فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال بیستم شماره 3 (پیاپی 60، پاییز 1402)

The current study has been written with the purpose of explaining the subject of the genesis of the universe from the point of view of two contemporary thinkers of religion and science, Allameh Tabatabai and Steven Hawking. According to Allameh, the worlds of existence (intellect, imagination, matter) are the effect of God. The natural world is the essential and the temporal coming-into-being that has a beginning of time. Hawking has dealt with this issue in his two intellectual periods (Hawking’s earlier and later). Hawking earlier spoke of the genesis of space and time in the present world, according to the classical approach of general relativity and the Big Bang theory. He has accepted the possibility of the Creator. Hawking’s later according to the law of gravity and quantum mechanics, he believes in the genesis of the universe from “nothing”, i.e., the process of creation without introduction and intelligent moderator. To prove his perspective, he seeks a theory called “M”. In this view, the universe is self-sufficient and does not need a creator. The universe has no beginning and no end. The result of these perspectives is that scientific findings are based on experience. These findings are subject to trial and error, the guess, and the probability. Therefore, he has no certainty about the genesis of the universe. Religious statements about the genesis of the universe are the result of revelation. The revelation is free from any error. It also benefits from logical reason. Therefore, it is closer to reality.

In his book "The God delusion" Richard Dawkins has denied the existence of the God of Abrahamic religions, including Islam. In order to prove his point of view, in addition to presenting the reasons he tried to remove everything that is considered as an obstacle. The point of view of agnosticism is one of these obstacles that Dawkins, by accepting its principle, believes that the probability of the non-existence of God is greater than his existence; therefore, one should not be agnostic about the existence of God. He has based his belief on the basis of the division of " agnosticism " into temporary and permanent, Knowing the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis, the principle of the impossibility of definitively proving the absence of a thing, criticism of Bayesian reasoning and improbable reasoning. In this article, Dawkins' point of view and reasons are first introduced in a descriptive way, and then the success rate of the reasons presented in proving his claim is analyzed by a critical method. The result of the research shows that these reasons cannot prove his claim and their ultimate efficiency is to prove theoretical agnosticism.

Undoubtedly, the first writer among Muslim thinkers who paid attention to the issues of religious experience in the West is Iqbal Lahori. This paper is a descriptive-analytical method aimed at analyzing Iqbal Lahori's opinion about religious experience. He, according to Hawking's point of view, accepted a pragmatic approach to religion in which religious experience, reason, and intuition have their own place. In this way, he criticized James's view and offered a new explanation of the key concepts of Islam. From Iqbal’s point of view, religion is a kind of “potential self-awareness” that is placed next to “normal self-awareness” that provides facilities for experiencing and learning knowledge. Iqbal considers faith to be the gem of religion, and at the same time, he does not consider reason as limiting or opposed to faith. Like Hawking, Iqbal emphasizes that religion begins with emotion, but is not limited to it and extends to the metaphysical as well. Throughout its history, religion has never presented itself as a matter of f emotion but has continuously tried to discover the metaphysical. By accepting Hawking's words, Iqbal achieves two results 1. rejecting the Sufi view of reason, and 2. solving the problem of linguistic revelation. In addition, Iqbal enumerates characteristics for mystical experiences, which are: 1. immediacy, 2. indivisibility, 3. connection with other self, 4. incommunicado, 5. connection with reality and the world.

One of the important issues of today's philosophy of religion, which is tied to the knowledge of linguistics, theology, and interpretation, is the issue of "language of religion" or "religious language". In the present era, the western thinkers have usually considered religious language to be non-cognitive and devoid of cognitive load by proposing theories such as iconography, functionalism, allegory, and mythology. Meanwhile, Paul Tillich (1886-1965), a German-American Christian theologian, considers the language of religion to be symbolic. From his point of view, religion is the knowledge of the sublime and the heart's bond with it, and since the sublime is unlimited and unattainable, religious propositions cannot speak of it in ordinary language, and inevitably, the language of religion will be a symbolic language. In this article, after the detailed explanation and analysis of Paul Tillich's symbolic theory, the many challenges of this theory have been discussed; conceptual ambiguity, ambiguity in results, contradiction between theory and its owner's practice, confusion between symbol and symbolic language, confusion between concept and example of divine existence, and especially non-cognizableness of religious propositions are among these challenges. In addition, the differences in terms of background, teachings, challenges, and solutions between the space of "Holy Bible" and "Christian theology" on the one hand and "Qur'an" and "Islamic theology" on the other hand are so deep and fundamental. It is assumed that Tillich's theory is effective in Christian theology, it cannot be effective in the field of Qur'an.

Explaining the functions of religion, including "monotheism" and its accessories, is one of the most influential issues of the philosophy of religion; So, the problem of this research is to explain the functions and tools of social monotheism in the philosophy of economics centered on the Qur'an, and the aim is to show the effects of social monotheism in the theoretical assumptions of economics, economic concepts. , the type of attitude towards some economic rulings and goals of economics is based on the Qur'an. The research method relies on the appearance of verses indicating social monotheism, verses containing economic themes, and referring to social interpretations with an analytical-argumentative approach. The theological functions of social monotheism in the presuppositions of economics centered on the Qur'an, in the rejection of non-divine economic systems, everyone's belief in the influence of God's providence in economic affairs and its social results, and presenting a reasoned analysis of divine traditions. It happens in the economy. In the transformational function of social monotheism, economic concepts find monotheistic-social identity and the immortality and transhistoricity of Islamic economic rulings are proven for all societies. Also, the design of the economic system in order to realize the social servitude and economic independence of the societies are two functions of social unification in the goal of economics. This reinterpretation of monotheism will improve the capacity of economics and will be a step forward in the path of Islamization and provide its theoretical topics.

One of the most fundamental categories in Islam is the principle of justice, which is considered the key to balance in the world of development and legislation. In this article, according to the drawing and presentation of the mechanism of justice with expediency, the idea of expediency justice is proposed, in which expediency is of the category of justice, of course, of the type of contingent justice, in which there is no need to sacrifice justice to expediency or expediency to justice. In fact, according to the principle of reasonable profit and the semantic spirit of the concept of justice, rulings and orders, in the case of unity (principle of the subject), were subject to (the conditions of the subject) until the ruling was made in its appropriate position and the most appropriate action was determined according to the circumstances. In fact, the secondary matters and the judgment subordinate to it are within the scope of the principle of contingent justice and correspondence between justice and expediency. In this discourse, passing expediency is not only not fair, but it will bring the person or matter into the category of oppression.