پژوهشنامه فلسفه دین (نامه حکمت)
سال یازدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 22، پاییز و زمستان 1392)

Aristotle’s theology is founded upon his physical studies. Aristotle، originally following the goal of pre-Socratic natural philosophers، has organized a set of philosophical concepts including ousia، matter، form، potentiality، actuality and entelechia to explain natural changes and motions. His way of study، therefore، is based on experience and observation. In this way، he has proved the existence of an unmoved mover and presented a concept of God. Yet، the failures and ambiguities of the concepts، their essential state of naturality and Aristotle`s main mental concern in solving the problem of nature have led to an ambiguous and defective view in the field.

Among Ashari scholars، Fakhr Razi explicitly used the term «Unity of The Divine Acts» and tried to prove this issue through several rational and traditional reasons. This article، by studying the different versions of the «Unity of The Divine Acts» from Fakhre Razi’s viewpoint، assessed his rational reasons in four categories - existential reasons; monotheistic reasons; anti conferment reasons; deterministic reasons - and it was concluded that although the «Unity of The Divine Acts» is a quit discursive issue from his viewpoint، but all his reasons، doesn’t able to prove the correct versions of the «Unity of The Divine Acts»; some reason proves the «Unity of The Divine Acts» means Unity of God''s Creativity and Agency (denying partner agency); some، proves the «Unity of The Divine Acts» means direct or indirect agency of God to all actions; some، proves the two former means; some، is just a reason for rejection of the conferment and man dependency in actions; some، proves the deterministic reading of the «Unity of The Divine Acts»; and some also is incomplete so that it can''t afford to prove none of the readings of the «Unity of The Divine Acts».

In this article، I shall describe the influence of theistic thought on variant dimensions of knowledge through classification and analysis of Mutahhari’s writings. In particular، I shall develop two criteria which have been inspired from 2:156 (We are for God and we shall return toward him). These criteria are “from-him-ness” and “toward-him-ness” and they can be counted as a basis for normative propositions. I believe that divine orders have been manifested both in reason and revelation. Meanwhile، rational normative propositions can be divided into propositions of moral obligation and that of non-moral obligation. A further criterion، which is the spirit of human actions، is godly motivation. Hence، putting these criteria together، we will have sixteen cases، seven cases of which، I shall argue، would be a recommended action in theistic thought.

The Augustinian theologian''s unusual assertion that understanding rests on the faith، seems to be confronted with various objections. Through analyzing، criticizing، and refuting these objections، we will clarify epistemological status of this assertion. This essay consists of two sections. In the first section، by distinguishing two different approaches to epistemic justification، that is، internalism and externalism، it will be argued that these objections are all due to epistemic obligations which are imposed by internalist approach. The said objections، thus، will be resolved if these obligations are eliminated; externalist approach undertakes to do this. Then، we will show that although the latter one can appropriately satisfy the requisites which are necessary to representing a general epistemology but its foundations rest on a condition which will merely be provided through a faith-based explanation. In the second section، we will argue that the Augustinian theologian''s viewpoint is the only one which can appropriately pave the way for this condition.

In recent philosophical analysis of religious experience and discussion on the relation of beliefs and experiences، Ninian Smart is said to be، amongst such other philosophers as Katz and Hick، a maximal constructivist. Distinguishing theistic and non-theistic contexts of experiences، Smart suggests a two poles theory of religious experience، and draws attention to different levels of interpretation. He holds that cultural-religious contexts، including religious beliefs، influence religious experience، but it is not led to fully determine experience. Accordingly، he takes a position between essentialism and maximal constructivism. This position could call minimal constructivism.

Brand Blanshard is one of the contemporary famous philosophers، especially because of his Ideas on religious epistemology. He defends rationalism and evidentialism in religious epistemology and therefore criticizes fideism. He holds that rationality is the main character of all kinds of beliefs، including religious belief. But، in his Idealism، Blansahrd finds a place for the source of being and universe، which stands in sharp contradiction with traditional concept of God. In this paper we show that some times، his evidentialism is very radical and in compatible with contemporary steams. Some of his claims are not acceptable، such as this assertion that today scientific approach is absolutely dominate and religious approach is absolutely condemn.

Cognitive science is an inter-disciplinary approach that applies a set of methods to study the cognitive structures and faculties in human being’s life. These methods pursue the cognitive structures that are needed - in the light of this approach - to represent and acquire the religious concepts and the actions that institutionalize these structures. These goals are pursued through the process of change and evolution that supernatural concepts had been undergone during the historical life of mankind and also during the growth of any individual. In this paper cognitive science of religion is introduced with a general report of cognitive science and considering its philosophical bases and then tries to give an broad outlook to its approach to religion through its sub-disciplines، depending on the role of each of them in constructing the cognitive science of religion; cognitive anthropology and cognitive psychology have the most importance here، comparing to the rest like cognitive neuroscience.

Suffering On the one hand is the existential problem that leads us to ask on why it exists، and on the other hand is a philosophical and theological question that challenges divine justice or even the existence of God. Hence، religious thinkers have addressed the nature of suffering، kinds، causes and consequences of it. In this paper we will show that sufferings in Rumi’s view are the inverse-horseshoes، He sees the true grace at the exterior wrath، and recognizes true pain at the specious grace. He believes that “fundamental true suffering” is the separation from increate beloved Neglecting which، will result in other kinds that have been nominated “secondary true sufferings” in here; and other life difficulties that are “suffer-liked graces” are nominated “virtual sufferings”، here we will discuss about the results of these sufferings from Rumi’s view. In his viewpoint we’ll see that the faith is the best human reaction to pains and sufferings، with the gifted insight of which، believers will be able to make suffering meaningful and acceptable. According to Rumi، it is just through the awareness of the real suffering that we can pass through the endless path of faith. In this way of curse the worldly sufferings won’t be removed or denied، but will be meaningful and tolerable - or perhaps sweetness - for lover believers. Rumi believed that passionate faith would be the best answer to life sufferings.