JOSTARHA-YE FALSAFE-YE DIN (PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION STUDIES )
Year:2018 | Volume:7 | Issue:1|Papers Count:6

In the current study, firstly, we will argue that the main challenge of evil to western theism is not the occurrence of undesirable states of affairs, but the existence of pointless evil in the world. Secondly, considering the distinction between temporal perspective and eternal perspective, we will distinguish between apparently pointless evil and actually pointless evil. The claim is that recognizing the latter is not possible from a temporal perspective. Thirdly, we will study some well-known versions of the argument from evil and demonstrated that occurrence of pointless evil, which is the sufficient reason for nonexistence of God, is presupposed in these arguments. The main claim of this study is that the problem of evil can be reduced to the disagreement about existence or nonexistence of pointless evil in the world. But this disagreement is undecidable from a temporal perspective.

In this paper, I tried to elucidate Weber's view on the relationship between knowledge and religion as one of his most important views from the point of view of his "Sociology of Religion" and show how Weber's vision results in a conflict between knowledge in the general sense of it (including empirical sciences and Human) and religion. For this purpose, five main sections are considered. In the first section, the title introduces the map of the possible relationships between knowledge and religion, then in the second section, the coordinates of Weber's position in that map as one of the factors for the conflict between knowledge and religion is explained. In the third part of the article, criticisms of Weber's vision has been drawn up by considering Wolterstorff's views, and finally, in the fourth section, with a critical study on Weber's position, I come up to a solution for the issue, named "conflict between knowledge and religion". This solution which includes a path that is presented to the religious scholars and scientists to discuss with each other so that both the domains of human thought, knowledge and religion, can be used methodically and philosophically in a well-known sociological structure. The final part of this article also focuses on the conclusion of the discussion.

Sadr-al-Mutallihin would consider it as the soul perfection and it’ s existentially separation from the body. According to him, being is of some levels, and death is on their borders by which human being could ascend a high level of being, that is, the Heaven. Therefore, death is not the end of life, as Mulla sadra said, but is got to be a rebirth as well as a kind of transcendence in the material world. One of the most important existential philosophers, Martin Heidegger, on the other hand, would hermenutico-phenomenologically deal with the death. Rather than an end to the life, according to him, death is considered to be an existential phenomenon with which man could face the realities of life. Hence, death could be a way of life which has been accommodated in as the last possibility of the Dasein from the beginning. Because of this, as he argued, every human being can be understood as a being-toward-death which indeed is in the face of the end. Instead of avoiding it, however, being aware of this reality requires the original being. According to this, confronting the death, man would think about the “ Being” , and would deeply feel its mysterious presence. As a comparative study, reflecting on death, according to both Mulla sadra and Heidegger, not only could man actualize his potential capabilities but also understand the fundamental values of life as well as the original being. In this paper, Sadr al-Din Shirazi's views and Martin Heidegger In case of death, according to Henry Corbin will be explained.

The central issue of this paper is to examine and analyze the plurality of meaning of life from the viewpoint of Mulla Sadra. In this paper, the authors explain the plurality of meaning in life by defining the meaning of life and examining different theories about this issue. Then, using the foundations of Mulla Sadra, they analyzed and explained this issue in three areas of epistemology, ontology and anthropology. In this essay, in the field of epistemology, based on Mulla Sadra's lasting and positive attitudes towards life, the plurality of meaning in life was analyzed. In the aspect of ontology, using the system of individual unity of existence and the possibility of poverty in the form of manifestation and different appearance of the name and plurality of appearances, the plurality of meaning of life was analyzed. In the field of anthropology, this question was analyzed by seeking to explain the plurality of a human being in two systems of arrogant unity and personal unity.

One of the important issues in the philosophy of religion is the issue of the unity of the world and its relation to the unity of God. These different perceptions of the unity of the universe have been challenged by the unity of existence. In this paper, we are going to elucidate the viewpoints of the Muslim philosophers of the Transcendent Philosophy School with this discussion and evaluate their arguments and show the superiority of some of the views of others. In this regard, the viewpoints of Sadr's wisdom commentators who have contradictory opinions have been selected and their analysis has been analyzed. . Allameh Tabatabai, who is sometimes inclined to some form of unity, sometimes personal, sometimes also interprets the two-word consistency. Ultimately, he accepts the solid arguments of personal unity, but he does not have the ability to answer doubts. Motahari, who opposes the unity of existence, negation, negation, and neglect of possible possibilities, ultimately, by Allameh Javadi Amoli, with the proof of the "Absolute Absolute" and placing "being" and "appearing" against "lack of" defects that prevent the application of philosophy based on unity Were eliminated, so the way to change many topics was opened. In this paper, we intend to have a critical comparison of the views of these three thinkers.

Property emergentism as a new and advanced theory than materialism and physicalism and having more correspondent with sciences such as physics, neurology and biology, in spite of the acceptance of mental states, powers and casuality denies the immaterial subestance of soul / mind, and ultimately depends the mind and mental states to the body and its components and functions as a hole; that means it considers mental states as dependent properties on the interactions of the nervous system and the network components. These emergentists are classified into two group in considering free will: some see it as an emergent property and as a character of the whole nervous system and body parts network, but the other denies free will despite their accepting other mental and subjective properties. But we can provide intellectual reasons and scientific evidence on the rejection of both view and then we review and criticize these property emergentist views and prove existence of immaterial soul/mind through the existence of free will.