PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION RESEARCH (NAMAH-I HIKMAT)
Year:2018 | Volume:15 | Issue:2 (30) |Papers Count:12

In the majority of his works, Tabatabaie takes the side of cataphaticism about divine attributes. But the theory is presented in his different works in different ways. There are at list 3 ways in which he has presented the theory including (1) verticality of meaning regardless of instances, (2) verticality of meaning with respect to expression of instances, and (3) ungradedness of meaning with respect to the goal and the common function. In this article, we shall try to explain and analyze the three models, and give examples of each one from his works. Notwithstanding that cataphaticism have advantages and transcends the finitude-oriented natural language and makes use of it with regard to God, it suffers from noteworthy shortcomings.

While the moral argument for the existence of God is a more familiar issue in philosophy of religion, recently, atheist philosophers have proposed a moral argument against the existence of God. This argument has been formulated in at least five ways: (1) from the problem of evil, (2) from the critique of alienation, (3) from autonomy, (4) from the critique of expediency, and (5) from the immoral teachings of world religions. Some of these formulations can be regarded as a theoretical moral argument against the existence of God and some of them as a practical/pragmatist moral argument against the existence of God. Theoretical moral arguments against the existence of God have concentrated on moral evidence that show there is no God and, so, theism is false, while practical moral arguments against the existence of God have concentrated on the fact that belief in God is an obstacle for fulfilled moral living and achieving the ends of moral life, or even makes our actions immoral. At the end, I conclude that none of the formulations of the moral argument against the existence of God are productive. However, there are important lessons in each of the formulations of the argument for theists if they attend to them.

Religious commitment and its relation to rationality has been always one of the important questions in philosophy of religion. Trigg is one of the contemporary philosophers who has considered this issue. In this article, we consider his view regarding the nature of commitment and its relation to belief, meaning, justification and rationality. He thinks that commitment has two elements: propositional belief and personal commitment to it. Since Trigg thinks that the first element is fundamental, this article concentrates on it.Concerning the first element, Trigg thinks that negation of “non-relativism” and “realism” are two true implications of religious commitment. So, he criticizes “non-realism” and “relativism”. He thinks that the effect of the thought of late Wittgenstein in reaction to logical positivism is prominent and it leads to separation of religion from science. Trigg criticizes this line of thought and tries to show its consequences. Emphasizing on language as showing the truth and making the relation possible and emphasizing on the common nature of human being, Trigg opposes conceptual relativism and seeks to open the way to rationality. In this article, we argue that although Trigg is successful in his criticisms, the affirmative aspect of his discussion lacks sufficient strength and precision.

Al-Ghazali, as one of the greatest thinkers of the Islamic world, has proposed notable views on religious language. He has addressed the language of revelation according to ontological and epistemological bases and theological-mystical approaches. His most important work in this subject is Jawaher-al-Koran. In this book, which pertains to the period of his engagement with mysticism, al-Ghazali has comprehensively addressed the esoteric understanding of the Qur’an. Based on his notion of revelation and his theory of the conformity of different worlds, he tries to explain how and by which criteria the revelation descends, and also the way the entities of the spiritual world are represented in the mundane world. He, then, presents the way through which mystics can attain the purposes of revelation. This view which should be named the representative language of revelation theory is not similar to any of the theories of other philosophers of religion.

D. Z. Phillips is one of the most important philosophers who believe in non-realism about religious language. He was highly influenced by Hume and believed Hume has criticized the arguments for the existence of God in three levels. Although he considers these criticisms as successful ones, by appealing to the hermeneutics of contemplation, he maintains that we should go beyond Hume and contemplate religious concepts. He separates his way from the proponents of hermeneutics of recollection and suspicion.According to him, we should understand religion through contemplating religious concepts and taking heed of the life of believers. In contrast to his claims, his interpretations about religious propositions such as the existence of God, prayer and immortality are not consistent with the believers’ ideas. Furthermore, he has neglected different versions of design argument. That’s why his investigations are incomplete. It can also be said that even though he attempted to go beyond the criteria of logical positivism, he could not do it.

Close examination of the works of David Hume shows that his aim to explain the problem of evil is to attack natural theology and introduce it as a situation that is non-epistemological and unsystematic. So, contrary to what the majority of interpretations which typically express that he makes an argument against the existence of God, Hume wants to show that the statements of natural theology are rationally unprovable, and he does not want to totally decline them. As a matter of fact, they ontologically exist, and are epistemologically out of human cognition. This article shows that the popular interpretation is false, and this would be done in two ways: the first is Hume's statements about the cause of the world (at the end of both Natural History and Dialogues), and the second is Hume’s solutions for the problem of evil, that have mystical streaks. Based on these fact, it will be shown that Hume is not an atheist, but he is a mystical fideist.

Natural theology is known to be a type of theology that seeks to justify religious beliefs, particularly the belief in God, based on human knowledge unaided by revelation. Natural theology has been always seen to be a link relating science and religion. If the purpose of religion, the revealed truths and the purpose of science is a collection of human knowledge, then natural theology can always be cemented by the efforts of theologians to establish a relationship between religion and human knowledge.Is such a way valid and if it is valid, is it necessary? Plantinga in this regard has chosen two different perspectives in his intellectual life. In the first view, he did not only consider natural theology as unnecessary, but it has discredited as natural atheism. At the same time, it was emphasizing its rationality by resembling the belief in the existence of God in the belief in other minds. In the second view, however, despite the emphasis on the negation of the necessity of natural theology, he considers it epistemically valid and mentions some functions for it.

Ethics of reverence for life – presented by Albert Schweitzer - advocates any kind of life be it human or not. Arthur Schopenhauer believes that one has to deny life and resign from him. In this essay the relation between ethics of reverence for life and Schopenhauer’s thoughts is investigated. Reverence for life is based on the will to live and methodologically on particular and concrete experiences, which shows the similarity between its metaphysical bases of the ethics and that of Schopenhauer’s thoughts. Albert Schweitzer, However, by rereading Schopenhauer’s notions of the will to live and resignation and by emphasis on will to love, unlike Schopenhauer, leads to life affirmation and reverence for life. Schweitzer’s special kind of theological motivations could be seen here. The two thinkers are different in normative ethics. On one hand, the effect of Schweitzer’s Christian ground on his ethics of reverence for life is visible, and on the other hand, the effect of Schopenhauer’s psychological background with his mother on his pessimistic worldview and consequently on life denial is undeniable.

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Gharawi Isfahani (Muhaqqiq Isfahani) presented an argument for the existence of God which is classified among ontological arguments. Among contemporary thinkers in Iran, this argument has attracted serious supporters and critics alike. Overall, five readings have been put forth for this argument. In the present study, these five readings have been analyzed in three main frameworks including (1) the concept of the Necessary Being as a mental concept, (2) the concept of Necessary Being as representing something out of itself and finally, (3) the reality of the Necessary Being or the objectivity of the Being by Itself. After presenting each reading, its compatibility with Isfahani’s argument will be analyzed. It will be shown that Isfahani's argument should be regarded as an argument in the second framework.

In The God delusion, in detail, Richard dawkins denies the God who gives order to the natural system; of course, in this book, in brief, he rejects God who hears prayer, does miracle and is aware of everything's and is omnipotent. dawkins’ Discussion on orderer God has three main concepts: natural selection, complexity and a low probability. When he substitutes orderer God with the natural selection, thus dosn’t criticise this popular theory that know divine way of creation as natural selection, but ridicules it and his discussion on complexity of the orderer God, use verbal share paralogism. In addition to, his discussion about to accepting or denying what its truth has a low probability have paradoxes in his book. In this article, in addition to above, I argue that in the books of theologians, the most important Dawkins arguments have been answered long before that he debate them. However, dawkins without criticism of responses and without being aware of it, give unfinished Discuss about God. Also in this paper, I indicate that dawkins’s investigation in the god delusion is biased.

The moral arguments for the existence of God which are formed by appealing to moral thought and experience can be categorized into theoretical and practical arguments. Kant was the first thinker who introduced the argument based on the fact that morality is an intellectual commitment. He asserted that it is necessary to assume the existence of God in order to realize goodness that is the ultimate goal of human moral life.His argument, from the critics’ point of view, is self-contradictory for its internal inconsistency and its being unable to prove the external existence of God. Thus, some Kant’s commentators have attempted to provide a theoretical argument for the existence of God by appealing to the objectivity of moral values. They claim that humans’ moral behavior in different periods is based on some universal, and popular moral values which can be explained only by taking God for granted. Some have tried, also, by correcting the general framework of Kant’s moral argument and through practical rationality of moral life, to provide a theistic argument based on morality. In their view, in the process of moral decision making and, it is practically more beneficial to accept a powerful and infinite reference at the top of a moral system, in comparison to the rival theories. In this article, while critically analyzing Kant's moral argument, we shall assess the efforts made to correct the argument resulted in both theoretical and practical expressions.

The Avicennian idea about the conceptual synonymy of the divine characteristics of the omnipotent God is considered as the rarest viewpoint having something to do with the characteristics attributed to the One God. Naturally, such an incident has been caused both by some epistemic and non-epistemic factors. The present study compiles and elaborates these factors. There are several causes which have resulted in abandonment of Avicennian theory of divine attributes including (1) he absence of deductive reasoning in favor of such a claim in Avicennian popular works, (2) the absence of the theory from Avicenna’s major work, al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat, (3) negligence of Avicenna’s commentators with respect to the theory, (4) scarcity of reports by the critics of the idea of “synonymy”, (5) theological perceptions of the Avicennian discourse and (6) reducing his theory to an referential unification of the divine characteristics. But, the highly accentuated criticisms by Mulla Sadra of the idea of “synonymy” brought about an appropriate grounding for the late-comers’ awareness of the theory, free from having a clear recognition of the person who proposed it.In between, Ahmad al-Ahsa’ie welcomed the idea of “synonymy” and endeavored to come up with a more precise elucidation of the aforementioned idea as well as the refutation of the criticisms put forth by Mulla Sadra. Also, al-Ahsa’ie made considerable efforts in line with adjusting the idea of “synonymy” with the Shiite teachings, but in virtue of his being refuted by the mainstream Shiite thinkers, the theory made ignored after a short time.