مجله الهیات تطبیقی
پیاپی 12 (پاییز و زمستان 1393)

The human being sometimes inclines toward the goodness and beauty، and sometimes toward the obscenity. So، Allah in the Quran has reminded man of dangers and wicked thoughts of the soul، and has described “al-Nafsul Ammāra” (commanding soul) as a source of the souls` inclination toward the obscenity which is quite deceptive. It has also been mentioned that self-scrutiny would act as cause for attaining the way of life recommended by Quran. One of the duties of the psychology is to elaborate on the sources of the souls` inclination toward obscenity and the factors that deviating the human life. One of the psychological schools that especially studies this issue is the School of analytical psychology. Among psychologists of this school، viewpoints of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung need to be compared with the Islamic-Quranic viewpoint. This article firstly tries to clarify the concept of the soul and its characteristics، and then explains the process through which “al-Nafsul Ammāra”، influences. It also describes the origin of the soul''s tendency toward obscenity from Freuds` viewpoint and satanic influences from viewpoint of Carl Jung comparing them with the Quranic attitude. The origin of inclination of the soul toward the obscenity is called “al-Nafsul Ammāra” based in the Quranic text while according to the Frauds` theory it is called ID. From the Quranic viewpoint، “al-Nafsul Ammāra” that is affected by the internal negative tendencies of the soul (Haway-e Nafs) and external invisible stimuli (Satan) commands the human and leads him to the obscenity. So the Quran introduces the Satan as the enemy of the human being that brings about his decadence. The Quran presents the human being a practical plan for struggling against the Satan. Analytical psychology of Jung also emphasizes the role of the satanic influences on the human tendency toward the obscenity and considers struggling with the Satan as a way for freedom and sublimation of the human.

The problem of evil is the most serious problem in religious thinking, and now is the most important atheistic reason against the existence of God. According to this argument, existent evils in the world are not compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient and all- good God. Based on this problem, the present investigation has been written to investigate the problem of evil according to Leibniz and Swinburne's views. Based on divine providence and theodicy these two thinkershave offered solutions to solve this problem, and both of them on the basis of free will, the best created world and benefits of evils have presented their solutions. This investigation will explain the views of these two thinkers and compare their views about this problem. 1- Similarity in Leibniz and Swinburne points of view: 1-1- Motivation behind mentioning theodicy in Leibniz and Swinburne's theories = Leibniz and Swinburne are two theistic philosophers who have discussed about theodicy to defend the theist's beliefs. Leibniz mentions theodicy in order to respond to the questions and skepticism brought by Mr. Bill, his purpose was to answer some questions raised in theodicy. Similar to this, Swinburne also comes to evil and theodicy to face obstacles appeared based on evil in recent years. 1-2- The two philosopher's Perception of God Leibniz and Swinburne both consider the definition of God offered in Abrahamic religions. According to both philosophers, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. They base their theodicies according to this definition of God. 1-3-Supporting their views by referring to the theory of free will One of the major and important similarities in Leibniz and Swinburne discussion is their emphasis on free will. Both emphasize the goodness of will. The both believe that it is impossible for God to give a creature free will, and prevent him from evil which is essential for this freedom. Because when a creature is prevented from committing a bad act, he cannot be regarded as having free will. In other words Swinburne like Leibniz believes that human beings are able to make evils and this its logical result is that they have free choice and they are responsible. It is not logically possible for God to give us freedom and at the same time remove the possibility of doing evils from us. 1-4- Evil's advantages Both philosophers believe that evils have a lot of advantages. Leibniz considers the evils being profitable for the ideal system of creation. He points to cases which seem to be out of order and considers them exactly in harmony with the world and says in particular this anarchy makes the world beautiful. Leibniz even believes that this world with evils is much better than world without them, because they are necessary for producing more good things. From Swinburne's point of view suffers make an opportunity for human beings to corporate and share each other''s pains in particular. This particularly appears in a situation in which this corporation results in cure or prevention. 1-5- The ideal system of creation. From other resemblances between Leibniz and Swinburne point of view we can mention here is that both consider this world with all its sufferings and ailments or in general, evils, the best created world. And do not consider the best created world the world without evils.Leibniz believes God is good, and from the good nothing except good results. That means if there were different possible worlds, God had complete knowledge to all of them. So evil and good both were clear to God.Also God is all-good who could not have chosen anything except good. There is nothing from all-good but good. So God's choice was the best and as a result this world is the best created world. Swinburne also believes that the world with a little suffering and sickness at least is as good as a world without suffering because it is really good that human being has a deep attention toward other individuals. And this attention can be deep and serious only in situation in which other men are in bad condition. If somebody's condition is always ok there will not be any reason for others to be curious and caring about him. 2- Differencesof Leibniz and Swinburne's views: 2-1- Nature of evil Leibniz believes that evil is nothingness and as a result it needs no cause, because cause is needed in a situation in which something exists. Existence needs a cause. At the same time evil is non-existence. Leibniz says there is no cause for formal characteristic of evil because evil is non-perfection and the existent thing requires a cause while evil is non-existent. In contrast Swinburne does not believe in non-existence of evil. About the nature of evil he believes that evil is not the lack of massive goodness, rather they are existent bad things which could be eliminated by God if He wills 2-2- Classification Evils Another difference in Leibniz and Swinburne's view is the way they classify evil. Swinburne classifies the evils as moral evils and natural evils but Leibniz makes another classification and categorizes evils in metaphysics and natural and also moral evils. 2-3- Relationship between good and evil Leibniz accepts the reality of evil but declares that the existent evil is the least possible one which is essential for the existence of good which is far less than existent good. So evil is the expense that is paid for massive advantages coming from good but Swinburne in contrary to Leibniz considers good and evil necessary for each other. He also believes God does not have any choice except making an evil for us to obtain a good. And this does mean a contrast. So we can say Leibniz and Swinburne have different points of view toward the relationship between evil and good. Leibniz believes good and evil are in contrast but Swinburne believes good and evil are necessary for each other.

In the modern world, on the one hand, technology has brought comfort to people and on the other hand had has raised many concerns toward the future. Philosophers pay a special role in finding a way or ways for the human society to have the maximum benefit and facing the minimum damage from the unpleasant items. Giving an Islamic path to science and technology may help us overcome the concerns and we reach this goal by something more than just speaking and having unnecessary prejudice. In recent decades producing Islamic science and Islamic technology have involved many scholars in the Islamic countries and Iran. It's interesting that even the hardest critics on the religious science program who denied the phenomena, accept the possibility of the religious and regional technology and further they have a positive attitude toward this kind of technology if some conditions exist. At the beginning we will take a look at evolution of attitude toward technology. Then, because of definition of technology as “humanity at wok” in recent attitudes and after a glance on the philosophy of science (as the nearest neighbor of the philosophy of technology), we will review different opinions about the influence of metaphysics on technology. If we map the opinions concerning the range of the influence of metaphysical believes on technological artifacts on a spectrum, on one side there are people who try to reduce from the importance of such assumptions by emphasizing common items of human societies and on the other side there are some who attempt to increase the importance of metaphysics of technology. There are evidences to confirm both opinions and perhaps there are different metaphysical roles in different technological experiences. But, at least, the role of metaphysical backgrounds on physical and social artifacts could not be denied. Anyway because of the Interlinking between social phenomena (such as science and technology) and metaphysics, any attempt in order to develop Islamic science and technology without explaining the Islamic metaphysic (theology) for it from valid religious sources (wisdom and quotes) will be superficial and ends to failure. Finally we recommended nine foundations to construct the technological metaphysic on. They are: 1. Noticing the hierarchical role of human being in the world 2. The Tightness between man and the world which he lives on. 3. Considering both the unseen and the visible world and accepting the causality in them. 4. Spreading science and technology. 5. Unity and concomitance of science and technology 6. Strategic and long-term unity between profit-seeking and rightful ends. 7. Denying relativity in principal moral standards and accepting relativity in some secondary matters. 8. The authenticity of deed, intent and belief simultaneously. 9. Bounded authority It's clear that these nine principles are not comprehensive at all, and is only an effort that tries to fit a sea in a bowl.

In the thirteenth century, along with the return of the European thinkers and philosophers to Aristotelian philosophy and the emergence of the contradiction between Aristotle's philosophy and Christian teachings and religious beliefs, the church put forward a theory known as dual reality. According to this theory everything that is true in theology, its opposite can also be true in philosophy. With this theory, the church accused the philosophers of heresy, while the followers of Averroes considered themselves free of this charge. In his book Faṣl al-maqāl, Averroes appeared to be in favor of the above mentioned theory in a different form. By a precise analysis of the theory through reviewing the now available sources and considering the events followed by attributing this view to the philosophers, one can infer different implications from the theory from the perspective of each of the three sides involved (i.e. Averroes, followers of Averroes and church) and the following division can be sketched: 1- ontological implications: that is to believe in the existence of two types of realities in the universe which can be described in two ways: A) two contradictory scopes in the universe B) two distinct scopes in the universe. 2- Epistemological implications of the dual reality: A) Two ways to reach one reality. B) Two dictions to narrate one reality. C) Duality of the reality in practice. D) Two levels of one single reality. By analyzing each of these implications of the dual reality, one can be led to some consequences according to which based on different works of Averroes; he cannot be accused of believing in a kind of duality which makes him deserve heresy.

There are two different approaches followed by moral philosophers regarding the motivational role of moral belief. Having restricted the motivating reasons to belief, the internalists consider the relationship between belief and ethical commitment necessary and believe that moral judgmentis inherentlymotivating. While theexternalists by regarding the belief and desire as reasons for action,they believe that the relationship between belief and actin is not necessary. Therefore, the weakness of will is possible, that is, the agent can acts against his best judgment. Now we put religious belief instead of moral judgment and ask about the motivational role of religious beliefs, that is, what is the relationship between religious beliefs and moral commitment? Are religious beliefs sufficient for moral action? Are they inherently motivating? Considering the impact of religious beliefs on committing ethical acts as necessary or contingent may have various and valuable consequences for the believers in different religions. The purpose of this article is to investigate such psychological relationship between religion and moralityand to seek the motivating influence of religious beliefs. The article tries to analyze the relation between the religious belief and ethical commitment and responds to this question that whether religious beliefs are the necessary and sufficientcondition for committing moral action, or they are just necessary conditions or neither necessary nor sufficient.If they are essential, what other elements can be complementary to religious beliefs? In other words, what other elements can substitute religious belief? To answer these questions, the present study will firstly investigate the stimulating influence of ethical beliefs and then will analyze the two approaches of internalism and externalism in ethics and finally will conclude that the approach of externalism is much closer to the reality. The article then will explain the four different kinds of relations between religion and morality including semantic, ontological, epistemological and psychological relations. Here, after describing different kinds of relations between religious belief and ethical commitment, it is concluded that the question of stimulating influence of religious belief is included in psychological relation between religion and morality. Finally, after confirming the motivating power of religious beliefs for action, it is concluded that there is no necessary relation between them and that faith can substitute belief. Thus, as ethical beliefs cannot be sufficient conditions for act, religious beliefs even if it is assumed asa necessary element, cannot be sufficient for committing ethical practices. The article, in its last part, after analyzing the meaning of faith and inspecting different moods of relations between faith and act, concludes that real faith can have a necessary relation with ethical commitment. Accordingly, the weakness of faith by influencing on the person's volition, will lead to the person's quitting of the ethical act, as moral philosophers believe that the weakness of willcan get the person to quit acting. The exposition of this issue has been mostly based on the Muslim and western philosophers such as Audi and 'Allāmah ṬabāṭabāῙ.

Mankind, in terms of biological, psychological and mental structures, is a very complex and enigmatic being, so that a variety of both natural and human sciences have been devoted to studying this complex reality. The human mind is one of the complex machineries at which philosophers, psychologists and linguists have pointed their studies from their own angles. On the one hand, the mind can be regarded as integrated machinery. It is being considered machinery, because a large amount of data including perceptions, feelings and reactions is loaded into mind and then processed by it, during which a lot of work is done on the data and it is applied in different parts of the brain, besides being memorized. This will also result in the strengthening of the mind's ability. In other words, the mind can be more powerful by increasing its experience and thought. The machinery like any other devices produces various products and outcomes. That is to say, although, mind is a device that has various inputs, outputs and reactions, it does all the tasks within a unified system; all the actions, reactions and productions happen within an integrated system. The significance of this device is especially clarified when it is realized that although some of the mind's productions and outcomes are non-material, they exist within material elements. In other words, mind and its related processes work by nerves and that's why it is regarded material. We see multiple layers of existence in it: physical beings, semi physical or imaginary forms and absolutely no-material existences or rational forms. Evolution and transformation of the mind is due to its physical aspect. Hence the mind is made up of both thought and physique (material). On the other hand, we can consider mind and its perceiving phenomena from the two other angles and views: first, from a holistic perspective and the second, from partial perspective. In the first view, we see all the plurality, diversity and changes within a single device formed in a single unified system. But in the second view, we can see perceptual phenomena in details. Here, we can see the multitude of changes and differences and pay less attention to the unity. Based on this view, every notion and affirmation are distinguished from other notions and affirmations and this will lead to the multiplicity, changes and varieties in a way that we can distinguish these phenomena from each other and think of their distinguishing features. We can say that tree is not a stone and a stone is not a cloud, etc. But when we turn our partial and detailed view to holistic one, despite their distinguishing features, all of the perceptual phenomena form a foundation of a single device. Therefore, we can say that mind is s collection of the plurality and diversity that makes up a single reality. This process leads us to the notion of multiplicity in unity and unity in multiplicity. We claim that Ibn "ArabĪ's mysticism and Espinoza and Whithead's philosophical approach would follow such pattern too. Ibn 'Arabi believes that the essence and reality of universe is unique but has got various names and attributes. He confirms the notion of pantheism. While Ibn Arab's God is unique in essence, He has numerous names and many manifestations. He stresses on the notion of pantheis. Based on his view, although universe has no existence on its own, it is different from God. Universe is not God, instead it manifests in His existence. According to Espinoza, the entire universe is a single essence and all differences and multiple creatures are modes and characteristics of that single essence which is God. According to Espinoza, the whole world or the nature is one single being whose fragments can be reconfigured to infinitesimal charges while the whole being remains unchanged. Therefore God is a flowing being in everything and everything flows in God. He is an infinite essence of the universe. God is very universe. Espinoza considers the universe as a super-mind devise each part of which is compatible with its total. In view of Espinoza, whole universe contains individual objects, thus, we can see that the pattern of super-mind, clearly, dominates the philosophy of Spinoza. Another theory that overlaps the proposed pattern belongs to that of Whitehead who is against any duality and rejects the existence of such dual beings such as sprit and body, God and universe, religion and science, etc. His goal is to reconciliate between incompatible components. He sees objects in their fundamental unity in spite of an external polarity of objects. Whithead identifies the universe numerous and interconnected one but each creature saves its individuality. He is seeking unity pattern, not a duality of mind and physics. Whithead s metaphysics is called philosophy of organism Reality is a dynamic network of interwoven events. He focuses on the immanence of god but doesn’t forget that there is an interaction between god and the world that are mutually independent and original immanence. According to Kirāmiyyah, God is the container where all events take place. They believe each phenomenon takes place in God's essence. When God creates something, He inserts a concept in its essence. They like Whithead regard the universe as body, they believe that nothing beyond God's essence occurs which means all events are God's willingness and knowledge. Interesting outcomes of this pattern are: Mystical, philosophical and theological Complex theories can be understood by means of this pattern. Mystical, philosophical and theological ideas that are seemingly incomparable can be matched and brought closer to each other with this pattern. The Kirāmiyyah's ideas that seemingly are incomprehensible can be understood. This research can be used for interdisciplinary studies. Because the pattern of psychology helps us to criticize the deeper layer of these thinkers and make a psychological pattern for their ideas.

The phenomenon of writing refutation against the two religions of Islam and Christianity has a history as long as the time when they first fought against each other. In recent years, the companionship of Christian missioners with colonialism and their increasing preaching activities, have caused the Muslim scholars to reflect strongly against them. This phenomenon has had a special manifest in Iran since Qajar dynasty (150 years ago) and led to the creation of many works written by Muslim theologians against missionary activities of Christianity. From among different Iranian regions where such works were emerged, Azarbayjan can be specifically named as an active area in which the writing of refuting works was more common than other areas in Iran. Azarbayjan in its current situation is an area including a vast region of north-western part of Iran and the countries of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this article the biography and the works of some Muslim scholars who were active against Christianity such as Muḥammd Ṣādiq Fakhr al-Islām, Ḥāj MῙrzā NajafalῙ Dānish TabrῙzῙ, Yūsuf Mujtahid TabrῙzῙ, Ghulāmḥuseyn TūtūnchῙ Ṣarāf TabrῙzῙ, Ḥuseyn ḤuseinῙ famous as RūmῙ MiyānduābῙ, IsmāῙl QaribāghῙ, Sayyed Ḥuseyn 'Arab BāghῙ and 'AlῙ Isḥāq KhūῙ, have been introduced. A total of 14 works written by these 8 scholars have been introduced in this article. It should be noticed that the creation of such works in this region did not occur in a vacuum, rather various elements and factors were involved to reach such status which will be mentioned in the following: - Christian Missioners from the Safavid Dynasty extensively had an offensive approach toward Islam due to the strategy of the Safavid-West: union: against Ottoman Government. This was highlighted during the time of Qajar because of great importance of Iran in international politics at that time. This led to the activity of the Preaching Association of Church, Mission Basel and American Missionaries in Azarbayjan area. - The geographical location of this area which is located in the northwest of Iranian western border has always been the confluence of different religions and culture. From the perspective of religion, because of its closeness to European and Christian countries and due to the arrival of the first missioners at this area, the first Muslim resistance occurred here. - The presence of the prominent figure like Muḥammd Ṣādiq Fakhr al-Islām in the area has had its own influence. He as a new convert to Islam and after leaving Christianity as his previous religion wrote a book in refuting of Christianity and had several debates with Christian priests. Other Muslim scholars who had close relation with him and were familiar with his woks started writing other refuting works. Therefore, it can be said that Muḥammd Ṣādiq Fakhr al-Islām had a great function in stimulating Muslim scholars to do this movement. - The support of the Iranian government at the time for the creation of such works was another reason for the emergence of this movement. For instance, Nāṣir al-DῙn Shāh was the one who gave the title of Fakhr al-Islām (The Pride of Islam) to him and he wrote the book "AnῙs al-Islām" with his order. The Iranian city of Tabriz can be counted as a pioneer city in many issues. The publication industry was first introduced in this city which was another cause for the thriving of writing and publishing books against Christianity in this area. - The writing of the book "MῙzān al-Ḥaq" by Carl Funder (1803-1865) the Protestant Missioner and his missionary activities in this area, led to the emergence of a wave of refuting works against Christianity in Azarbayjan and other Islamic countries. Some books were directly aimed at refuting this book. As a result, the scholars of Azarbayjan, were influential in writing against Christianity and the missionary activities and a lot of works were created by them. Such activities indicate how intellectual and insightful the scholars of this origin were, and how bravely they resisted against the Christian missioners and made the Muslims of the area informed against the dangers of such activities. The peak of this movement in writing the refuting works was during the first decades of this period. As the Christian missioners increased their activities and wrote books against Islam, Muslim scholars reacted and created the verbal and written works in return. And when the activities of the Christian decreased the Muslim reaction was to limit their activities as well. This clearly indicates the offensive and defensive nature of Islam.

The question of why different events have occurred has always been in human being's mind and challenged his curiosity. The question word "why" is used to ask about the cause of a phenomenon,and if man was not aware of the law of causality and did not confirm that every phenomenon needed a cause, he could not imagine any questions with "why". About this law and its related subjects such as compatibility between cause and effect, many schools and theories have emerged, among which, the schools of TafkῙk(Segregation) and MulāṢadrāare of special importance. The proponents of TafkῙk believe in the segregation of philosophical – theosophical instructions and religious contents. They reject many of the principles of philosophy by referring to Quran and Hadiths and conclude that philosophy is in contradiction with Quranic teachings. The school of MulāṢadrā however, has a comprehensive view and incudes as its principles all teachings gained from wisdom, texts, theosophy and reasoning. One of the controversial issues discussed by both schools is the subject of compatibility between cause and effect. It is obvious that every effect does not stem from any cause and even there is not always causal relation between concurrent and subsequent phenomena, rather the causality exists only between specific beings. In other words, there must be specialcongruencybetween cause and effect which is referred to as compatibility between cause and effect. Since cause is what brings about the existence of effect and gives it reality, then it itself should possess the existence which it gives to the effect. When one object lacks something, it cannot give it to the other. Because by giving existence to the effect, the existence of cause will not be negated, it becomes clear that cause possesses the existence in a perfect way so that the existence of effect is regarded as a beam of light radiated from cause. The scholars of the school of TafkῙkhowever, believe that compatibility between cause and effect may lead to some clearly rejected consequences such as rejection of monotheism, oxymoron and …. As a result they refuse this law. In this study, the subject of compatibility between cause and effect according to the schools of TafkῙk and MulāṢadrāhas been compared. First, the influence of compatibility between cause and effect on God's cognition in both schools has been discussed, then the bases and reasons for which these schools either confirmor reject the idea of compatibility have been introduced and compared with Quranic and traditional proofs. In the end, two principles of "Indivisible Reality" and "The object causing something cannot devoid of it" will be offered as two proofs necessitating compatibility.

Faith and practice are most important factors for salvation in Islam and Christianity. More over the concepts of redemption in Christianity and the intercession in Shia have also been counted as elements of salvation. There are some similarities between them, which may be led to the misunderstanding that redemption and intercession are the same; whereas the definition and function of these two doctrines are different in the religious traditions of both religions. The doctrine of redemption is the essential part of Christian theology, especially in soteriology. If this doctrine is put under question, the whole structure of Christian theology will be disintegrated. But doctrine of intercession is complementary part in Shia. In this article at first, the doctrine of redemption is explained. Considering that the understanding of the concept of redemption is based on other doctrines, including anthropology, soteriology and Christology in Christian theology, at first the relationship between redemption and these concepts will be discussed. It will be declared that Christians believe that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, in a way that it becomes the source of human sinfulness. In Christian point of view God was incarnated in Jesus and was crucified in order to be redemptive of Adam's sin and in order to save men. Everyone who believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus will be delivered. In the second part of the article, the question of intercession according to Shia will be discussed. It will be suggested that the nature of man is pure in Islam and man himself can reach salvation by faith and good practice. In addition, mercy of God and the intercession of Imams will help sinful persons. But in the third part of the article, some similarities and differences between these doctrines will be pointed out. I will insist mostly on their conceptual and functional differences. Their similarities include: Both doctrines need an intermediate; both of them are considered as act of God and are accomplished by permission of God; both of them are based on grace and mercy of God; both of them are ordained to save men; both of them prerequisite some conditions. The differences between these doctrines include: The doctrine of redemption in Christianity is the main factor for salvation and that is initiative act of God; but in the doctrine of intercession, man himself has the main role for salvation and intercession has a complementary role; redemption changes human nature, but according to Islam nature of human isnt sinful so that it require sanctification; redemption is almost related to Original sin and establishes reconciliation between God and man, but intercession is related to daily sins. Eventually redemption is the essential doctrine in Christianity, but intercession is the secondary doctrine in Shia. Indeed the story of Cross and redemption is the base of Christian theology and other issues are based on it. Consequently if the doctrine of redemption is put under question, the whole Christian theology will be disintegrated. However because there is religious Law in Shia, the concept of intercession has secondary aspect and if there are different views about intercession, it will not make any problem for other theological doctrines in Shia.

Various views about the rationality/irrationality of believing in God have been suggested by western religious and secular thinners. The theory of "Basicalism" together with its similar views such as "Evidentialism", "Fideism" and"Pragmatism" is one of the epistemological views posed about the belief in God and seeks to prove its rationality. In general, based on this view, believing in God does not require any rational reasoning. Various versions of this view have been presented so far.One of its versions expressed by scholars like Swinburne, Alston and Plantinga is what is known as Experientialism. In his special exposition of Experientialism – which he refers to as "reformed epistemology" –Plantinga has had two different dictions in his works. In his early woks such as God and other Minds, "Is Belief in God Rational?", "Is Belief in God Properly Basic?" and"Reformed Epistemology and Christian Apologetics", he endeavored to prove the rationality and justificationof believing in God and tried to offer certain and compelling arguments to prove the existence of God. In these works, Plantinga has adopted an internal approach toward the rationality of believing in God and regards it as a basic belief. Criticizing classic foundationalism, he sought to expand a different version of foundationalism according to which God's existence is regarded as basic for a believer. Based on this approach, Palntinga, like other proponents of foundationalism, considers the knowledgea "True Justified Belief". His view is, however, different from other foundationalists in defining the nature of the third element of knowledge. According to Plantinga's early exposition of his theory, the criteria of rationality of believing in God include the principles of classic foundationalism(such as evident to senses, evident to reason and incorrigibility) and other elements. He rejected the deductive-priori method concerning the criteria of determining basic belief and suggested an inductive- posteriori one. Based on this view, the cause behind thebasic nature of belief is an internal aspect and consequently is completely personal and relative. That means any kind of assessment of one's beliefs should be made by referring to his/her cognitional structure. Consequently, no general criterion can be determined for making a belief basic because every individual can offer a specific criterion based on his own cognitional structure which differs from others. Thus, based on this version, the only difference between Plantinga and other foundationalists is in his different view about the basic belief of the individuals. He believes that to determine the basic beliefs, first the person should make distinction between what he considers basic from non-basic ones and then he should introduce a criterion by which his belief becomes basic. Therefore, by looking at the issue from a different angle, he offered a new and more expanded version of the basic beliefs according to which the belief in God becomes quite rational. Plantinga, on the other hand, in his later works (three Warrants)emphasizes that instead of having an internal approach toward the rationality and justification; one should have an external approach and consider the believer's beliefs as warranted. This shift in Plantinga's approach stemmed from his theory about epistemological justification of which was reflected in his two impressive works entitled:Warrant: the Current Debateand Warrant and Proper Function(published in 1993). Based on the external approach, he shifts from the notion of justification to Warrant. He considers the rationality of religious belief not in being justifiable, but warranted which can be a guarantee for the rationality of believing in God. On the other hand, he changed the third element of knowledge from "justifiable" to "warranted" and defined the knowledge as "a True Warranted Belief"In this new approach, he doesnt seek to define the justification and the internal criteria of being justifiable, rather he emphasizes the Goldman's reliabilism and speaks out about the man's propercognitional system. Based on this view, if man's cognitional system works properly, he will possess epistemological rationality. In external approach, Plantinga believes that the theistic sensation is a mechanism producing faith which, if having proper condition,can cause a belief which doesnt evidently depend on other beliefs. Thus, if the person's perceiving powers work properly and they aim to catch the truth and there is no barrier, the person's belief in God can be counted as basic.