JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Year:2007 | Volume:8 | Issue:3-4 (31-32)|Papers Count:15

This essay first divide God’s attributes into real and relative. Next, it explains two kinds of real attributes: pure real attributes and relative real attributes. Still next, it propounds a principle of Avicenna’s philosophy: “each essence which is not subject of change, its real attributes do not change”. And by attention to the point that knowledge of variable particulars entails the change of the knowledge itself, it explores the matter whether Necessary Being has knowledge of particulars.

The present paper is going to deal with the question whether Hermeneutics can be considered and used as a methodology in religious knowledge. Since the question seems ambiguous in the first look, the author first of all proceeds to make it clear by explaining the main single words. Then, the paper classifies different approaches taken by Hermeneutists to the question. And finally, he describes his selected opinion. In particular, the article claims that hermeneutical theory can be used as methodology in religious sciences both in the context of justification and the context of discovery. It should be emphasized that such possibility has not fully put in practice yet.

From long time ago, simplicity of Divine Essence was hold by many philosophers and theologian of great religions such as Christianity and Islam. On one hand, in Islamic tradition, philosophers like Ibn Sina and Mullah Sadra, and on the other hand, in Christian tradition, theologians like Augustine and Anselm and especially Aquinas attempted to strengthen the substructure of this doctrine and to explain various aspects of it. One important aspect of this doctrine, with which the present essay deals, is the sameness of God’s essence and his real attributes such as knowledge and power. This aspect of the doctrine has been recently criticized by some contemporary philosophers of religion like Alvin Plantinga. Reviewing the viewpoints of the proponents of the doctrine in the two Islamic and Christian traditions, the essay presents a more accurate articulation of Aquinas’ viewpoint. Then, it examines the foundation of Plantinga’s criticisms. And finally, it shows that these criticisms have been raised in a paradigm quite different from that of classical philosophers, and thus they may not produce any difficulty for the above-mentioned doctrine when considered in the paradigm of classical philosophy.

Solving moral conflicts entails a decision-making process. So any suggested approach to moral conflicts is included in the domain of practical rationality. The practical rationality is based on theoretical rationality. Both the theoretical and practical rationality have a realistic kind of approach and an idealistic kind of approach. In the theoretical rationality, the idealistic approaches demand certainty in a strict sense, following epistemic guidelines; and in the practical rationality, they demand the best possible choice. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties with the idealistic approaches. Concerning the realistic approaches, we can gain access to two truths: First, each situation is an individual circumstance and each person has certain epistemic features, and so it is not possible to present general, universalizable solutions to conflicts even in a particular scope. Second, the acceptance of some propositions is a voluntary act (indirect voluntarism), and so cognitive space and previous beliefs of any individual have a role in the acceptance of a belief and the following universalizations. By attention to extensive emphasis of the religion on moral doctrines, it can be said that religious education through practical patterns (Ethics of virtue) has a positive role in solving moral conflicts.

As we know information technology has a special role in the organization and retrieval of information to such a huge extent that was almost impossible before. This may entail interest and loss. This article attempts to answer two questions: what is the definition of privacy? And In which cases respect for privacy is necessary? Discussing about the concept of ‘privacy’, the paper presents a value-judgment on disclosure of privacy information with regard to Islamic values. Then it points out that one action may be known as being under several titles; so, there can be independent value-judgment in terms of each title. The Next point is that sometimes the value of privacy is in antithesis to the value of institutional purposes; in such a case, solving the conflict should be done according to priority of values in the teaching of Islam.

At the beginning of this article, the author propounds the question whether the theory of evolution is compatible with the idea of God’s intervention in nature. Can we hold both God’s intervention in nature and the laws of nature including the law of evolution? The paper goes to mention briefly theological consequences of the theory of evolution as well as the development of the theory of evolution from Darwin’s time to the emergence of molecular biology as well as to the recent theories about the universal genetics. In the second part, the author takes into consideration four main features in the biological developments: self-regulation, indeterminacy, causality from upside and below, and information interchange. In the third part, the article propounds four pictures of God in regard to the patterns of divine action in nature: God as the designer of an orderly event, God as the determiner of indeterminacies, God as the cause from upside and below, God as the transmitter of information; in this regard, Barbour has examined each of these four patterns and points out some of the difficulties and deficiencies of them. At the end, the paper deals with a fifth pattern based upon the Process Theology and considers the Process Theology’s concept of God as deficient.

The echo of the Enlightenment and liberalism has spread all over the world, so that deliberately or non-deliberately they have gained influence on the opinions and activities of thinkers and the masses. To recognize their results and the proper reaction against them, the present article introduces one of the main pillars of the Enlightenment and liberalism, i.e. rationalism, which is in close relationship with the principle of individualism; it also displays the invalidity of pure rationality, which is independent of everything non-rational as well as separated from Tradition. The best evidence for such invalidity is the frustration of its advocates in presenting some rational principles which can be common between all human beings; moreover, in the process of taking hold of rationality and being delivered from Tradition, liberalism itself not only changed into a tradition but also took on the form of an ideology which has caused modern man a lot of perplexity and distress.

Discussion of God’s Knowledge is among the most important problems of Philosophy and theology. Great philosophers have expressed different and opposing views on God’s knowledge of Himself and the things other than God. Based on his main works, the present article attempts to study Plato’s view on this subject. So the author selects and explains some phrases drawn from Plato’s works such as the Parmenides, Sophist, Republic and Timaeus; at the same time, the author pays attention to the opinions of the expounders of Plato’s views, particularly to those of Neo-Platonist expounders. Another point in the problem of God’s knowledge is the how of God’s action and its relation to the divine knowledge; taking the Dialogue of Timaeus into consideration, the author tries to explain the how of God’s activity. Meanwhile, it examines themes such as the relation between idea of good and the world of ideas as well as Demiurge, place of the world of idea, the six causes, and the reason of creating the universe.

Principle of Contradiction has of high importance in philosophy. Aristotle calls this principle “First of the First” and has discussed it in some of his works, particularly in the Metaphysics. In the beginning of his discussions on this principle, he has attempted to define it. The present article shows that Firstly, the definitions of this principle have not the same components. Secondly, they have prerequisites which are inconsistent with Aristotle’s other opinions on the problem of “negation” and the theory of the “number of the parts of a proposition” and so on. Thirdly, Aristotle’s expression of contradiction principle is not a “statement” indicating a definition, because it consist neither of all unities nor of all differences logically valid in contradictory propositions; in fact, his expression is a “pseudo-statement” which may not be considered as a proper literal definition.

Al-Hallaj is one of famous figures in Islamic mysticism (Sufism). His special ideas and biography were always the scope of discussion during his life and upon his demise. Many mystics and poets were influenced by his thought. One of these figures is Attar, the mystic poet who has paid special attention to al-Hallaj, and has reproduced al-Hallaj’s thought in various ways in his Birds Conversation. Presenting some evidence, the author in this essay explores al-Hallaj’s influence on Attar.

Mawlana Jalal al-Din Balkhi’s approach to the possibility of knowing God and its method can be of significance due to Mawlana’s accessibility to the heritage of various theological, philosophical and mystical dispositions. In his works, two apparently opposite positions can be observed: disability of intellect in knowing God and the possibility of such knowledge for human beings. The analysis of Mawlana’s opinions in both positions reveals that man’s discursive intellect fails to know the Divine’s essence and attributes but at the same time God’s accomplishments particularly His commands are means by  which man’s experience of the divine presence can be facilitated. That is why Mawlana investigates into man’s position to the divine commands. Such position is particularly based on a certain type of religious experience in the Islamic culture. Dimensions of Mawlana’s analysis are revealed when compared with Tillich’s viewpoint on types of religiosity and medium in the religious experiences.

We always have a close interaction with systematic nature. Most of our behaviors, planning’s, predictions, as well as our ideas and beliefs are due to the fact that we consider nature as controlled by the laws. Since the laws of nature are the main keys of human sciences, analysis and explanation of these laws were a part of the research of many great philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Hume, Mullah Sadra and Kant. In this paper, while referring to some theories about the laws of nature, the author deals particularly with Hume’s standpoint, which is well-known as the viewpoint of “orderliness”; and then, he criticized it through distinguishing between perpetual propositions and necessary propositions.

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s view, being is subdivided into three regions: being-in-itself which lacks self-consciousness and is massive, full and actual; being for-itself or consciousness which is dynamic and spontaneous; and finally being-for-others. The principle which is the starting point of Sartre’s thought is the notion of man’s existence preceding his essence, which paves the way for man’s liberty, free choice, responsibility, and realization of his identity in future. The ‘for-itself’ is the same as man but not in regard to his body but with respect to his awareness, freedom, actions, and power to negate. Consciousness alone is meaningless; it is always shaped through relationships with the world and other consciousnesses. Man can always negate some affairs, so he is totally free; his freedom although is total but is within a set of human circumstances. Awareness of this total freedom and responsibility is accompanied by ‘anguish’; and such freedom opens up a range of possibilities which may result in bad faith and self-deception. Freedom and self-consciousness are manifested in our actions and our actions constitute ourselves.