مجله پژوهش های علم و دین
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پاییز و زمستان 1395)

The aim of this study was to assess and describe the Islamic militarization in the field of social. This method combines research was, qualitative study of qualitative content analysis and focus group and for the purpose of exploration_ Practical. Data gathered by the text and the interpretations of verses from the Holy Quran was. The study population consisted of eight people in the focus group of experts in the fields of management and Islamic jurisprudence, respectively.Findings: The content analysis utilizes the Quran was recognized early 483 code. After collecting the information, content analysis to extract and its components through select system components of the method of forming the final focus group was conducted. Islamic system components of the experts, in eight categories, including pervasive themes: Society has the right orbit, Social vision, Social spirituality, Ethical Communication, Social virtue, Consultation and participation-oriented, Meritocracy, transparency, selflessness and sacrifice is. After the formation of the focus group research model in terms of components: truth-oriented society, consultation and participation, meritocracy and transparency, the most important role in the militarization of social approach.

Neurotheology as a research program try to represent a new possibility for integrating science and religion, in a manner that the autonomous and relative independence of science and religion will be maintained and none of them won’t reduced to each others. Newberg as a important figure of this field, want to determine the positive effects of religious beliefs and rituals on healthy of body and psyche. He suggests that the mystical experience is the root of all religions and want to determine the relation between every component of mystical experience with mechanisms of brain by integrating of phenomenology and neuroscience. Newberg claims that the neurotheology can show how the theological concepts was formed. By philosophical analysis I will be noticed that he despite his claims, reduce religion to science and this result in a contradiction in his view and on the other side, he is within the metaphysical discourse.

Unlike Russell's assertion that Leibniz idea of God and his proof of God's existence is the weakest part of his philosophy, I believe that this part constitutes the most basic part of his philosophy. In his philosophical system without God nothing can exist or is possible to exist. Hence, proving the existence of God for him is a necessary task. One of his most important proofs of God's existence is the proof based on the eternal truth. Some are of the view that this proof is more convincing than ontological proof and even the latter depends on the former. This paper is an attempt to carry out a critical study of different versions of the same proof.

The argument from contingency which was first put forward by Al-Farabi, was subsequently developed by Avicenna. Al-Farabi's argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regres, but Avicenna proves this imopssibility during his argument. So, to accept the Avicennian argument one doesn’t need to accept the impossibility of an infinite regres in advanced. This is one of the differences between Al-Farabi's and Avicenna's argument from contingency. Although Avicenna claims to have brought a greater innovation in Al-Isharat, and he maintains that this argument proves the existence of the necessary being even with the possibility of an infinite regress, his claim seems unjustified, since first, in contrast to Avicenna's claim and what is commonly believed, there is no crucial distinction between Avicenna's argument from contingency in Al-Isharat and the ones mentioned in Al-Mabdaa- wa-Al-maad and Al-Nijat. And second, his claim is not true about any of his arguments.
Another major flaw in Avicennian argument is his stance on the criterion of the need for a cause.
On the other hand, Mulla sadra's objection to this argument is not acceptable as well. He says contrary to Avicenna's claim, the chain of contingent things is not a contingent being. But Mulla sadra's argument has two problems. First, it's based on the premise that "existence is coextensive with unity" which can not be used as the middle term of an argument. Second, this objection is in conflict with his theory of the real unity of the universe.