فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال بیستم شماره 1 (پیاپی 58، بهار 1402)

One of the most prominent and compelling philosophical responses to the logical problem of evil is Alvin Plantinga's free will defense. However, Michael Almeida, a critic of this defense, argues that while the free will defense has effectively addressed many versions of the logical problem of evil, there are versions, such as those presented by John Mackey, which can be referred to as the logical problem of evil redux. Almeida, who shares Plantinga's beliefs as a theist and incompatibilist, specifically focuses his critique on one of the most controversial assumptions underlying this defense: the notion of universal transworld depravity, which Plantinga claims is an inherent characteristic of all creatures. According to Almeida, this assumption is untenable because absolute divine foreknowledge, influenced by a perspective akin to Molinism, enables God to actualize a morally perfect world without conflicting with human free will. Almeida believes that we can address this problem and defend the existence of God, but it is not the aim of this article to present his solution

The ontological proof of God's existence is a highly controversial argument sought after by Western philosophers and Islamic thinkers. To compare the discourse between the Western and Muslim perspectives, this research examines the initial coherent statements of Anselm and Naraghi, finding complete similarity in both propositions. The starting point of this argument is the concept of God as a being beyond which nothing greater or superior can be imagined, a premise accepted by Naraghi as well. The research seeks a common knowledge basis between these two thinkers, revealing similarities that demonstrate the existence of God as an inherent and unquestionable truth for both. Acknowledging this innate knowledge of God plays a crucial role in establishing the argument's premise. By neglecting the epistemological origin of this argument, certain challenges raised by individuals like Gunilo can be addressed and resolved.

Humanism, or modern humanism, is one of the schools that places man at the center of everything and emphasizes the uniqueness of his will and desires. According to Imam Musa Sadr, this school hinders the effective role of religion in today's world. Therefore, this article aims to critically analyze the foundations of this school based on Imam Musa Sadr's works and opinions. It addresses the question: How does modern humanism hinder the formation of roles, and does religion play an individual and social role in life? The findings reveal that religion is often treated as an object (associated with identification) according to the philosophy of objectivism, particularly prevalent in the West. This philosophy prioritizes sensory experience over mental cognition and views concepts as detached from emotions and preferences. Consequently, religion fails to manifest itself in the lives of individuals influenced by this perspective. Similarly, humanism, which interprets everything self-centeredly in accordance with personal and partisan interests, has distanced itself from God-centeredness, religion, and ethics. This distancing has led to the one-sided development of individuals, the transformation of self-love into selfishness, the proliferation of dictatorship, colonialism, discrimination, and insurgent capitalism. Criticizing this trend, Sadr argues that science and human reason alone are insufficient for the happiness of both worlds. Instead, a God-centered approach, an understanding of the truth of religion, and comprehensive education should be considered alongside science and reason to foster the evolution and happiness of both the individual and society as a whole.

The research aims to address the problem of cognitive biases in modern religious experiences and identify potential solutions. Using a descriptive-analytical approach and drawing on the insights of theorists in the field, particularly Wittgenstein, this study examines the interactive relationship between metaphysics and general belief, as well as the connection between religious metaphysics and religious life forms. It emphasizes that interpreting religious experiences without considering the context of one's form of life can lead to cognitive biases. Consequently, interpretations that deviate from the form of life may lack personal meaning and be deemed heretical from an external perspective.

Kant's critical philosophy relies on certain fundamentals of practical reason, such as the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and, most importantly, the supreme good as the ultimate objective of morality, encompassing virtue and happiness as its two key components. This perspective has led to the perception of absolute reductionism in Kant's philosophy. According to this view, Kant appears to reduce religion entirely to morality, advocating solely for its moral dimension while deeming other aspects and dimensions as redundant. In a more moderate form, Kant's philosophy faces explanatory reductionism, explaining religion solely in terms of morality. However, this paper argues that Kant, through various forms of reductionism, posits that while religion is an essential component that complements the ultimate goal of morality, he also acknowledges that religion holds a position beyond the ethical realm. As a result, both the complete reduction of religion to morality and the explanatory reduction of religion as morality are not without challenges in interpreting Kant's philosophy.

Copleston's approach to the East has evolved over time, leading to distinct earlier and later phases. He developed a deeper understanding of Eastern and Russian thought, distancing himself from his previous approach. Among his many works, "Philosophers and Culture" and "Religion and the One: Philosophies East and West" stand out as two significant books that employ a comparative approach. Rather than emphasizing the contrast between Eastern and Western philosophies, Copleston highlights their interaction and synergy, which broaden perspectives and enrich thinking. While Copleston's approach to comparative studies is historical, it differs from Mason-Ursel's historical approach. He views the expansion of vision and the enrichment of thought as the most significant achievements resulting from the interaction between Eastern and Western thought. Key considerations for comparative scholars include gaining familiarity with the outlines of philosophies from other cultures and their respective languages, avoiding hasty dichotomies and inaccurate generalizations, and emphasizing the importance of presuppositions.