نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 25 (بهار و تابستان 1393)

In this paper, according to C. S. Lewis's approach to moral objectivism and belief in some sort of relativism in ethical behavior, and also considering his theistic view to human moral life, we will explain part of moral philosophy Motahari and to justify his belief in moral relativism in behaviors and customs in various societies human, we will follow this claim that Motahari, like Lewis, belief that moral values is absolute, eternal and true and generally objective, and he supported of theistic view as backup and represents of moral values. By comparison between these philosophical discourses of two philosophers will be obvious that transcendent moral principles and values can be achieved only by believe in absolute and eternal moral values and believe in existence of God as the protector of this moral life and will be obvious that believe in Meta-ethics relativism, that influenced by the materialist view of the universe, can’t justify properly this transcendent and holy principles and values.

Systems thought is trying to build a global knowledge, and thus, makes closer the separated disciplines to each other, and thereby overcome on the complexity of different issues of the scientific disciplines. The increasing complexity of society led to sociologists show a considerable attention to systemic approach. The result was the formation of the three wave of theory of social systems. The conception of systems and the idea of the theory of systems are mixed with the efforts of modern society to monitor and control on its own. This means that the theory of systems as a social construction is formed and developed in association with social conditions and existing paradigms. More reflection on the reasons the entrance of systemic approach to sociology, and its theoretical principles and its process of formation makes more apparent the importance of communication. Because of, the relationship of different sciences and theories together moves ahead human knowledge. It seems, the philosophy of complexity is influenced the social theories, because of “Social emergence”, “complexity”, and “dynamics” are the most important issues that are considered by these theories.

In the last century, philosophers have profoundly revisited the concept of causation. Primarily because the traditional conceptualizations were not compatible with our new understanding of causation, and also because some of the recent conceptualizations in modern science can establish a proper foundation to start constructing more progressive theories. Our goal, in this research, is to introduce such theories, amongst which the Process theory of causation and the Conserved quantity theory are two dominant and successful examples. We undoubtedly start our discussion with Hume’s Regularity theory of causation, and then we will follow the formation process of the modern theories which have been shaped by criticizing this theory and adding to it the new findings in philosophy and physics. Therefore, our next step will be introducing the Probabilistic theory of causation and after that the transition theory, the process theory and the conserved quantity theory of causation.

Don Cupitt has a Non-Realistic view of God and religious faith. He holds that “human” and “God” are historical concepts which are not dependent on rationality and metaphysics. Hence, he emphasizes on the continuous evolution of these concepts in the history of religious thought. He believes that the man chooses his value himself and makes his world on this selection. In his view, spirituality is the substance of religion and has complete individual and personal characteristics. The perspective of every individual to the world is the foundation of his view and understanding of religious faith. But, Brian Hebblethwaite, who is a defender of religious realism, has tried to critique Cupitt’s Non-Realism in detail. He has some fundamental criticisms about Non-Realism in religion that amongst the most important of them is ignoring the importance of truth and denying the objectivity of moral values. He, at first, distinguishes the defects of Non-Realistic arguments of Cupitt and his version of the procedures of religious thought in modern world and then, explains how believing to objective God is not only consistent with modern thought but a necessary component of it.

In these theological or philosophical and hadith books have discussed question of prayer and its granting. In many hadiths have insisted that prayer is part of God’s decrees. As the God in the Holy Qur’an invites man to pray, the answer to prayer is guaranteed. In this article with considering the approach of Transcendent Theosophy exponents, we believe that prayer is one of the major factors to achieve desired and granting of prayer is done according to the creation system and fixed lows, and there is no contrast and conflict between granting of prayer and low of causality, ever, as miracles and supernatural affairs are done, granting of prayer, also, is justified. also ,the impact of ego  in granting of prayer is considered, as ego has effect in body and ego state have manifested  in  body, then, also it effect in  supernatural affairs.  The results of this study illustrate that, although  there are some obscure and unknown causes in achieve to desired and granting of prayer  but  prayer and  granting of prayer not out from cause and effect system and granting of prayer not eradicate low of causality.

The relation of self and body has been among the long lasting problems of philosophy. Aristotle and Avicenna as two most Peripatetic philosophers, have two different perspectives on this matter. Aristotle union of the soul with the body, in combination with the loss of the body which seem, breath away as well. But Avicenna with his religious principles, as the essence of the soul independent of the body that arises no body is able to continue his life. In the present research, in addition to explaining the nature of the self, according to the philosophical ideas of Aristotle and Avicenna, the outlook for these two, especially on the subject of life after death, we will. Aristotle explains Avicenna soul interacts with the body and Avicenna, the relationship of matter and form relationships knows that the best combination is unity. So he explained life after death is problematic because of the loss of the body, the soul must also be eliminated. Avicenna, Institute for the challenge to go out that Aristotle was caught in it, the resolution is as current as the inherent and self, trying to explain life after death, Aristotle faced with the paradox facing the iterations.