Journal Of Religious Thought
Year:2014 | Volume:14 | Issue:3 (52)|Papers Count:8

The problem of divine foreknowledge and the human free will is one of the important issues of philosophy of religion. According to this problem, since the divine Omniscience requires its infallibility; therefore, if at a time t1 God knows that subject (S) will have an action A at a time t3, then S cannot do anything other than this action at time t3. So, divine foreknowledge is in an apparent contradiction to the human free will. This article tries to compare the views of Linda Zagzebski (the contemporary religion philosopher) with those of Mortaza Mutahhari on this topic. We first address the classic triple responses to this issue (Bothiusism, Ockhamism, Mollinism) from the viewpoint of ZagzEbski. Then we show that Zagzebski, while admitting parts of the elements of these viewpoints and integrating them, presents three novel solutions. Then the article addresses the viewpoints of Mutahhari in the fields of determination, free will and predestination. Finally we show the similarities and differences of these two views. The research findings are that both intellectuals admit the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will, but Thomistic Ockhamism and two other solutions of Zagzebski, in spite of their positive and admissible points, are not successful in demonstrating this compatibility, while the solution of Mutahhri is successful.

The religious experience emerging from our Islamic tradition is basically in a contrast with the religious experience based upon modernity. The situation of our contemporary philosophical thought obliges us to rethink the fundamentals of these two approaches and their relationship to each other. Iqbal is the first Islamic thinker who rethinks the fundamental issues of Islam using the concepts "religious experience" and "scientific principles of modernity" and in the end, he reaches explanations that arc basically contradictory to the nature of Islamic principles. We are not going to criticize the consequences of his worldview; rather, we are going to explain two problems in his approach: one is the agnostic knowledge resulting from a religious experience based on "materialist worldview" and the other is a third dimension called "being spiritual" which he adds to this modem knowledge. Despite Iqbal's efforts these two are neither retractable and nor solvable today. A dialectical understanding of these two contradictory positions, at the heart of today's culture, underlies the consciousness to the contemporary way of encountering the roots of truth, God and the situation of our philosophical thought.

Human beings have been always -seeking the meaning of life to avoid absurdity and perplexity. Belief in existence or non existence of God has an important role in this relation. Consequently to know whether the world and human beings are created beings is also important. If there is a God who is a complete arid necessary existent and also a wise and knowledgeable creator, then we can find a meaning and a goal for creating of the world and the man. In this paper we will discuss this subject from the viewpoint of Allamah Tabatabayi the great contemporary philosopher, theologian and interpretator of the Qur'an. He distinguishes between the goal of the creator himself and the end for the creature. He denies the first and proves the second. Our approach in this paper will be a philosophical one.

This paper aims to compare Augustine's and Farabi's political philosophies based on their books "City of God' and "Supperior City" (Madina Fazela). We firs study some of the basic concepts such as city, justice and happiness in their philosophies. Then some of their theoretical principles will be discussed. We will show that Augustine introduces a new concept of city while Farabi uses it in its common meaning. Augustine's theoretical foundation is based on the Bible doctrine about two kinds of human nature, while Farabi's theory is based on civil nature of human beings. These differences cause a difference in the order governing the city. Augustine concentrates on the role of citizen and Farabi on the role of the head of city.Realization of city depends on the existence of citizens from the viewpoint of Augustine. So, "City of God" has been existed all the time during history but its absolute realization will be in Last Judgment. But the existence of "superiority" depends on the existence of "superior ruler", so it has not been realized yet. Finally we will discuss the goals of the citizens of these two cities. We also show that Augustine's approach in his book is philosophical while that of Farabi is theological.

Questions concerning the nature of the soul have been discussed by philosophers such as Aristotle and Ibn Sina for a long time. One of them has been the question of survival of the soul apart from the body. Ibn Sina considers the soul as a non material entity and has presented several arguments for it. Aristotle also has different discussions in this relation which caused conflicting views among his commentators. Sometimes they have deduced that soul is a material being from the fact that it is the form of body. So they say that soul will be corrupted and disappeared.In this paper we will introduce some arguments to show that there is not a conflict between the fact that soul is the form of body and the fact that is a non material and lasting entity. We also show that from the viewpoints of Aristotle and Ibn Sina sometimes the form can survive as an independent being apart from the matter.

Speaking and thinking about death are among the popular foundational elements in the literature and thought of all nations. So, literature of each nation is a good mirror of its made of thinking about death.We can find different and sometimes conflicting ideas in these mirrors. In this paper we will compare the viewpoints of Khayyam, the great Iranian poet of 12th century with those of Attar, the great Sufi poet of 13th century on the subject of death. Both poets agree that death is a universal and unavoidable phenomenon for all human beings. But they differ in some other aspects of this subject. For example, Attar believes in two kinds of death namely voluntary and mystical- lovely deaths in additions to natural death. We see some kind of desperation in Khayyam's facing up to death which is not seen in the case of Attar. Attar's death - thinking leads to a kind of repentance rather than seeking pleasure in this worldly limited life which is contrary to Khayyam's approach.

All educational schools are based on a kind of world-view whose most important part consists of anthropology. Some schools which are not based on divinity notice only to the material aspect of human beings and some others notice only to the non material aspect. Some schools consider equilibrium between these two aspects not based on divine norms. Islamic education is based on a two dimensional anthropology. In other words it takes into account both the spirit and the body of human beings.In this paper we first discuss Islamic view in this relation, then we compare it with other schools concerning this subject. Finally we show that although spirit and body have an interaction to each other, the principality in education belongs to spirit which has the key role in human training.