JOSTARHA-YE FALSAFE-YE DIN (PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION STUDIES )
Year:2019 | Volume:8 | Issue:1|Papers Count:6

Skeptical theism is one of the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil. This approach which is included of different ideas, with emphasizing on human cognitive limitations and complicated axiological reality, casts doubt on the claim of gratuitous evil. This article is based on Bergmann’ s idea, who is one of the prominent philosopher in this sphere. He challenges William Rowe’ s inductive argument with his skeptical theses which are based on “ representative” principle. Bergmann’ s articles in this sphere are influential and highly controversial. One of the main objections to his idea is that his skeptical theses lead to moral impasse, both in theoretical (moral justification) and pragmatic aspect. This is against our approach in our everyday moral life. Since this position is not acceptable in everyday moral life, skeptical theism is not acceptable either. Although Bergmann accepts limitations in sphere of value, he doesn’ t think it makes problem for skeptical theism. This article first introduce representative approach of Bergmann then considering objections and responses to them. At least it becomes clear that Bergmann’ s solutions does not response objections rightly.

Phililps as a wittgenstienian analitic philosopher in philosophy of religion consieders the language of religion as an unreal and uncognitive language. so he just counts the single way for understanding the meaning of theological items, to attention to the grammer of religious language. According to his positivist view points, he cant respect any meaning for religious terms( like the existence of Gool ). Without the usage ot those in the failhefull life and their faithfull context. he beliefs that we can just understand the meaning of " worshipping of Gool ", " transcdence of God ", " Grace of God ", " love of God " and " love to God " by considering the context that these terms have used in that. And by attention to the usage of them in the life style of religious persons. But some of the other analitic philosophers in philosophy of religion have critieized his view point: 1 ) they exhibit the paradox between absoluteness of beliving to existence of God and having the instrumental attitude to this belief. 2 ) belief in Author denys the God that has been created by the style life of belivers. 3) from their points of views, Phillips has mixed between belief and act. 4) they belief that the absoluteness of objectivity of God denys its dependence to the mind. 5) they reject the identity of meaning and usage about the religious terms.

The main purpose of this article is to discuss of the Other and its relationship with Human person in Kierkegaard's view. Our chief question in this article is whether we know ourselves in the mirror of the other or if the other is a barrier and hindrance to our cognition of ourselves. In this paper, first, we review the place of the other in the three stages of life and point out their differences with each other. Then, we continue to focus on the Ethical stage where is the main realm of the emergence of the "Other". After discussing the necessities and limitations of this stage, we review the topic of Love, focusing on the book "Works of love". Lastly, we ask this question that if the Other has the same place in Kierkegaard's eye just as concrete with all those flesh and blood and special traits as "Self" or Human person. In other words, what is the place of concrete Other in Kierkegaard's view? Does Kierkegaard ignore the concrete Other and bury its individuality by considering the Other as the mirror or model? Or does he promote the Other's status by making it into an ethical principle?

Physics not only could change our philosophical and theological world view, but also itself is based on philosophical and theological presuppositions and perspectives. Quantum mechanics beside the failure of positivists viewpoint in twentieth century deepened the relations of physics and philosophical and theological world views. There has been so many efforts to maintain the idea of intentional or special divine action in the world, and do so in a variety of ways, all of which heavily engage quantum theory. Quantum mechanics events have been so amazing and confusing that resulted to different interpretations. The Quantum mechanics relation to theology or metaphysic entirely depended to the interpretation of physical phenomenon and affected from the entailments of physics about the real world. In this article we will integrate David Bohm’ s interpretation of Quantum mechanics and Sadra’ s philosophy to explain special divine action in the world.

Open Theism, as a new approach in theology and philosophy of religion, has attracted attentions of most of contemporary thinkers toward its views. The main claim of supporters of this approach is that many of current doctrines of Christian theology about God’ s entity and his attributes are not consistent with Scripture and this has led to incompatibilities between new science and religious thoughts. One of them is found in conflict of God’ s knowledge and Human’ s Freewill. In addition to redefining some of God’ s attributes especially his absolute foreknowledge, open theists tried to resolve that traditional and controversial problem. Also, they interpreted the relation of God and the world in a new way to solve the conflict. In this article the open theist’ s method in resolving the problem of Gos's foreknowledge and Human's Freewill is going to be reviewed based of Sadra’ s philosophy.

The Privation Theory of Evil (PT) is a general theory about the nature of evil according to which all kinds of evil have a privative (or negative) nature. During the Middle Ages some great philosopher-theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas endorsed (PT). After being neglected for a long time, recently philosophers of religion have shown interest (PT). In this paper, after a brief review of Augustine’ s and Aquinas’ views, we first provide a comprehensive sketch of (PT). Then we examine some of the arguments proposed in favour of (PT) and show that they are not conclusive. Then we discuss two counterexamples proposed by the opponents of (PT), namely pain and moral evil. First, we investigate and critique the views of the two sides and then we argue that the main deficiency of the current debate is the philosophers of religion don’ t utilities the relevant theories of philosophy of mind and ethics to illustrate their philosophical grounds. Without clarification of these grounds any well-based judgment about (PT) seems to be impossible.