Hamidreza Ayatollahy
Abstract
The answer to the question of the meaning of life has been the concern of many philosophers and thinkers. Some like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Sartre have not given any meaning to life. But many others have tried to give different answers to this question and show with arguments that their point of ...
Read More
The answer to the question of the meaning of life has been the concern of many philosophers and thinkers. Some like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Sartre have not given any meaning to life. But many others have tried to give different answers to this question and show with arguments that their point of view can better explain the meaning of life. This paper intends to first show the main viewpoints proposed in this field (such as God-centeredness, soul-centeredness, naturalism, subjectivism, and objectivism) along with their arguments and criticisms from competing viewpoints. Then, by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of these views, it should be shown what characteristics a comprehensive theory for the meaning of life should have. Finally, the comprehensive and new viewpoint of the author will be presented and the reasons for preferring this perspective over competing views will be shown.
Hamidreza Ayatollahy
Abstract
In this paper, it is intended to show that monotheistic religions that believe in the existence of God and the event of resurrection can express that religions that deny these two facts are out of the circle of truth, because these two beliefs are based on objective realities, not subjugative matters ...
Read More
In this paper, it is intended to show that monotheistic religions that believe in the existence of God and the event of resurrection can express that religions that deny these two facts are out of the circle of truth, because these two beliefs are based on objective realities, not subjugative matters that are the basis of the claims and arguments of pluralists. Then, the basic conditions of religiosity, i.e. worship and ethics-based behaviors, will be explained. Since religious beliefs and behaviors of believers of different religions are influenced by many non-optional factors, it is not easy to judge their faithful lives and in this regard, it is neither possible to defend pluralism nor exclusivism. However, the diversity of non-optional faithful lives does not contradict the fundamental beliefs of any religion to be evaluated rationally. Therefore, a religion that can achieve the greatest success in rational examination of its fundamental beliefs can speak of its truth against other religions.
marzieh rezaie; Hamidreza Ayatollahy; Mohammad saeedimehr
Volume 7, Issue 1 , January 2018, , Pages 91-109
Abstract
One of the important issues in the philosophy of religion is the issue of the unity of the world and its relation to the unity of God. These different perceptions of the unity of the universe have been challenged by the unity of existence.In this paper, we are going to elucidate the viewpoints of the ...
Read More
One of the important issues in the philosophy of religion is the issue of the unity of the world and its relation to the unity of God. These different perceptions of the unity of the universe have been challenged by the unity of existence.In this paper, we are going to elucidate the viewpoints of the Muslim philosophers of the Transcendent Philosophy School with this discussion and evaluate their arguments and show the superiority of some of the views of others. In this regard, the viewpoints of Sadr's wisdom commentators who have contradictory opinions have been selected and their analysis has been analyzed.. Allameh Tabatabai, who is sometimes inclined to some form of unity, sometimes personal, sometimes also interprets the two-word consistency. Ultimately, he accepts the solid arguments of personal unity, but he does not have the ability to answer doubts. Motahari, who opposes the unity of existence, negation, negation, and neglect of possible possibilities, ultimately, by Allameh Javadi Amoli, with the proof of the "Absolute Absolute" and placing "being" and "appearing" against "lack of" defects that prevent the application of philosophy based on unity Were eliminated, so the way to change many topics was opened. In this paper, we intend to have a critical comparison of the views of these three thinkers.
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.
Hamidreza Ayatollahy; Hossein Shoorvazi
Volume 3, Issue 2 , April 2015, , Pages 73-88
Abstract
From this fact that carbon-based life requires the laws of physics and the threshold conditions, the fine-tuning argument concludes that this assumption that the world has ordered by God is more probable than other assumptions. Sober opposes and argues that the precise tuning between the physical laws ...
Read More
From this fact that carbon-based life requires the laws of physics and the threshold conditions, the fine-tuning argument concludes that this assumption that the world has ordered by God is more probable than other assumptions. Sober opposes and argues that the precise tuning between the physical laws is exposed to our observation selection effect.The purpose of this study is to evaluate fine-tuning argument and the anthropic objection of Sober, and also the responses which have presented to this objection.
