Hamidreza Ayatollahy; Fatemeh Ahmadi
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 1-21
Abstract
According to Dawkins’ view, ‘genetic ethics based on evolution theory’, there is a ‘moral Zeitgeist’ or ‘moral spirit of the age’ that evolves in communities. Rejecting religion-based morality and moral absolutism, he believes that the nature of morality ...
Read More
According to Dawkins’ view, ‘genetic ethics based on evolution theory’, there is a ‘moral Zeitgeist’ or ‘moral spirit of the age’ that evolves in communities. Rejecting religion-based morality and moral absolutism, he believes that the nature of morality is changing rapidly based on the zeitgeist, and each period requires its own code of ethics. Religion and ethics, he claims, are the results of biological process of evolution and natural selection. Morality is not rooted in religion, but has a Darwinian origin. Altruistic genes have been selected during the process of evolution and we are naturally qualified with altruism, and sympathy, compassion and other moralities can be explained by evolution. Not only whole life but also morality is the result of genes activity. Forcing organisms to do moral behavior, Genes ensure their survival. This article is intended to expose the difficulties with Dawkins’ claims. As we will see his views are afflicted with several significant problems, including unwarranted presupposition of naturalism, high reductionism, disastrous moral relativism, the inadequacy of evolutionary analysis of ethical Zeitgeist development, the conflict between Dawkins’ analysis and human moral intuition, the implausibility of reward and punishment and also training, inappropriate interpretation of absolutism, methodic mistakes- the fallacy of origin, his mistaken notion of religion-based morality and scientific ideologism.
mohammad ali akhgar
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 23-44
Abstract
The problem of religious diversity and related questions including the questions of rightfulness and salvation are of great religionological importance. One of the many answers to this problem is a version of inclusivism developed by Muslims researchers using the teachings of Sadraian philosophy, in ...
Read More
The problem of religious diversity and related questions including the questions of rightfulness and salvation are of great religionological importance. One of the many answers to this problem is a version of inclusivism developed by Muslims researchers using the teachings of Sadraian philosophy, in particular the graded distinction, which could be called ‘the inclusivism of graded rightfulness’. Using the teachings of Sadra’s philosophy and gradation theory and a descriptive-analytic examining of this reading of inclusivism, this article has investigated and inquired this inclusivism, which puts numerous existent religions in a graded hierarchy of rightfulness. Accordingly, the distinction among the existent religions was a graded one and has the characteristics of a graded hierarchy; so, for instance, it consists of a kind of composition of having and lacking, and higher ranks include the perfections of lower ranks. Thus the higher the rank of a religion in the graded hierarchy of rightfulness is, the more right beliefs it has and so has some graded covering regarding to the lower ranks.
Akram Asgarzadeh; Jalaal Peykani
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 45-66
Abstract
According to the some critics of reliabilism, this theory suffers from the problem of the value of knowledge. Zagzebski suggests that to solve this problem, we should internalize the relation between context and belief forming process. Exploring Mulla Sadra’s epistemic theory, this paper aimed ...
Read More
According to the some critics of reliabilism, this theory suffers from the problem of the value of knowledge. Zagzebski suggests that to solve this problem, we should internalize the relation between context and belief forming process. Exploring Mulla Sadra’s epistemic theory, this paper aimed to show whether his theory could solve the problem or not. Although in Islamic philosophers ‘s views, knowledge isn’t equal to justified true belief, but some aspects of Mulla Sadra’s theory concerning the union of the knower and the known could be served as a means to solve the problem. Those aspects consist in: considering the relation between believer and belief as an existential union, which in turn, leads us to consider their relation as an internal one. To explain that the relation is internal, Mulla Sadra considers the epistemic processes as causal processes and mater and form. He believes, also, that the validity of the knower affects true beliefs acquiring
Sakineh Mohammadpour; Amir Abbas Alizamani
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 67-85
Abstract
The existence of God is not obvious for some people at all. For them, the traditional arguments for God’s existence are not compelling. Worse still possibly, some people sincerely are seeking God, but don’t find Him. So feeling dissatisfaction and disappointment, they abandon the quest ...
Read More
The existence of God is not obvious for some people at all. For them, the traditional arguments for God’s existence are not compelling. Worse still possibly, some people sincerely are seeking God, but don’t find Him. So feeling dissatisfaction and disappointment, they abandon the quest inevitably. ‘Divine Hiddenness’ is the name philosophers have given to this phenomenon. John Schellenberg, contemporary philosopher, believes that divine hiddenness justifies atheism. Paul Moser, contemporary analytic philosopher, unlike Schellenberg not only does not believe that divine hiddenness justifies atheism but, in his view, hiddenness is the essential and positive attribute of Jewish-Christian God. In this paper, based on the ideas of the two philosophers, we consider and compare their viewpoints and arguments about the problem of divine hiddenness, and investigate the validity of divine hiddenness argument in justification of atheism. According to the results of the paper, unlike the Moser’s point of view the divine hiddenness requires a justification. And schellenberg’s argument from divine hiddenness is answerable by theists and could not justify atheism.
Mehdi Abbaszadeh
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 87-108
Abstract
Ontological argument in western philosophy is some arguments for the existence of god in which one tries to approve directly the existence of god from the very notion of god or necessary being in one’s mind – not from characteristics of external beings. Anselm of Canterbury was the first ...
Read More
Ontological argument in western philosophy is some arguments for the existence of god in which one tries to approve directly the existence of god from the very notion of god or necessary being in one’s mind – not from characteristics of external beings. Anselm of Canterbury was the first thinker who proposed the idea of ontological argument in medieval philosophy. Different versions of the arguments have been laid forth by some western thinkers; however, some others criticized these kinds of arguments. In Islamic world a similar situation can be seen; some reject all versions of the argument but some agree that a particular description of it can be acceptable. In this paper, firstly, two Cartesian versions of ontological argument and their three Kantian criticisms are explained; secondly, different criticisms of Javadi-Amoli are described. Javadi-Amoli criticized three Kantian criticisms and the second version of ontological argument and finally said that, the argument is fallacy. The paper, then, reviewed all the above ideas in this regard and proved that according to two theories in Islamic philosophy, i.e. Maqulaat-e-Thaani and Nafs ul-Amr, the second version of ontological argument can be acceptable
Nader Shoukrollahi
Volume 5, Issue 2 , January 2017, Pages 109-128
Abstract
Affirmation or denial of existence of any thing is subordinate of the possibility of it's imagination. Can God be imaged so we can speak of his existence or nonexistence? Sometimes it is said God can not be imagined. The appearance of some religious and mystical texts shows this Idea, but the main idea ...
Read More
Affirmation or denial of existence of any thing is subordinate of the possibility of it's imagination. Can God be imaged so we can speak of his existence or nonexistence? Sometimes it is said God can not be imagined. The appearance of some religious and mystical texts shows this Idea, but the main idea of these texts is impossibility of imagination of the truth of God by knowledge through concepts, not impossibility of any imagination. Sometimes the appearance of the words of some thinkers who believe in possibility of imagination shows that we can imagine God's essence. This idea is untenable. Sometimes the concepts like "infinite" or "existent in anywhere" are used to show that we can imagine God. These concepts are not understandable in the beginning of affirmation of God to ordinary people. The subject of the proof of God's existence are various and are understandable for ordinary people; issues like "necessary being" i.e. existent that it's existence in necessary or "supernatural designer". But the essence of these attributes can not be imagined and there is not any need to imagination of the essence of these attributes at the beginning of discussion of affirmation and denial of God's existence
