JOSTARHA-YE FALSAFE-YE DIN (PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION STUDIES )
Year:2020 | Volume:9 | Issue:1|Papers Count:6

Among the issues that have an effective role in the dialogue between Islam and Christianity and how the followers of these two religions can have, is to explain the place of the fate of the followers of the two religions, In this article, an analytical, comparative method seeks to explain the foundations and The common religious beliefs of Islam and Christianity, which according to the religious texts and the specific causes and circumstances of the followers of both can be saved. Motahhari's professor believes non-Muslims who have not gained to the right religion of time (Islam), if this lack of knowledge and achievement is not due to their fault and shortcomings, or their prejudices, and are arbitrarily opposed to the right to surrender, according to Godliness And the truthfulness of their intentions and their moral and moral deeds can be called salvation, from which they have been interpreted as "innate Muslims. " And in the Christian religion, Karl Rahner, of the contemporary Catholic Christian theologians, by proposing the theory of the "inclusiveness of salvation, " and refreshing and redefining the concept of "eternal grace" within human beings, the non-Christians who respond to this divine grace and their inner voice and conscience Given and believing in God and doing good moral deeds, they are called "unknown Christians" and can be saved.

In this article, the author has attempted to inquire about the relevance of Ali Shariati's critique of Durkheim's sociology of religion. There are innumerable studies on Durkheim and the Durkheimian sociology of religion but we have almost no comprehensive research on the Shariatian reading of the Durkheimian sociology of religion. Here, the author has worked on the notion of elementary form of religion as understood by Durkheim within the Shariatian frame of reference. Shariati argues that Durkheim has misunderstood the question of elementariness by equating the 'collective soul' and 'religious emotion' as in Shariati's view these two are fundamentally different in kind and substance. In other words, here the author is attempting to legitimize the Shariatian frame of reference while engaging the Durkheim's sociology of religion.

Kant in Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason, offers the theory that human nature is essentially a radical evil. Kant's argument for Radical evil consists mainly of two parts; One is man's innate desire for evil and the other is the claim that radical evil is universality. By rejecting the theory of original sin, Kant first insists that evil is the inevitable characteristic of human nature, but that we have a moral responsibility for it. Because we freely choose and follow it. Kant argues that the innate talent or desire in a rational and limited factor is a mental principle or action that tends toward evil. Radical evil is both an innate desire and a moral action; A contradictory situation that has led commentators to consider it incompatible with Kant's other moral theories and to reject it. The purpose of this article is to critique the concept of Radical evil from Kant's point of view and its relation to moral authority and responsibility; Because attributing Radical evil to individual freedom is the beginning of the position of moral independence.

The problem of science and religion is one of the major problems in the philosophy of religion. Historical facts bring about ground for evaluating the models which are raised to explain the relationship between science and religion. Among these events, we can consider the coronavirus crisis which today all human society is in engagement with it. It seems that, due to the theoretical aspects of all the models explaining the relation between science and religion, we are unable to study the concrete reality of science and religion around this crisis in Iran; a reality, a reality that is social rather than being conceptual. This article claims that although there isn't a conflict between science and religion, the concrete reality manifests some sort of conflict among the religious society and scientific advances. How can we articulate this conflict between conceptual analysis and concrete reality? It seems that we can recognize the conflict between conceptual analysis and concrete reality through considering the category of "folk religion". By applying “ folk religion” , which is mainly maintained in the social study of religion and through a phenomenological perspective, we will try to explain the conflict between religion and science in Iran around the crisis. So, by assessing the inefficiency of related models for explaining the relation between science and religion, we can conclude the inadequacy of theoretical models in general and claim that only through considering the category of "folk religion" we can explain the coronavirus crisis in Iran.

Imam Ali’ s approach on the principle of divine justice in Nahj Albalagheh and explaining it according to a rational method and paying attention to his subjects and structures about this matter, has not been considered by justice inquirers. In Imam Ali’ s word, adl takvini is based on the pivot of balance of the universe that in his viewpoint can be considered as an introduction of existential reasons however does not need any explanation. Also his attention to adl tashri’ i is explicable with a cue to prophetic mission and divine orders. Appropriateness of penalty and reward with the humane acts and equality in this issue, providing the equality of merits, are also two issues that according to them, rational declaration of penal justice would be possible. In addition to draw an exponent from Imam Ali’ s approach to divine justice in three fields of takvin, tashri’ , and penalty, this assay has paid attention to the structures and subjects of his reasoning with a descriptive-analytic method. The results of the assay represent that Imam Ali’ s words in this issue is logical and has rational structure and from author’ s viewpoint is an effective research to open the new ways about researching into Nahj Albalagheh.

Every single soul that has a little knowledge of himself and those around him, does have this question that, is death end of existence and all our instincts and aspiration? And if not, how would be our life or lives after death? This question is as old as human being. Belief in eternity of life plays an important role in interpretation of human life and its meaning and meaninglessness. But some philosophers have problem with the meaning of human eternity. The present paper uses descriptive and analytical method to critique the relationship between eternity and meaning of life in view of Bernard Williams. Bernard Williams argues based on moral philosophy and pragmatic approach that, since an eternal life is undesirable, desire of eternal life is unreasonable. Therefore, Williams not only believes that eternity is not necessary for the meaning of life, but also it is hazard; because, actually, death is what can make the life meaningful. Different critiques of this view deny the incompatibility of eternity and the meaning of life; and illustrate that Bernard William’ s argument against any kinds of eternity was not correct and cogent.