hamidreza ayatollahy

There have been many epistemological challenges about the justification of belief in God over the past three centuries, so that some, such as Plantinga, have merely proposed warranted belief rather than justifying an argument in this regard and showed the belief in God’s existence as a basic belief. But regardless of these challenges, millions believe in God’s existence as justified for themselves without being a fideist. Where does this justification come from? Can their justification be explained epistemologically? This article aims to elucidate the new currents in social epistemology and “testimony,” demonstrating the significance of epistemology based on trusted hearings. It will then argue that our trusted hearings about the existence of God and His attributes traced back to the prophets and ultimately to God’s affirmation and explanation can serve as the best justification for our beliefs.  Finally, the question of how God’s testimony to His existence and attributes, which has come to us through the prophets, can be one of the best epistemological justifications for believing in the existence and attributes of God. And what advantages can this type of religious epistemology have over evidentialism or various forms of arguing for the existence of God and his attributes?

If we want to talk about the philosophy of religion with an Islamic approach, we must clarify what are its differences and similarities with the conventional philosophy of religion in the West. For this purpose, in this paper, the meaning of comparative philosophy and its obstacles, possibilities, necessities, and benefits will first be investigated. After that, it will be shown what considerations should be taken into account in order to have a comparative philosophy. Then, we will show how to have a philosophy of religion with an Islamic approach and what differences and similarities this type of philosophy of religion has with the Western philosophy of religion. Following that, some hermeneutic considerations for this philosophical comparison will be mentioned, and afterward, it will be shown how the Christian background of Western philosophy of religion has affected it. Finally, we will review some of the main subjects of the philosophy of religion if it is to be rationally evaluated with the foundations of Islamic thought to show what differences it has with the conventional Western philosophy of religion.

In this paper, it is shown that as people often convert their beliefs into knowledge through many external means, knowledge cannot be considered exclusive in a justified belief where its justification has been achieved internally. If we do not consider these people’s beliefs as knowledge, we will face some problems; not only will we be caught up in pervasive skepticism but we would also be rejecting the reality of most human items of knowledge. Therefore, to acquire our knowledge, we do not need to use internalism as externalism provides us with new facilities. Philosophy of religion may achieve new solutions through this expansion in epistemology. In this paper, four currents in the philosophy of religion that have used epistemological externalism are mentioned. It is also shown that religious epistemology, based on the trusted hearings which follow Greco’s path, provides a reliable way to justify religious beliefs.However, if we have a justification for religious beliefs through reassured hearings, all religions can claim that their followers believe in their own religious beliefs in this way; so they must be justified, and therefore, all religions must acquire true knowledge, and this is nothing but pluralism.But it seems that to explain the diversity of religions, we do not need to resort to religious pluralism. It can be said that beliefs based on trusted hearings do not rely on their confidence only in the religious preachings, but their confidence in the religious preachings that have been transferred correctly and also that the religious preachings which are based on trusted hearings depend on another preaching and each has been assured through its previous preaching. If some kind of mistrust occurs in this chain then the ultimate believer in the reliability of the narrated in this chain or their collection (in Greco’s particular view) cannot turn his belief into knowledge with the necessary justification.But the problem is what the end of the chain is based on. In some religions, a person can believe in the ability to understand many spiritualities and he has attempted to convey his findings to others. It is clear thatat the end of this chain, if it is the personal findings or readings of a person from spirituality, then the difference in spiritual reception among the early leaders can justify the diversity of religions. Therefore, this type of religious epistemology is dependent on the source of narrations.But some religions speak of believing in an existential truth and one of the consequences of believing in his existence will also be to achieve spirituality. They also believe that their early leaders have based their teachings on their confident hearings of that existential truth.In the meantime, Abrahamic religions believe in God as that existential truth. If a religion (such as Islam) can show the correctness of the chain of reassurance that leads to the prophet’s speech from God and also the prophet considers it not as his concept of spirituality but rather he has stated it because it is the same as the word sent by God, he can show the source of his teachings to be God.What we should ultimately be sure about in this type of epistemology is that he has been able to establish a relationship with God and has conveyed God’s words. In this paper, four paths are mentioned to achieve this assurance.

Several theories have been presented about the religious science, each of which has tried to provide a roadmap for it. But have these theories been successful? Have they been able to have a social impact among educators and students? In this paper, by examining the factors of failure of many of them, we consider the requirements of an effective and successful religious science theory. These requirements are analyzed in these eleven ones: providing appropriate examples of a religious science theory, providing an operational solution for its realization, providing the necessary acceptability, having an appropriate response to the supposed conflicts between science and religion in that science, and specifying The religious level of that religious science, the distinction between religious science in different religions, having internal coherence and experiential adequacy, the lack of annulment of a religious science with the manuscripts of some scientific materials, consistency with the set of coherent beliefs of religion, the advantage of becoming religious science in relation to secular science, being transformative.According to the above requirements, the author's theory of religious science that can be successful and effective will be presented and it will be studies how these requirements are considered in it.

There have been many epistemological challenges about the justification of belief in God over the past three centuries, so that some, such as Plantinga, have merely proposed warranted belief rather than justifying an argument in this regard and showed the belief in God's existence as a basic belief. But millions of people, regardless of these challenges, believe in God's existence as justified for themselves without being a fideist. Where does this justification come from? Can their justification be explained epistemologically? In this paper, while explaining the new currents of social epistemology and "testimony", the importance of epistemology based on trusted hearings is shown and then it is argued that our trusted hearings about the existence of God and his attributes and those of the prophets, and that it is based on God's confession and his explanation of himself, can be the best justification for our beliefs. Finally, the question of how God's testimony to his existence and attributes, which has come to us through the prophets, can be one of the best epistemological justifications for believing in the existence and attributes of God? And what advantages can this type of religious epistemology have over evidevtialism or various forms of arguing for the existence of God and his attributes?

The mind prepares for questioning during fundamental transformation in the course of human life. The Coronavirus Crisis brought about a fundamental change in human life that had not happened in the world for decades. In order to deal philosophically with this crisis, new questions must be hunted down. In this paper, I enumerate some of these challenges. Some of emerging questions from those challenges is explained. It is shown that their analysis causes philosophical creativity and in the face of them we will find the success of philosophizing. Some of these challenges is discussed in the following field of philosophy: phenomenological questions about Corona, the new challenges in philosophy of science, political challenges, moral philosophy and norms in ethics, philosophy of religion, the growth of existentialistic attitudes to human beings, highlighting the issue of the meaning of life and the need for a philosophical answer, Corona Crisis and globalization.

In philosophical explanation, Descartes knows the reason for our errors to be limited to the limits of our will and to rule our minds based on his free and unlimited will on matters that the perception has not clearly and distinctly understood. He intends to present some philosophical demonstration for his explanations. In this paper, I introduce some of his errors in his demonstrations. The most important drawback is that Descartes argument that will is unlimited, i.e., simplicity of will, can in some ways apply to unlimitedness of perceptions. And his argument for the limitation of perceptions because it belongs to  objects of perceptions can also imply the objects of will, and as a result, will is also limited. Another drawback is the inference of the infiniteness of the will because of its simplicity, whereas the pure actuality of will (or perceptions) results in it being immateriality, not its indefiniteness. Consequently, Descartes explanation of error and its origin does not seem to be justified in the difference between the scope of will and perceptions.

The current Cyber-ethics in Western societies (and its followers in other societies) have been compiled based on secularist presupposition. This presupposition has different principles in comparison with the Islamic attitude which can lead one to take a different approach toward ethical problems. This paper is an attempt to propose principles of Islamic cyber-ethics upon which we can prepare answers for the problems of cyber-ethics, having evident characteristics of an Islamic approach that are distinguished from secularist answers. After a prefatory study on the background of the Islamic attitude to ethics, these characteristics will be propounded under four categories: fundamental and content components, spiritual components, legal components, and penal components. Under these categories, themes such as giving importance to agent goodness, the basic difference in one’s goal of living an ethical life, the relation of reason and revelation, and the basis for the legitimacy of the penal justice system will be discussed. Needless to say, this paper does not seek to prepare arguments for this model, and such arguments can be discussed in other philosophical investigations.

Causality is one of the most important philosophical problems which has undergone vast semantic changes in the course of history. This process has sometimes occurred in the mould of empirical explanation and sometimes in the mould of philosophical explanation. The vastness of such changes has led some thinkers to believe that there is a large semantic gap between metaphysical and natural kinds of causality, and the relationship between them is merely of the type of homonymy. The spread of this view among some philosophers and scholars has made any kind of agreement among them impossible. As a result, no comparative study can be carried out in these two fields concerning their shared concepts. Although some of the followers of the Transcendent Philosophy advocate the same view, the philosophical principles of Mulla Sadra have removed any kind of breach or borderline between these two fields and defines them in the same way. Accordingly, it can be claimed that natural causality is the degraded form of metaphysical causality and, thus, the unison of the two fields, their proximity to each other, and any interaction between them will be inevitable.

Heidegger, in his being and time (Sein und Zeit) by analyzing ontical- existential temporality of Dasein, proposes to explain the meaning of being. He, in the first part of his book, has considered the care as the meaning of Dasein and tried to articulate its trihedral structures, in the second part, by presenting temporality as the meaning of care, he also has attempted to show that the temporality is the basic state of unity of multiple structure and meaning of Dasein. Accordingly, his analysis based on the division of being of Dasein into original and objective. Then he has explained the temporality by the authentic and inauthentic temporality. Additionally, the dominant metaphysical concept of time which has been regarded as a stream of successive nows of which one is earlier than a later now, will be inauthentic concept which understood with regard to the objective time. This article wants to show that Heidegger has been frustrated going beyond the metaphysical concept, since his analysis based on the will of Dasein in passing from non fundamentality to the fundamentality and it has been remained in subjectivism and as a result fallen in the metaphysics. Finally, it will be discussed that the reduction of scheme of being and time in the will of Dasein, is the main reason of his frustration.

Democray is the most importantn element in Dewey’s thought. In this paper Dewey’s theory on democray will be evaluated, furthermor some challenges are ascrbed to it: first, Dewey has not presented any philosophical argument about his idea: “Democracy is a moral ideal”. Second: if it is known by a posteriori method that Democracy is the best, this idea can not be generalized to future, so it could be critized and we can assume other methods or systems. Third: because of the imposibilty of the assuming of similar conditions for all peple, the capacity of doing rational judgment will not similar in spite of constituting democracy. Forth: Dewey has neglected of irrational elements in members of society devisions in his theory. Finally, since he denies that we can know the absolute, the attempt to establish the morally organized democratic society is so vaguely pictured by him, without necessary rational foundation.

The idea of Islamization of science is among the important issues of Islamic countries of which Ziaeddin Sardar proposed a new theory. In his theory, the critique of western secularism and orientalism play a central role. He has given a definition of science in the framework of cultural tradition, and has tried to refer to the tradition of Sunnah and Quran, by redefining Islamic fundamental terms, such as Towhid (Unity), and has emphasized on returning to the thought of Islamic great thinkers like; Al Gazzali and Ibn khaldun. At the same time, due to his realistic approach to the great achievements of the west, he has considered using it as unavoidable for reconstruction of Islamic science, that is, Muslims, by using methods of modern science in the light of Islamic worldview and pragmatic approach, can achieve the process of Islamization of Science.

The source of explanatory gap is property dualism. Property dualism is shaped by the distinction between appearance and reality and was first introduced by Kripke. Thomas Nagel has also said that the reality of consciousness is dependent upon its subjective and qualitative properties while Levine proclaims the problem of explanatory gap or the question of how subjective consciousness arises from the physical structure of the brain. In Chalmer's view the hard problem of consciousness or the source of explanatory gap is the phenomenal property of experience. He represents three methodological principles that will provide the context for psychophysical law and solve the problem of explanatory gap. In this article, we consider the principles of Chalmers and then explain why Chalmers loses his commitment to the constraints and requisites of primary schemata of a given theory.

Principality of Cogitant in Descarte's Philosophy reduced "God"from "I am that exist" to a philosophical principle. Therefore, "the creator of nature" replaced the God of religions. This result was the origin of a metaphisycal problem for the followers of Descartes. Malebranch, in solving the problem, counted God as the only true cause, both in the human epistemologic system and in natural causal system; and tried to establish a strong relation between God and the universe by his "occasionalism".The solution of Spinoza was the belief in the unity of substance. When there is nothing other than one substance there will not be other than one nature; and its other name is God. The meaning of one substance contains every thing, God or nature: from two points of view both natura naturans and natura naturata. Thus, he left the traditional meaning of God.The philosophy of Leibniz, like that of Malebranch, was God centered; not only in the meaning has that God, in his view, has central importance but also in the meaning that "all the universe is in a center and the spirit of this center is God". In spite of accurate attempts of these rationalists to explain God, "the infinitely complete being" of Malebranch, "natura naturans" of Spinoza and "monad af monads" of Lebnitz, like "infinite substance" of Descartes differ from God of religions.