PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION RESEARCH (NAMAH-I HIKMAT)
Year:2011 | Volume:8 | Issue:2 (16)|Papers Count:8

Ghazali and Kierkegaard can be compared in their critical attitude toward common interpretation of religion and specially toward problem of rationality of religion. Kierkegaard’s disagreement with philosophical system and particularly with Hegelion system is well-known. His concern was directed to negative effect of those system to understanding of religion. Confronting the problem of reason and faith, he held on faith and this with basing on his existential foundation particularly on identity of truth and subjectivity.He can be considered as a radical fideist because he take a negative stand against objective study of religion. according to him this kind of religious survey is useless and even dangerous for religion.But Ghazali’s approach to problem of reason and faith roughly has correspondence with theories of justification. sometimes and even in mystical realm, he adheres rationalism and sometimes he is so fideist that the mere assertoric belief. In faith can be accepted.This variety in expression and argument refers to his doctrine about the differences between men. Accordingly they have differen capacities in gaining faith and religious belief and thus rationality of faith differs according to each one.

Ibn Sina’s definition of divine attributes is of two kinds. On the one hand he takes those attributes both externally and conceptually as one and the same. In other words, one cannot derive multiple meanings from a single impervious Truth to multiplicity. on the other hand he deals with them from the viewpoint of negation or relation or particular negation and relation. These two sayings which are based on the purifying ontological and tough epistemological views of Ibn Sina can go together in the sense that each has been offered in accordance with the audience’s level of understanding. At the intermediate level, he points out the manifold concept of divine attributes each becoming known through particular relation or negation. At a more superior level, Ibn Sina considers the concept of divine attributes as one and the same which is abstracted from that Truth as a consequence of the unity, simplicity and purity of his existence. In sum, there is no contradiction here, each addressed to a specific audience. One for average audience and the other for advanced one.

We considered two different narrative of story of Abraham in the thought of Sorn Kierkegaard and Levinas. This article has two sections. Section one involves Kierkegaard’s existentialistic picture of Abraham which it try to explain suspending of ethics by overcoming of faith on reason. Kierkegaard believed that Abraham will save by suspending of ethics and the sacrifice of Isaac is not transgressing ethics. Section two involves Levine’s ethical picture of Abraham and the sacrificing of Isaac. Levinas holds that high moment in this story is moment that Abraham hears second voice of God and he return to ethics, hence he does not kill Isaac.According to Levinas, the relation between Abraham and God is only possible by face of Isaac and Levinas describes this relation as “face to face” relationship. He states that the essence of this relationship is ethical not religious.

According to kierkegaard awareness of death is important because it brings about a necessary anguish which is it’s turn lead’s to a transcendent and contemplated life beyond a sensual and noncontemplated life.Using death he really means sickness toward death that is the hopelessness. In his view this sickness which arises in our spirit and soul, is an internal and inward death. Hopelessness itself stems from our polution by sin. He lays down the faith as a device to get rid of this kind of death. Faith in his view is a personal and private relation with God.

Despite their being specialist in theology, Mullasadra and his followers did not agree with it’s methods and approaches and therefore founded novel methods and approaches in theology in their own rights. Of course, this innovations were negleted by scholars.In this respect, what is more important is the method than the content. However, the readers of Mῡllasadra were more concerned with his doctrinal achievements than his style and method of concluding this doctrines.The study of Mullasadra’s method in his theological achievements can lead to development in Islamic theology in recent era but before all, it is required to lay down a firm, authoritative, broad and universal conceptual scheme. Certain doctrines and theories in science of hermeneutics can help more in this respect. (in this research we give attentions to hermeneutic circle with Richor’s reading).

“Faith” literally means “belief” in Tusi’s view point.Technically it means “judgment by heart and tongue” so that the latter without former and the former without latter is not adequate. According to Tusi faith by “informed opinion” (Zann) and imitation are in the lower states of faith and assertoric faith occupies the highest one. He holds that islam and faith are in some respects the same and in others different from each other.Generally speaking, islam is broader the faith just with respect to thier precept but they are equall considering the conhotation of some verses in Quran. Likewise the action is out of the concept of faith so that quran make distinction between them.

One of the doctrines of a spiritual movement which is known as Lamaism (presented by Dalayi Lama) is Toyfulness and living toyfully. Dalayi Lama just like some other novel spiritual movements, take living toyfully and the object of living. this article after the survey about terms like rejoicing and toy in quran and sahifah Sajjadiyyah, concluds that islam and his leaders are not adherent of grief and sorrow. Joufulness is a natural disposition in mankind and a gieft of God, but in islam it has directed to a certain end.