Seyyad mohammad ali Dibaji; Eisa Mohammadinia
Volume 8, Issue 1 , May 2019, , Pages 83-104
Abstract
Open Theism, as a new approach in theology and philosophy of religion, has attracted attentions of most of contemporary thinkers toward its views. The main claim of supporters of this approach is that many of current doctrines of Christian theology about God’s entity and his attributes are ...
Read More
Open Theism, as a new approach in theology and philosophy of religion, has attracted attentions of most of contemporary thinkers toward its views. The main claim of supporters of this approach is that many of current doctrines of Christian theology about God’s entity and his attributes are not consistent with Scripture and this has led to incompatibilities between new science and religious thoughts. One of them is found in conflict of God’s knowledge and Human’s Freewill. In addition to redefining some of God’s attributes especially his absolute foreknowledge, open theists tried to resolve that traditional and controversial problem. Also, they interpreted the relation of God and the world in a new way to solve the conflict. In this article the open theist’s method in resolving the problem of Gos's foreknowledge and Human's Freewill is going to be reviewed based of Sadra’s philosophy.
somayeh Amiri; Abbas Ahmadi Saadi; Mohamad Ali Akhgar
Volume 10, Issue 2 , March 2022, , Pages 89-108
Abstract
Since time immemorial in Islamic and Christian civilization, thinkers and theologians have raised many discussions about the concept of faith and disbelief and the issues surrounding them with different interpretive, philosophical, theological and mystical approaches. These topics have brought many social ...
Read More
Since time immemorial in Islamic and Christian civilization, thinkers and theologians have raised many discussions about the concept of faith and disbelief and the issues surrounding them with different interpretive, philosophical, theological and mystical approaches. These topics have brought many social reflections such as excommunication and sanctification. After explaining the difference between science and knowledge, Eynolghozat Hamedani considered the way of true knowledge to be beyond reason and by criticizing the philosophers in the discussion of the essential concept of faith, he stated that its meaning is to confirm the words of the prophets and the lowest order is to act in accordance with the commands and directions of God. he does. Faith has two aspects: knowledge and action, and its sign is "bowing to Allah" and "loving God's people". After stating the types of disbelief, he considers some types of disbelief to be acceptable but also necessary for faith. On the other hand, with a philosophical epistemological perspective, in the meaning of faith and unbelief, Mulla Sadra gives originality to science and knowledge and gives the main role to knowledge and science in all levels of faith such as verbal, imitative, proof and even discovery faith. He considers disbelief to be the worst form of ignorance. In this article, the views of Eynolghozat Hamedani (492-525 AH) and Mulla Sadra (1050-979 AH) about faith and disbelief and some of their important issues have been comparatively investigated with a descriptive and analytical method.
masoud fayazi
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 97-113
Abstract
Emilio Betty is an twentieth-century Italian objectivist hermeneutist. An opponent of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, he tried to present a new hermeneutic theory that was more effective in understanding the author's intentions by continuing Schleiermacher's path and refining his text comprehension ...
Read More
Emilio Betty is an twentieth-century Italian objectivist hermeneutist. An opponent of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, he tried to present a new hermeneutic theory that was more effective in understanding the author's intentions by continuing Schleiermacher's path and refining his text comprehension theory. He believes; The way to reach the author's goal is to reconstruct his intention by reconstructing his thoughts. For this purpose, along with the meaningful signs of the text, due to Kant's obedience in the structures of the mind, he considers the special role of the interpreter's mindsets in interpretation. That is why he is a relative objectivist, not an absolute. However, in order to prevent destructive subjectivism, in addition to paying attention to the author's centrality in interpretation by setting four rules, and also by enumerating aspects for interpretation such as philology, historical interpretation, sociological interpretation (based on Max Weber's views), interpretation Reproduction and normative interpretation try to determine a limit for the role of the interpreter and the text in achieving the author. However, it seems that he has not been able to overcome this challenge and is practically both author-centric and gives a special role to the interpreter. This article describes this challenge, his strategy, and critiques of his strategies.
gorbanali karimzadeh garamaleki; Abdullah HosseiniEskandian
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, , Pages 101-118
Abstract
Since the day when mankind entered the field of existence, religion and religious beliefs have also been created, and the question of the origin of religion has always been a fundamental question that every human being has faced. In the meantime, some thinkers like Auguste Comte (1798-1857) consider ...
Read More
Since the day when mankind entered the field of existence, religion and religious beliefs have also been created, and the question of the origin of religion has always been a fundamental question that every human being has faced. In the meantime, some thinkers like Auguste Comte (1798-1857) consider the origin of religion to be human ignorance (Comte, 1998: p.231). Marx (1818-1883) considers religion to be a product of the ruling class to dominate the weak class of society (Marx and Engels, 2019: p.36), and Feuerbach (1804-1872) also believes that religion has a human origin (Feuerbach, 1854: p.104). Freud (1856-1939) also considers religion to arise from the repressed human desires and instincts (Freud, 1983: p. 80). Such atheistic approaches to religion are contrary to the view of Divine religions, which consider the origin of religion to be Divine revelation and the teachings of Divine prophets.One of the approaches to consider is the sociological approach of the origin of religion, and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is the most prominent sociological theorist and the one who had the greatest impact on the sociology of religion. Emile Durkheim's view about the origin of religion is one of the views that is widely discussed and known today and can be rejected from various aspects. In this research, an attempt is made to analyze and criticize his view from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari (1919-1979) and John Hick (1922-2012).MethodologyThis article analyzes Emile Durkheim's view on the origin of religion and its criticism from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari and John Hick, with a descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach.FindingsDurkheim believes that to investigate the origin of religion, one should start from primitive religions (Durkheim, 2017: p.89). Durkheim believes that religions have an evolutionary journey that started with totemism and evolved into current religions (Moreno, 2011: p.109). Durkheim emphasized that religion is both a reasonable phenomenon and an eternal and undeniable reality. At the same time, Durkheim believes that the essence of religion is not in believing in a God beyond nature and the world (Durkheim, 1995: p.109). Durkheim considers the simplest existing religion to be "totemism" or the religion of the Australian aboriginal tribes. From Durkheim's view, totemism is important from two aspects; first, totem is the essence of religion, and second, totemism is a factor for solving conflicts between science and religion; because from his view, in today's individualistic and rationalistic societies, science has the supreme moral and intellectual authority. On the other hand, religion also defines certain frameworks for people, and science, by discovering the deep reality of all religions, does not create another religion, but creates the confidence that society has the power to create the gods it needs in every era (Ritzer, 2012: p.23).Discussion and ConclusionAccording to Durkheim, the origin of all religions is totem, and totem is also derived from society's propositions (Durkheim, 2012: p.67). Durkheim does not consider religion useful except for social benefits, and beyond that religion is useless, but this view has been criticized and is in conflict with rational principles. Shahid Motahhari has criticized Durkheim's view based on Islamic principles. From his view, as Durkheim thought, society is not the main factor in the birth of religion, culture, art, etc., and society should not be considered the real and effective factor in the birth of such important affairs in human life (Motahhari, 2003: p.76). He also has stated consequences such as monopolizing the function of religion in individual life and alienation for Durkheim's theory, and that such a view of religion, although it may be true for other religions, is not true for Islam (Motahhari, 2009: p.90). Shahid Motahhari also considers the belief in totemism, which is one of the principles of Durkheim's theory, to be illusory and unacceptable (Motahhari, 2010: p. 102). John Hick has also tried to challenge Durkheim's sociological view of the origin of religion (Hick, 1993: p.78). Hick considers Durkheim's statement that "society is the origin of religion" to be unproven and unjustifiable, which will never be able to explain the origin of religion well. From Hick's point of view, Durkheim's view can ultimately explain one of the effective factors in religious life, not the origin of religion. According to the criticisms expressed by Shahid Motahhari and John Hick on Durkheim's sociological theory about the origin of religion, it can be acknowledged that Durkheim's theory has no rational basis and proven argument.
Tahereh Baghestani; Hadi Vakili; N poormohammadi; Hosein Moosavi
Volume 11, Issue 2 , December 2023, , Pages 103-138
Abstract
The issue of the occurrence of evil in the system of creation is one of the issues that have always focused the minds of the thinkers of the world. The number of works that have appeared on this issue forms a long list. The contribution of theologians, scholars of religion, and philosophers of religion ...
Read More
The issue of the occurrence of evil in the system of creation is one of the issues that have always focused the minds of the thinkers of the world. The number of works that have appeared on this issue forms a long list. The contribution of theologians, scholars of religion, and philosophers of religion in this regard is significant, but the scope of long-term debates and conflicts in this regard is not limited to the scope of academic studies and researches, and has also been extended to the level of the general public, and inevitably sometimes they are divided into two groups of deniers of divine justice and Believers have divided it. The existence of evil, natural and unnatural ailments and shortcomings in the world, especially from this point of view, has attracted the opinion of theologians and philosophers of religion, which is not compatible with God's absolute knowledge, absolute power, and absolute goodness. According to them, solving this inconsistency is the main task of the researchers of the problem of evil. On the one hand, they seek to protect the theological propositions based on God's omniscience, omnipotence, and pure goodness, and on the other hand, they must explain the occurrence of this evil in the divine system in such a way as to be compatible with these theological propositions. Since these doubts are related to the most fundamental principle of divine religions, i.e. the proof or denial of God and the compatibility of divine attributes, the discussion and exchange of opinions by opponents and supporters has turned into a scene of long-lasting confrontations between them. As we will see, in the contemporary philosophy of religion, there have been various discourses on the issue of evil, among which three logical, relative and existential discourses are particularly famous. Philosophers of religion have responded to these three speeches in the form of defense, theodicy, and consolation-meaning, respectively. Although this issue has a long theological and philosophical history, this issue has not prevented the mystics from expressing their opinions and positions on this issue. The supreme example in this valley is Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, a representative of theoretical mysticism and the founder of the Akbari school, who, from his special mystical perspective, discussed the problem of evil, and to explain the problem of evil and answer the doubts arising from it, from various mystical foundations such as Nizam God's names and attributes, the best system, stable nobles, and personal unity have benefited. In the field of mysticism, articles have been written that are close to this topic, which are remarkable not in terms of complete compliance with the topic, but in terms of the similarity and scope of the topic, and can be effective in a wider understanding of the issue. Among them, Javadinia, Mazaher, 2015, "Evil and how to find its way in Ahsan's system in the school of Ibn Arabi", Philosophy of Religion, second year, vol. 4, which examines and explains evil and how to find its way in Ahsan's system in Ibn Arabi's school based on symbols God's glory and the good names of God, especially the name of the Most Merciful, the principle of personal unity of existence and the principle of manifestation. Of course, in this work, new views have not been considered. Also, Sepahi, Mojtabi, 2014, "Judgment and destiny and its connection with eternal beings from Ibn Arabi's point of view", New religious thought, year 11, number 41, which aims to explain and analyze destiny and destiny with eternal beings and their relationship with personal unity of existence. And although he addressed Ibn Arabi, there is no mention of new views on the issue. Also, Amini, Hassan, 1387, "Good and evil in the school of Ibn Arabi", Maarif al-Aqli, Vol. 12, has investigated and explained the problem of good and evil in Ibn Arabi's view in terms of the personal unity of existence and the good system and in terms of determination. Ibn Arabi has specified and pointed out the problem of evil in various places of his many works, but especially in four places in the book Fass al-Hakm, namely in Fass Yusuf, Fass Zakariyavi, Fass Yunsi, and Fass Ayyubi, and several positions from the conquests of the Makkiyyah to discuss the ills. He has paid evil and harm. In this article, we will first present his claims and arguments about the problem of evil in two books, Fosus al-Hikam and Fatuhat al-Makiyya, and then we will extract the defenses and theodicies that can be attributed to him from these works. A look at Ibn Arabi's works shows that in terms of the personal unity of existence and the system of goodness, he considered evil to be absolutely excluded in the system of existence for the purposes of the simple deprivation of education; But from the point of view of determination, he considers non-existent matters to be inherently evil and in existential matters, he has accepted a kind of relative evil in the creation system and a kind of inherent evil in the legislation system. Also, based on his views on good and evil, God's providence and will, his knowledge is subordinate to his knowledge, and his knowledge is subject to the known, and his known is the fixed nobles and their conditions. Whatever God bestows on things, it is based on the requirements of their fixed virtues. Therefore, good and evil both return to the fixed principles of things, and since the fixed principles are immovable, therefore, God has absolute authority. Also, Ibn Arabi from defenses such as the illusory nature of evil, the absence of evil and the relativity of evil, and from theodicies such as theodicy of compensation, theodicy of free will, theodicy of the best possible world, theodicy of the cultivation of the soul, and theodicy of purity, theodicy of the process, theodicy of the cross, etc. The justification of the problem of evil seeks benefit. It seems that such efforts are highly successful. As we have seen, the capacity of Ibn Arabi's works is so significant that one can make defenses such as the illusory nature of evil, the absence of evil and the relativity of evil, and theodicies such as theodicy of compensation, theodicy of free will, theodicy of the best possible world, theodicy of soul cultivation, and theodicy of purity, theodicy of process, theodicy of crucifixion and He attributed others to him. It seems that conducting similar research on other Muslim mystics as well as other relevant sources in Islamic philosophy and theology can bring important achievements in today's explanation of the views of Muslim thinkers on the issue of evil.
Moha] Mohammad Rezaee; Seyyedeh Zeinab Mehrianpoor
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 95-120
Abstract
Every single soul that has a little knowledge of himself and those around him, does have this question that, is death end of existence and all our instincts and aspiration? And if not, how would be our life or lives after death? This question is as old as human being. Belief in eternity of life plays ...
Read More
Every single soul that has a little knowledge of himself and those around him, does have this question that, is death end of existence and all our instincts and aspiration? And if not, how would be our life or lives after death? This question is as old as human being. Belief in eternity of life plays an important role in interpretation of human life and its meaning and meaninglessness. But some philosophers have problem with the meaning of human eternity. The present paper uses descriptive and analytical method to critique the relationship between eternity and meaning of life in view of Bernard Williams. Bernard Williams argues based on moral philosophy and pragmatic approach that, since an eternal life is undesirable, desire of eternal life is unreasonable. Therefore, Williams not only believes that eternity is not necessary for the meaning of life, but also it is hazard; because, actually, death is what can make the life meaningful. Different critiques of this view deny the incompatibility of eternity and the meaning of life; and illustrate that Bernard William’s argument against any kinds of eternity was not correct and cogent.
Fatemeh Rafati; Mohammad Sa’idi Mehr
Volume 8, Issue 1 , May 2019, , Pages 105-127
Abstract
The Privation Theory of Evil (PT) is a general theory about the nature of evil according to which all kinds of evil have a privative (or negative) nature. During the Middle Ages some great philosopher-theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas endorsed (PT). After being neglected for a long time, recently ...
Read More
The Privation Theory of Evil (PT) is a general theory about the nature of evil according to which all kinds of evil have a privative (or negative) nature. During the Middle Ages some great philosopher-theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas endorsed (PT). After being neglected for a long time, recently philosophers of religion have shown interest (PT). In this paper, after a brief review of Augustine’s and Aquinas’ views, we first provide a comprehensive sketch of (PT). Then we examine some of the arguments proposed in favour of (PT) and show that they are not conclusive. Then we discuss two counterexamples proposed by the opponents of (PT), namely pain and moral evil. First, we investigate and critique the views of the two sides and then we argue that the main deficiency of the current debate is the philosophers of religion don’t utilities the relevant theories of philosophy of mind and ethics to illustrate their philosophical grounds. Without clarification of these grounds any well-based judgment about (PT) seems to be impossible.
Matinossadat Arabzadeh; Amirhossein Khodaparast
Volume 10, Issue 2 , March 2022, , Pages 109-130
Abstract
Kierkegaard analyzes the relationship between faith and reason with a faith-oriented position. He believes that the rationalization of faith is a contradictory matter, and faith, which is a subjective passion and truth, can never be caught in the shackles of rationality. Mutahhari, contrary to this faith-oriented ...
Read More
Kierkegaard analyzes the relationship between faith and reason with a faith-oriented position. He believes that the rationalization of faith is a contradictory matter, and faith, which is a subjective passion and truth, can never be caught in the shackles of rationality. Mutahhari, contrary to this faith-oriented attitude, believes that the basis of faith is rationality, although the subjective way or the way of Fitrah also plays a role in reaching the truth. Both Mutahhari and Kierkegaard consider the role of will in faith. Both believe that faith, in its nature, is to be surrendered and both present a picture of the exalted human being. However, Kierkegaard considers faith to be the paradoxical matter of God incarnated in human form, while Mutahhari, with emphasizing mystical and passionate faith, believes in the rationality of religious faith. What, despite these differences, brings Mutahhari and Kierkegaard closer to each other is their view of moral life, a life that has a basis of faith and is shaped by inner submission to the God who created human nature. It seems that a way can be found to combine the different views of Kierkegaard and Mutahhari. Our search for this path balances the fervor of Kierkegaard's faith with a perfected degree of intellectual development in Mutahhari, which involves an understanding of the limitations and inadequacies of human reason.
smaeel Alikhani
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 115-136
Abstract
One of the fundamental social changes in the modern world is the decline of religiosity and believing in God. Numerous factors contribute to this retreat of the sea of faith. An important factor in this event is the family; which has usually attracted little attention. Statistical and sociological ...
Read More
One of the fundamental social changes in the modern world is the decline of religiosity and believing in God. Numerous factors contribute to this retreat of the sea of faith. An important factor in this event is the family; which has usually attracted little attention. Statistical and sociological evidences prove the idea that the atheism is tied to this important factor. This article examines this question in a descriptive-analytical manner that if the family is so important and its decline leads to the decline of believing in God, why is that? By examining different probabilities and speculations through statistical and sociological data, it has reached this result that nonmarriage, life without children, freedom from family bondage, theoretical or practical atheism of parents, absence of father at home and contradiction of religious treatment of parents have a great role in turning away all members of the family, especially children from God and religion.
somayeh Amiri; Abbas Ahmadi Saadi
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, , Pages 119-132
Abstract
Each ethical school, according to its acceptable subject matter, offers different ethical needs and needs. For Kant, science is a knowledge that has a pre -authored theorems and therefore general and necessary. Any knowledge that is delicate does not deserve the name of science. Ethics, ...
Read More
Each ethical school, according to its acceptable subject matter, offers different ethical needs and needs. For Kant, science is a knowledge that has a pre -authored theorems and therefore general and necessary. Any knowledge that is delicate does not deserve the name of science. Ethics, as a science, also has preceding orders. Ethical "must" never derive from experience; That is, "it is" cannot be deduced. He considers these principles to be due to mental and intellectual forms. Unlike him, the contemporary Muslim thinker Haeri Yazdi refers to all the necessities and interprets them as a non -necessity. In the discussion of intellectual and practical intellect, Kant also described the origin of ethics as the practical reason, the non -empirical and realistic metaphysics that gives its own reality; But according to Haeri Yazdi, there is only one theoretical reason that is sometimes acted outside and is called practical reason. In this paper, it has been attempted to examine the analysis and comparison method of the philosophical foundations of these two philosophers that have made them different in their perspective. The issue of ethics among religious and epistemic issues is one of the issues that is of particular importance and requires special attention in the discussion. They usually divide the religious issues into three separate sections: beliefs, decrees, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics And among all kinds of research on ethics (descriptive, normative, and transnational) research, transcript and analytical and philosophical studies on ethical propositions. Metro -ethics is a science that deals with the philosophical analysis of the meaning and characteristic of moral language, such as: "good" and "bad", "right" and "inaccurate" meanings. Therefore, transcendence is about grammatical ethics and seeks to explain the words and concepts used in this ethics. We are more dealing with the meaning of the word "good" in transcendence; That is, whether good is what we find in objects or something we can, such as: to see color or to feel pain that has been presented on transnational issues. (Palmer, 1995, 156) One of the philosophical issues in the science of ethics is what distinguishes the former elements from the empirical elements, and what is the justification for accepting the former elements? That is, how can we be able to achieve the principles of behavior that is binding to all human beings, in the context of ethics, "must" be "should" or nine? Can we argue for ethical propositions? Or how can we come from the real -life of the real sciences? What is the appreciation and validity of human behavior? There is no emphasis on the beings. Unlike him, Kant acted in the opposite of other scholars (and so -called Copernican Revolution), as well as in the case of moral affairs; That is to say, the predecessors concluded from the essence of self -esteem and the survival of the soul that man was obliged to ethical duties, but he considered the human being to be certain of the moral duties, then concluded the survival of the soul and the certainty of the existence of the Lord. Regarding the purpose of studying ethics, Kant generally believes that the task of the philosopher is to search and, if possible, prove the principle of supreme ethics. What is the purpose of moral duty or requirement and what is our justification for accepting that we are essentially a task? But the late Haeri, who founded his thoughts on the basis of conventional ontological ideas among Muslim thinkers, believes that the issue of ethical propositions and how to achieve them is one of the most important human concerns, the way to which one can be. Its personal and social happiness. Cutting human beings from moral life, or morality of relativity, can cause irreparable damage to man. But on the other hand, in dealing with serious questions in the field of ethics, one must look for reasonable answers. Both thinkers want to achieve this goal through reason. 2- Kant and the late Haeri Yazdi have both paid much attention to ethical precepts and values. Kant states that merely matching the verb and duty is not enough to know it. Rather, this must also have been issued for the purpose of doing so. Both have paid special attention to the issue of Hassan Faali in addition to the current good. But Kant has unfortunately gone on the way to the intention. Kant says it belongs to the intention of "respect for the law of reason". That is, moral work is something that has been done by the motivation of obedience to the law and the law of reason. The basic question that remains is that creating this intention requires a number of specific essentials. Whatever the basis, they need cognition. That is, they are based on the precepts of theoretical reason. In other words, that I want to act on my duty is because I know it perfection for myself. The intention of obeying the law of reason is issued by man when it values the respect of the law. But where does this value of the law come from? If this is also a moral sentence, there will be a seizure. And if it is a theoretical matter, it is the theoretical thing that man considers it to be perfection. Therefore, beyond the intention of doing the task is another intention, which is that I want to do it because I want to do it. However, Kant states that if anyone does something to do something, his job will not be a moral thing.
seyyed Javad Miri
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 121-138
Abstract
In this paper, the author is looking at Ali Shariati's conceptualization of Shiism from its early period to the 20th century. By dividing the history of Shiism into two forms of movement and institution, Shariati argues that Shiism in the form of movement is faith-oriented while in the ...
Read More
In this paper, the author is looking at Ali Shariati's conceptualization of Shiism from its early period to the 20th century. By dividing the history of Shiism into two forms of movement and institution, Shariati argues that Shiism in the form of movement is faith-oriented while in the phase of institution is power-oriented. This is a disputable form of conceptualization but it is worth debating as this distinction is employed by Shariati in re-reading the relation between religion and state too. He argues that in the phase of movement, the Shiite religious scholar appears as an 'Alim' while in the institutional phase we are faced with a new form of social being which appears as 'Ruhani'. Here Shariati argues that the consolidation of scholar as a Ruhani seems to bear resemblances to Christianity both in its religious form and social institutions. Furthermore, Shariati argues that Shiism in the Alavite form which is symbolized by religious scholar as an Alim holds a critical stance vis a vis power while in the Safavid form which is symbolized by religious personality as a Ruhani holds a domicile position vis a vis power.
Narges Karimi Vaghef; Abdolrasoul Kashfi; MohammadReza Bayat
Volume 10, Issue 2 , March 2022, , Pages 131-154
Abstract
The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”. On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in ...
Read More
The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”. On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in conflict with the doctrine of divine omnipotence. An omnipotent being is one that can do all things possible; and, surely, it is possible to do immoral action. Nelson Pike discusses this matter in detail. He suggests as to how the various senses of “God cannot do moral actions” ought to be sorted out. Based on Pike’s suggestion, although the individual that is God has the ability to do immoral actions, His nature or character is such as to provide assurance that He will not act in this way. Joshua Hoffman maintains that Pike’s strategy for resolving the dilemma fails because it commits him to God’s being contingently omnibenevolent (not necessarily). In response, Pike accepts that God is not necessarily omnibenevolent and it’s the only way to resolve the dilemma. In Pike’s defense, the discrimination between “logical necessity” and “metaphysical necessity” should be noted. Further, we should distinguish between “the title of God” and “the individual of God”. “The title of God is benevolent” is metaphysically necessary while “The individual of God is contingently benevolent”. Therefore “God is necessarily benevolent” based on His title but this necessity doesn’t result in any limit for divine omnipotence.
mohammad nejati; Faarooq Tooli; Mohsen Mahmoodi; seyyed abbas Taqavi
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 137-157
Abstract
One of the serious consequences of the corona epidemic in the contemporary period is its impact on the question of the meaning of life. Coronary heart disease involves a variety of types of pain and suffering. Causes numerous pains in various organs and tissues of the body. From all kinds of sufferings, ...
Read More
One of the serious consequences of the corona epidemic in the contemporary period is its impact on the question of the meaning of life. Coronary heart disease involves a variety of types of pain and suffering. Causes numerous pains in various organs and tissues of the body. From all kinds of sufferings, this disease causes various psychological sufferings. Examples of philosophical suffering are among the sufferings created by Covid 19. But what is more important in the meantime is the view of contemporary man on these sufferings. In the current period, due to the radical change in human view of the three categories of science, namely God, man and nature, and belief in the central role of man in the world and sanctification and belief in the salvation of experimental sciences, acceptance and tolerance of suffering Corona becomes difficult. Contemporary man has been largely unable to analyze why he suffers from coronavirus-induced suffering, and this inability provides the basis for suffering known as secondary and incurable suffering. The occurrence of such sufferings is the main reason for the meaninglessness of life and the tendency to the emptiness and worthlessness of worldly values.
farideh lazemi; Zolfagar Hemmati
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, , Pages 141-166
Abstract
IntroductionHume published Books 1 and 2 of his Treatise in 1739. By publishing these two books, he proposed views that were against many core teachings of Christianity. These themes were repeated more extensively at length in Hume’s First Enquiry, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Natural ...
Read More
IntroductionHume published Books 1 and 2 of his Treatise in 1739. By publishing these two books, he proposed views that were against many core teachings of Christianity. These themes were repeated more extensively at length in Hume’s First Enquiry, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Natural History of Religion, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary, The Letters of David Hume, in particular A Letter from a Gentleman to his friend in Edinburgh, Early Memoranda, and An Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature, and the lessons and teachings of the Christian religion were undermined and discredited by his extreme skeptical arguments.The last paragraph of the third book of the treatise, which was translated into Persian by Dr. Jalal Paykani in 2017, makes it clear that Hume did not consider his philosophy to be important only theoretically. This passage states:An anatomist ought never to try to copy the painter, as though in his minute dissections and portraitures of the smaller parts of the human body he could give his figures any graceful and engaging attitude or expression! . . . But an anatomist is admirably fitted to give advice to a painter; indeed, it is hardly possible to excel in painting without the assistance of the anatomist. We must have an exact knowledge of the parts, their positions, and their connections, before we can draw with any elegance or correctness. And thus the most abstract speculations concerning human nature, however cold and unentertaining, become subservient to practical morality; and they can render this latter science more correct in its precepts, and more persuasive in its exhortations (Hume, 2018A: 431-432).According to this very important passage, Paul Russell in his recent paper, entitled “Hume's Skepticism and the Problem of Atheism”, Robert Fogelin in his book, entitled “Hume's Skepticism in the Treatise of Human Nature”, and the famous writer, J. M Robertson in the book, entitled “The Dynamics of Religion”, have mentioned that Hume's practical purpose of designing this collection of skeptical arguments is discrediting the religion. Recently, Mrs. Farideh Lazemi presents a very similar view in her doctoral thesis, entitled “The place of Religion on David Hume's Philosophy”. This researcher claims in the opening section of her work:Hume discredits the religious beliefs and teachings of Christian philosophy, such as the existence and attributes of God, the doctrine of the immateriality of the soul, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of a future state, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, the doctrine of free will, the nature and conditions of moral responsibility, and the consequences of this for human happiness and misery, and the connection between religion and moral principles, as well as the reasonability of testimony and belief in miracles, with a view to the re-direction of philosophical research in the field of life, with the special purpose of project of a “science of man”, that this irreligious purpose of David Hume's philosophy is by no means completely theoretical in its nature; Because the irreligious philosophy of this philosopher has an obvious practical intention, and that is to discredit the role of religion in human life (Lazemi, 2022: 21).The authors of this paper claim that despite the efforts of our prominent and young commentators who aimed to present a clear and good interpretation of Hume's practical goal, there are still some faults in their interpretations, which major of them are the lack of interest in Hume's naturalistic observations about the origins and roots of religion, and human's natural need for religion, the observations that, in our opinion, lead us to his optimistic approach to the presence of religion in human life, which is the main goal of this study. It is true that Hume reaches the negative conclusion that superstition is harmful and a remedy should be found for it, but he does not leave us at this point. In his works, he plainly aims to describe the detailed mechanisms that enable us to see religion as an original sin in human nature. In this case, there is no hope of us entirely purging humanity of these propensities and tendencies.A very important question can be raised here, and that is, why do we try to call Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life is a moderate optimistic attitude? In response, on the one hand, it should be said that this commentary allows audience and readers of this philosopher to dislodge the most common attached title to Hume's religious position, that is; Extreme Pessimist. On the other hand, in recent years, Hume scholars have only focused on the negative and destructive aspects of his philosophical program and have not paid enough attention to the constructive and positive aspects of his irreligious program. Therefore, our interpretation warns us from giving one-sided emphasis to the critical features of Hume's irreligious philosophy. In other words, by this interpretation, we do not give emphasis to the negative and destructive aspects of Hume's philosophical program, but we are also able to understand the constructive and positive aspects of the irreligious program of Hume's philosophy of religion. It should be noted that in the contemporary era, and especially in the last decade, due to the lack of understanding of the continuity between Hume’s earliest work and his later works on religion, such an interpretation is ignored in the philosophy of religion of this philosopher. MethodologyIn this paper we have used an analytical-comparative method. At first, we have explained Hume's position regarding the theoretical and practical part of religion. Then, we have explained Hume's complex psychological and historical theories about the origins and roots of religion, about the justice/ religion analogy t, and about the important role of religion in human life. By using these two ways, we have criticized our leading and young commentator’s account of Hume's practical intention and have shown that Hume's irreligious program in its practical aspect represents moderate optimism on presence of religion in human life. FindingsResearch findings show that Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life, at least in its minimal and inevitable form, is optimistic. Discussion and conclusionThis Research outlines, based on evidence and documentation, Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life can be described as a moderate optimistic attitude, contrary to common view. The most important of these evidences are described in the following:Hume's naturalistic commitments: Hume's naturalistic commitments show that religion plays a fundamental and valuable role in human life and society- one that it is plainly unwise to disturb and dislodge.Hume was unwilling to discredit religion: Hume himself did not want to abolish religion and destroy it completely. He has directed his irreligious efforts only at the more destructive forms of religion. It is certainly true that most forms of Christianity Hume was familiar with would fall into this category. We have seen that his skeptical-academic arguments were aimed at only the dogmatic rationality of the defenders of the Christian religion, and therefore this conclusion does not commit him to any kind of common extreme pessimistic hypothesis regarding the presence of religion in human life.Hume's skeptical principles are in conformity with the first Reformers views: by presenting the connection between Hume's skeptical principles and natural religion issues, our findings indicate that Hume's extreme skeptical principles are in conformity with the first Reformers and also some Catholic thinkers, who were never deemed irreligious, that when Christianity was first established, their skeptical views were usual for religious teachers to preserve “the excellency of faith” and to denigrate natural reason.Hume's disloyalty to extreme optimistic principles: Although the need and propensity to religion will always be with us (i.e. original superstition), Hume is no fatalist in face of these natural forces. By unmasking religion, both with respect to its absurdities and corrupting tendencies, we can help ourselves overcome many of the difficulties we must inevitably encounter, given the human predicament. To this extent, Hume is an optimist. But this optimism subject is accompanied with a fair measure of pessimism.
Seyedeh Razieh Yousefzadeh; Abdollah Nasri
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 139-176
Abstract
In the present article, we examine the views of Motahhari, an Iranian Muslim philosopher and theologian, and Karl Jaspers, a German existentialist philosopher on "faith," and try to address the most important points that can be comparatively studied in these two perspectives. For this purpose, ...
Read More
In the present article, we examine the views of Motahhari, an Iranian Muslim philosopher and theologian, and Karl Jaspers, a German existentialist philosopher on "faith," and try to address the most important points that can be comparatively studied in these two perspectives. For this purpose, we first collected and analyzed the views of each of the two thinkers on the subject of faith through a descriptive documentary method, and in this regard, we tried to collect their opinions in the comparative axes in comparative studies. Finally, we listed the commonalities and differences. Both thinkers emphasize the need for faith. Motahhari's faith is a revelatory faith consisting of two pillars: "cognition" and "submission". Reason has a special place in acquiring this faith. Motahhari does not consider action as within the concept of faith, but existentially believes in a close relationship between the two. Faith has levels and its highest limit is certainty. Jaspers's faith is a philosophical faith because he denies the accepted revelation of religions. According to Jaspers, faith is partial and historical and of the type of existential experience. Philosophical faith, though not irrational, lacks certainty. Worship and rituals and linguistic prayers have no place in philosophical faith.
zeinab usefi; mohammad ali akhgar; Abbas Ahmadi Saadi
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 159-179
Abstract
In this article, the issue of religious plurality and diversity in Javadi Amoli's views and his answer to the following main questions is examined. The purpose of this study is to use a descriptive-analytical method to typology of Javadi Amoli's view on the issue of religious diversity and to include ...
Read More
In this article, the issue of religious plurality and diversity in Javadi Amoli's views and his answer to the following main questions is examined. The purpose of this study is to use a descriptive-analytical method to typology of Javadi Amoli's view on the issue of religious diversity and to include his answers to the three main questions of the issue of religious diversity, namely the question of rightfulness, the question of salvation and the question of interaction of followers of religions. This issue should be determined. In order to achieve this goal, Javadi Amoli's view on the question of rightfulness based on the unity of religion and nature, critique of relativity in the subject and reality and the issue of righteousness are analyzed and it is shown that Javadi Amoli has a more exclusive position on the rightfulness of religions. Javadi Amoli, in response to the question of salvation, takes an inclusive approach by raising issues such as guidance and disability. In response to the way they interact with the followers of other religions, they also believe in peaceful coexistence based on criteria and coexistence, a coexistence that is practically based on an inclusive attitude towards religious plurality and plurality.
Amirhossein Khodaparast
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, , Pages 167-194
Abstract
Introduction: One of the very old and popular arguments for the existence of God is the argument known as the consensus gentium argument/common consent argument. According to this argument, the fact that so many people have acknowledged the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, ...
Read More
Introduction: One of the very old and popular arguments for the existence of God is the argument known as the consensus gentium argument/common consent argument. According to this argument, the fact that so many people have acknowledged the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, without colluding with each other or even being influenced by each other, believe in the existence of God, shows that there is a God. In this paper, first, we briefly introduce the Persian writings about the common consent argument, some of which have compared this argument with the innate-based argument on the existence of God. Then, to show a schema of this argument, we track its history back to Cicero and Seneca and get two readings of it: the reading based on inference to the best explanation and the reliability-based reading. Both of these readings are faced with the challenge that one can present a similar but atheistic version of theirs on the non-existence of God and conclude that the fact that so many people have denied the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, without colluding with each other or even being influenced by each other, do not believe in the existence of God, shows that there is no God. After raising this challenge, we look at it from the perspective of religious disagreement between theists and atheists, and considering their epistemic peerhood, we conclude that regardless of the criticisms that have been brought to both readings of the common consent argument, the mere religious disagreement can be a higher-order evidence that none of the versions of the common consent argument on the existence of God can prove their results. In fact, the theoretical framework of the epistemology of disagreement provides a new possibility for the critical evaluation of the common consent argument and shows its inadequacy.Methodology: This research proceeds according to the method of critical philosophical analysis, and in it, the conceptual and critical analysis of the most important views about the common consent argument on the existence of God will be at work.Findings: The common consent argument on the existence of God can be examined in the form of two different readings: inference to the best explanation and the reliability-based reading. The inference to the best explanation reading is to show that the best explanation of the preponderance of belief in God throughout human history and in vast geographical and cultural areas is to consider this belief as true. The reliability-based reading it to show that our trust in our own cognitive faculties necessitates our trust in the cognitive powers of others. Since throughout history and in vast geographical and cultural areas, a very large number of people have believed in God, our epistemic trust in ourselves obliges us to epistemic trust in them and believe in God. The dominant form of reading the common consent argument has been reading it in the form of inference to the best explanation, but the criticisms on this reading lead us to the reliability-based reading of it. However, it is not difficult to consider an atheistic version of the common consent argument as opposed to a theistic version of it: Since throughout human history and in vast geographical and cultural areas, a very very large number of people have not believed in God, our epistemic trust in ourselves obliges us to have epistemic trust in them and not believe in God. These two versions are apparently parallel, but one challenge, in particular, threatens the theistic version on two levels: the challenge of religious disagreement. At the first level, the challenge of disagreement with atheists may show that in the conditions of epistemic peerhood, the disagreement of atheists with theists may be considered as evidence against the common consent argument. On the second level, which is more important and influential, systematic religious disagreements between theists destroys the possibility of epistemic trust in their relative consensus. These disagreements show that there are disagreements behind this apparent consensus that make us doubt the way the religious belief-forming process works.Discussion and Conclusion: The common consent argument on the existence of God, which is essentially based on a kind of epistemic consensus, faces the important challenge of religious disagreement, an epistemic challenge that seems to prevent it from achieving its goal. Therefore, this argument, even in its new versions formed by philosophers such as Linda Zagzebski and Thomas Kelly, is not a complete argument.
Massoud Toossi Saeidi
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 177-195
Abstract
The study of the epistemological validity of mystical perception, as one of the important examples of religious experiences, has been a part of the contemporary philosophy of religion discussions. In this article, first, the historical background of these issues is mentioned. Then, the challenges of ...
Read More
The study of the epistemological validity of mystical perception, as one of the important examples of religious experiences, has been a part of the contemporary philosophy of religion discussions. In this article, first, the historical background of these issues is mentioned. Then, the challenges of defending the epistemological validity of religious and mystical experiences in the existing empiricist-naturalistic approach are pointed out and it is explained that the scientific explanation of religious and mystical experiences is one of the most fundamental challenges. In this regard, the necessity of rationalist-ontological shift to examine the epistemological validity of mystical perceptions is shown. In the following three sections Tabatabai's views are formulated in three areas: "The place of mystical perception in religious epistemology", "Ontology of perception and epistemological value" and "The criterion of the epistemological validity of mystical perception and spiritual journey". Finally, based on the Tabatabai's views in these three areas, his rationalist-ontological defence of the epistemic validity of mystical perception through the spiritual journey is formulated. Finally, it is concluded that according to Tabatabai's view, the knowledge of the presence of the abstract self in himself in the spiritual journey is the path to true mystical perceptions.
Amir Rastin Toroghi; Vahide Fakhar
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 181-200
Abstract
Thinking of life after death is plausible only when there can be explained a personal identity between the individual before and after death. On the other hand, because human identity in this world is accompanied by his physical aspect (or, according to materialist views, his identity is wholly physical), ...
Read More
Thinking of life after death is plausible only when there can be explained a personal identity between the individual before and after death. On the other hand, because human identity in this world is accompanied by his physical aspect (or, according to materialist views, his identity is wholly physical), explaining the continuity of life after death and resurrection depends on the presence of such physical dimension, that is, it necessitates the explanation of some kind of physical resurrection. The teachings of the divine religions also emphasize such a resurrection. The present article, based on the descriptive-analytical method, reviews the most important accounts of Christian theologians explaining the personal identity of man in the afterlife and their criticisms by philosophers of religion. Based on a special reading of some principles of Transcendent philosophy and Mullā Ṣadrā’s words, it introduces and explains an innovative theory of personal identity. It seems that the theory of “preservation of personal identity through the existential intensification of the body”, in addition to being immune to the major drawbacks of other models, enjoys greater capacities and benefits.
tayyebeh shaddel; Mansour Imanpour; Housein Atrak
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 197-220
Abstract
Eternity, meaning "the complete possession all at once of illimitable life" in " classical philosophical theology, is one of the attributes that God describes, but some philosophers of religion have distanced themselves from this interpretation due to the lack of coherence in it. And the "timelessness" ...
Read More
Eternity, meaning "the complete possession all at once of illimitable life" in " classical philosophical theology, is one of the attributes that God describes, but some philosophers of religion have distanced themselves from this interpretation due to the lack of coherence in it. And the "timelessness" is considered irrational (unintelligible). Swinburne also avoids of "timelessness, arguing that if God 'eternity is interpreted as timelessness, it requires corrupt (evil) consequents such as the impossibility of God's relation with time, incompatibility with the witness of scripture, and the coincidence of earlier and later phenomena, incompatibility It comes with prayer and so on. Therefore, to coherence classical theism, Swinburne presents a temporal eternity model. Examining his reasons, it can be said that Swinburne first paid too much attention to the appearance of the scripture (Literalist). Concerning God's relation with time, one can think of ways other than God's temporality; They are present in the sight of God, not their physical existence, so their presence in the presence of God does not lead to different phenomena at the same time.; Therefore, it can be said that the temporal eternity of Swinburne is not a justified model for explaining the eternity of God.
Seyed Amirreza Mazari
Volume 10, Issue 1 , December 2021, , Pages 201-217
Abstract
One of the main questions in philosophy is the way humans face their death. Numerous thinkers have explained this encounter through their own experiences. To some, it is a tragic event, while others consider it as a comedy. However, if death disappears from life, humans will suffer from immortality and ...
Read More
One of the main questions in philosophy is the way humans face their death. Numerous thinkers have explained this encounter through their own experiences. To some, it is a tragic event, while others consider it as a comedy. However, if death disappears from life, humans will suffer from immortality and boredom. Human experiences have an inborn narrative quality. Narrative is not simply a literary genre. It is capable to organize human experiences that are formless and timeless. It best frames meaningful events. The current study explains narrative and its relation with experiences. It also briefly describes death and life fragility and finally make some examples regarding potentials of narrative to face death and fragility of life
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.
Muhammad nejadiran; Rozhan Hesam ghazi
Volume 9, Issue 1 , August 2020, , Pages 245-263
Abstract
The Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey is one of the most important and influential books published in the United States among various currents of satanism. This book contains extremist ideas in challenging many of the prevailing moral and religious norms of American society, as well as promoting humanistic ...
Read More
The Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey is one of the most important and influential books published in the United States among various currents of satanism. This book contains extremist ideas in challenging many of the prevailing moral and religious norms of American society, as well as promoting humanistic ideas centered on radical moral and social freedoms to strengthen human desire and instinct and to deny moral domination. Undoubtedly, this book was written under the influence of modern and postmodern intellectual traditions, and the influence of many anti-normative and anti-religious ideas can be seen in this; But the influence of Nietzsche's critical thinking on Christian ethics and European culture, as well as the promotion of the idea of the superhuman as the creator of life values and his praise of Nietzsche's anti-normality and invincibility, can be well seen in Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey. LaVey uses the idea of the death of Nietzsche's god, which heralded the end of Christian morality in Europe, as well as Nietzsche's critique of Christian nihilism, and inspired by Nietzsche's Dionysian view of the concept of Satan as opposed to the concept of God in religious culture as a symbol of libertarianism. Abnormality is used in order to praise the natural and physical desires of human beings and tries to challenge the denial and humiliation of human instincts in Christian morality by praising the value of life.
aysooda hashempour; alimohammad sajesi
Volume 9, Issue 2 , January 2020, , Pages 1-17
Abstract
One of the important rulings on the issue of existence in ontology is the issue of skepticism in existence, which has been specifically discussed in Mulla Sadra's philosophy and its coordinates have been clarified. However, it seems that the foundation of this issue can be followed by breaking the votes ...
Read More
One of the important rulings on the issue of existence in ontology is the issue of skepticism in existence, which has been specifically discussed in Mulla Sadra's philosophy and its coordinates have been clarified. However, it seems that the foundation of this issue can be followed by breaking the votes of the predecessors. The present article, by descriptive-analytical method, examines and evaluates the implications of the proofs of God in Ibn Sina's philosophy on the issue of special doubt, the predominant type of which is raised in the longitudinal doubt of existence. According to the results of this study, although the issue of the originality of existence or nature has no definite place in Ibn Sina's philosophy, but the proofs of God have been presented to him with a purely existential thinking; As the three main pillars of the problem of doubt in existence, namely "unity in existence", "plurality in existence" and "objectivity of unity and plurality in existence" - which itself requires comprehensive unity and plurality -, are proofs of God in Ibn Sina and the principles of each argument can be deduced.
hasan abasi hasan Abadi
Volume 8, Issue 2 , March 2020, , Pages 1-18
Abstract
The discussion of the concept of God is obtained by examining the attributes of God and its relation to the essence and existence of God. Each of the philosophers before Plotinus, according to their own foundations, examined this issue. Our Question is that how to explain concept of God in OTHEOLOGIA ...
Read More
The discussion of the concept of God is obtained by examining the attributes of God and its relation to the essence and existence of God. Each of the philosophers before Plotinus, according to their own foundations, examined this issue. Our Question is that how to explain concept of God in OTHEOLOGIA and Enneads. And how much do they overlap and what's the difference? Can the two be considered together and provide an explanation on both? the concept of God in the Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA is not the same Sometimes they are in the same direction and sometimes contradict each other. Approach of OTHEOLOGIA about of God is Aristotelian approach. And it speaks of existence, causality and pure action. But in Enneads God is One and over being And with the Analogy of the sun, fire and light are more reminiscent of Plato and his influence. In this article, we must first understand what is meant by "existence" in Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA. Then, consider other properties of God in both the sources of Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA to understand the problem of God and the concept of God in this thinker.
