and intellectuals. In the philosophy of contemporary religion, William Alston deals with the nature of God's science. Is it possible to say that God's science is the same as honest belief? ...
Read More
The issue of the nature of God's knowledge is one of the problems that have long been caused by the minds of thinkers and intellectuals. In the philosophy of contemporary religion, William Alston deals with the nature of God's science. Is it possible to say that God's science is the same as honest belief? In Islamic philosophy, science is divided into two categories: the science of presence and acquired knowledge. What is the wisdom of God in the two things? Attractive science or presence? In this article, after expressing the theory of Alston and Sheikh Ishraq on the knowledge of God, we consider the theory that these two thinkers have somewhat a common view of the science of God after creation. Alstoun's direct intuition theory and the addition of Ishroikah Suhrawardi are two interpretations of one view. Alston's direct intuition theory means that God directly watts the world and therefore has that science.In this paper, it has been attempted to examine the views of these two thinkers on the nature of God's science by examining the views of William Alston and Sheikh Ishraq, and explain their differences and similarities in this regard.
Shima Shahrestani; Hamidreza Ayatollahy
Volume 5, Issue 1 , August 2016, , Pages 51-76
Abstract
Against evidentialists’ views, especially Clifford’s, William James has presented his views about the effect of will on belief. According to Clifford, for everyone, always and everywhere, it is wrong to accept a belief without sufficient evidences. William James, in contrast, believes that ...
Read More
Against evidentialists’ views, especially Clifford’s, William James has presented his views about the effect of will on belief. According to Clifford, for everyone, always and everywhere, it is wrong to accept a belief without sufficient evidences. William James, in contrast, believes that instead fear of error, which is the Clifford’s way to apply ethics on belief, it is better to think getting to truth. He attempts to show that this view is the justifier of religious beliefs, in the way that people, regardless to evidentialism, consider themselves right in their believing in religious beliefs. James' views in the article ‘will to believe’ is established on pragmatism, ethics and psychology. He believed ‘will’ impacts beliefs both in their creation and in their control. James's psychological point of view is dealt with belief creation and his ethical view is concerned with belief control. There are some criticisms against James’ viewpoint; based on one of them, his attitude relativizes the value of faith. Adding two conditions to James’ approach and turning it into an externalist theory to justify religious beliefs, Bishop tries to solve the problem. Evaluating the James’ approach, this paper aims to study the Bishop’s solution.
