فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 19 (تابستان 1385)

In the present paper, following a brief explication of the main notions discussed in ‘modernity & religion debate,’ I shall argue that the future of religion in the modern world will entirely depend on the changes which ‘religion’ and ‘modernity’ will experience. Since emergence of new models for explaining the phenomenon of modernity and the construction of novel interpretations and different readings of ‘religion’ is conceivable, and since social actors could play some role in shaping probable scenarios for future, the position of ‘religion’ in the future world will depend on a variety of factors and variables. One of the principal factors in this respect appears to be the way the representatives of the institution of ‘religion’ would respond to the needs of the individuals and the citizens.The upshot of the paper is that since amongst various interpretations of ‘modernity’ the one which upholds the role of ‘critical reason’ and respects ‘universal human values’ stands a better chance of survival, those readings of ‘religion’ which are better compatible with this approach to modernity will enjoy a higher degree of popular support and acceptance.

The problem of self- evidency of existence have been propounded in a content contrary, or at least unconcerned, to the theory of the reality of existence. But some scholars such as Râzî or Tusî have claimed self-evidency of existent. Existent here has been interpreted as existentiality. If we accept the reality of existence and notice that this reality could not be found in the mind, we can conclude that we can only understand the implications of the existent not its reality. Its reality can be understood only in the Knowledge by presence. Knowledge by presence is not divided to concepts and propositions. So the meaning of self- evidency of existence is the self- evidency of existence's implications.

In Islamic societies research about religion and religiosity is of a prime importance. In this project investigators have explored factors of religiosity with reviwing verses in Quran, prophet's (S. A) tradition, studying Islamic culture, and behaviors of people in Islamic societies. These factors have been used in developing a religious scale that can be used in psychological, and sociological, as well as mental health studies. The aim of this study was to explore components of religious attitudes that can be used in scale development. This study has the advantage of looking at the religion from the perspective of religion. The method of the study was descriptive-analytic, and the procedure included studying three categories of Quranic verses and traditions: a)key words dealing with religiosity b)description of religious individuals, and c)behaviours and perspectives that are not included in religiousness. In exploration of indices of religiosity we found that three axises in religiousness are very important: 1) Knowing and believing in what is necessary to faith. 2) Having affection, toward God, his prophets, offsprings of prophet Muhammad (S.A), acceptance of velayat (offering unconditional love to the prophet and his offsprings). 3) Moral behaviour, obidence of God, rituals, and avoidance of sin, and moral impurities. Therefore, extracted components are categorized in three dimensions: cognitions, belief system, affections and feelings, as well as behaviours. In the article, we have devoted spaces discussing these components and limitation of the project.

The present article examines 100th chapter of the Quran (the Adiyat Sura) in terms of its images and imagery in general, the syntactic relationships among its verses and the coherence of the text in particular. In this regard, we will firstly point out to the occasion of revelation of the sura and then we will scrutinize the formal and content organization of the sura. This sura consists of 11 verses which can be divided into three groups: the first five verses functioning as five images; the second group with three verses engaging in telling some truth about humankind; and finally the last three verses depicting the Day of Judgment. At first, it seems that there is no logical relation among these three groups, but after a short reflection, we will find out there is rather a cohesive and organic relationship among them both in terms of the content and the form of the sure.

This paper attempts to find the similarities and differences between Sadra's notion of "the simple in truth" and Leibniz's Monadology. It shows that these two philosophers analysing concepts such as combination, unity, infinity, generality and universality conclude the same principles. One of these principles is that: "God who is the true simple is all things and is none of them at the same time". God is the representative of the world and the world is the representative of God.