JOSTARHA-YE FALSAFE-YE DIN (PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION STUDIES )
Year:2020 | Volume:8 | Issue:2|Papers Count:6

The discussion of the concept of God is obtained by examining the attributes of God and its relation to the essence and existence of God. Each of the philosophers before Plotinus, according to their own foundations, examined this issue. Our Question is that how to explain concept of God in OTHEOLOGIA and Enneads. And how much do they overlap and what's the difference? Can the two be considered together and provide an explanation on both? the concept of God in the Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA is not the same Sometimes they are in the same direction and sometimes contradict each other. Approach of OTHEOLOGIA about of God is Aristotelian approach. And it speaks of existence, causality and pure action. But in Enneads God is One and over being And with the Analogy of the sun, fire and light are more reminiscent of Plato and his influence. In this article, we must first understand what is meant by "existence" in Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA. Then, consider other properties of God in both the sources of Enneads and OTHEOLOGIA to understand the problem of God and the concept of God in this thinker.

According to Wittgenstein II, the study of meaning and understanding of beliefs relates to a system of "expression of meaning" or Semantic Calculations, that each linguistic system as a "language game" derived from "a form of life, has created a method and rule foe expression and meaning and it's understanding. This approach introduces the 'rule' model to understand and justify different beliefs, so that we explain and calculate the meaning of a belief based on the rules and techniques of the words used in that language game. But he considers the understanding of religious beliefs to be impossible under this paradigm, and does not regard religious beliefs as an "attitude", for having a vague image, of rule understanding. However, since he considers images to be intentional rather than adaptive, in this article we want to show that in terms of the "relational" aspect of understanding as well as the intentionality of religious imagery, theReference aspect of religious meaning, are content The phenomena of the world as existential or information, and hence, with regard to the relation aspect of the understanding and meaning, we can regard the Rule as a model for examining the meaning and understanding of religious beliefs.

This article examines the concept of God in St. Paul’ s thought, by applying historical, lexical and theological studies of his epistles and what Acts of apostles has said about him. Research findings show that belief in the true One God is the sole foundation of Paul's thought. But this only God is also called the Father. His unity signifies His power, greatness and uniqueness, and being a Father is a sign of God's goodness, love, and goodwill. According to Paul, "there is one God for us, God the Father. " This God, while enjoying all of the perfect traits expressed in the monotheistic religions, is also the Creator and Savior, because "all things were made of him, by him and for him. " However, Christ is His instrument and agent in creation and salvation. But that does not mean that God is inactive. Christ has his everything from God. Creation and providence are in the hands of God. Paul makes a fundamental difference between God and Jesus Christ and never refers to Christ as God.

Within Tractatus and other works related to Wittgenstein's early philosophy, the concept of "nonsense" is a central one and of great importancem which was the subject of several interpretations. Among them, traditional (metaphysical) interpretation is a lasting one which P. M. S. Hacker, G. E. M. Anscombe and Hans-Johann Glock are its major figures. According to this interpretation, Wittgenstein maintains that there are a kind of truth which are "ineffable", including ethical and religious truths. Also, there are commentators who has used this kind of truth to conclude that Wittgenstein could (or should) be considered as continuing the negative theology tradition. In this paper, after articulation of traditional interpretation, the relation between Wittgenstein and negative theology will be studied. In the end, we will pose some critical remarks to show that, despite some priliminary similarities, not only Wittgenstein's philosophy has nothing to do with negative theology, but it is in a totally different direction than negative theology, even against it.

The theory of “ substantial and accidental in religions” divides all teachings of every religion into substantial and accidental. In this theory, the substantial part of a religion is defined as its content, essence, and destination, whereas the accidental part of it is its mould, husk, dust, and rust. Like a proverb in which the apparent meaning of the words is different from its content, and the content is substantial and the appearance is accidental, and like Masnawi which has substantial and accidental parts, Islam has substantial and accidental parts. Since what makes Islam Islam is its substantial part, not the accidental one, you don't need to believe in or stick to accidental, and you can change them in every community according to its circumstances. The only reason used to prove this theory is a false analogy. Moreover, the theorist commits the fallacy of begging the question at some points especially where he wants to give some criteria to distinguish between substantial and accidental. Some other problems of the theory are: inconsistent definitions of substantial and accidental, some misunderstandings of logical laws and drawing wrong conclusions from them, a misapplication of family resemblance theory, ascribing Ptolemaic spheres theory to Qur'an, and confusion between merely historical propositions and doctrinal ones.

This paper aims to assess and clarify Heidegger's attitude towards God by means of describing and analyzing Heidegger's works. Thus the main question is that would it be possible to assert that Heidegger believed in God and considered deity out of its orthodox from thought he kept silent about it? Although Heidegger's faith was influenced by Christianity, neither did he agree nor approve of the traditional practices of religion and was a critic to the boastful clergy and presented a different interpretation of faith through listening and paying attention to our inner call of Logos and then remained silent. Hence, Heidegger's view was based on Dasain which is somehow synonymous with believing in absolute being or God.