پژوهشنامه فلسفه دین (نامه حکمت)
سال دهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 19، بهار و تابستان 1391)

Non epistemic agents which influence human knowledge have been discussed by thinkers and philosophers among the history of rational thoughts in west and east. Nowadays this problem is alive and posed by many. This Idea is based on the assumption that existence of knowledge is not confined on humans will alone but follows many factors one of which is immaterial and celestial realities. Moslem philosophers such as Mollasadra, Ibn Sina and Sohravardi, believe that not only the human knowledge but all the errors originate in immaterials too. According to MollaSadra, some agents above which is Satan, thorough a certain process, affect the estimative faculty of human being. This paper shows analytically and descriptively the very process in Sadras view and emphasizes Satans impression (non-physical existence) on human soul which leads to errors.

Different views, so far, have been presented about the agent of miracles. Some theologians regard God as the agent of miracles and many others have accepted the attribution of miracles to prophets as well as the righteous. The Mutazilite Qadi Abdul- Jabbar considers God as well as the prophets as the agents of miracles. Swinburne shares the same viewpoint. Although both thinkers have similar views in this regard, Abdul-Jabbar’s viewpoint associated with several arguments seems more supported with evidents. Accordingly, it can be claimed that Muslims’ theological tradition, especially in issues related to miracles, is equivalent to and even deeper and more accurate than contemporary Christian theology.

One of the most debated problems during the Middle Ages was the problem of the ontology of general concepts or universals which originated from the three important questions of Porphyry in his Introduction to Aristotle's Categories, i.e. Isagogé. The translation of this work from Greek to Latin and its commentary by Boethius is an important factor to flourish the problem of ontology of universals and to appear three main views concerning this problem: realism, conceptualism, and nouminalism. It seems that, nevertheless, among the important causes of extension and development of this problem in Middle Ages is its close relationship with some of Christian doctrines such as God's foreknowledge, trinity, and original sin. Therefore, it can to say that theological motives of medieval thinkers have had a great influence on flourishing and extension of the debates of universals. One of the most theologian problems that has a close relationship with the problem of universals is the doctrine of original sin. The account of the nature of original sin and quality of its transmission from Adam and Eve to human generation from some thinkers of Middle Ages such as Anselm and Odo became the main cause of emerging the collective realism theory concerning the ontology of universals.

According to his epistemological view called reformed epistemology, Alvin Plantinga counts belief in God as a properly basic belief which is based on no evidence for its justification and being warranted. Caroline Davis believes that though Plantinga's view on the justification warrant of belief in God is not generally considered an argument from religious experience, it actually is one. Examining various aspects of Plantinga's view, this paper tries to suggest a formulation of an argument from religious experience according to his view, and to indicate the difficulties of the Davi's claim, though what Plantinga says about sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity) can be used in religious experience debates and for explaining a group of these experiences. In Plantinga's view, proper conditions activate the sense of divinity which, in turn, brings about doxastic experience, and this yields a proposition pertaining to God.

There are two theory in west about mystical experience: essentialism and constructivism. Essentialists say at least, in some experience, mystics are experience the one essence but the social and religious of mystic effect on their interpretation. Then despite the variety of the mysticism’s reports in various traditions, there is a common core that we can consider all of them as one type. But constructivists say the mystical experiences are predetermined by the ‘context’ of their specific social and religious training and education. Hence different religious contexts produce different types of mystical experiences. Allameh Tabatabaie divided knowledge into “by-presence” and “acquired” categories in a rational domain. According to this division, mystical experience is type of knowledge by presence or acquired knowledge. Since in experience that is of knowledge by presence kind where existence of the “known” is certainly present for the “knower” then no background of mystic is involved in this experience. Yet, “concept” is involved in some “mystical discoveries”. this kind of discoveries is categorized as “acquired knowledge”. In this type of experience the mystic’s background may be but not necessarily predetermine his experience and this is against constructivists’ approach.

The Egyptian scholar, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd with a history of Sufism studies, especially Ibn Arabic studies in his doctoral thesis, and with consideration the accepted conception about propositional revelation tried to provide a naturalistic and nonmetaphysical explanation of revelation –since he was avoiding metaphysical explanation of religious concepts- relying on the theory of imagination in sufiyyah. Such an approach to the nature of revelation is faced with problems. 1. From the cultural point of view, Abu Zayd's studies of kihanah and its cultural prevalence is not enough and so its explanation by him involves difficulties. 2. Cultural superstitions like kihanah cannot provide good explanation for revelation and prophecy. 3. His explanation is not compatible with inner religious evidences such as those verses that warn revelation comparison with those cultural phenomena. Providing an extreme exposition of Sufism's theory about revelation Abu Zayd's theory will not be in coherence with the accepted theory of revelation which regards it propositional and also it is in contrast with his epistemic view borrowed from continental philosophy.

Nowadays discovering the meaning and aim of life is one of the most concerned issues. Is our world created according to a specified aim? If it is so, what is it? Should we study the human's aim of life according to the aim of created world or should it be studied separately? The life of these questions is as long as the beginning of human thought. This article involves Dostoevsky's perspective as a theist to this issue. Some of the main questions that get answers through discussion in this article are: What is Dostoevsky's idea about meaning of life? What is the role of human being in discovering the meaning of life? What is the role of belief in God and morality in giving meaning to life? Can we create the meaning of our life without considering a transcendent reality? According to Dostoevsky our life has an intrinsic meaning and our belief in God and morality lead us to find that meaning. He believes that all men are seeking higher level of moral life and without any doubt they are seeking God knowing that any mistake may lead them to indirection. Any human being knows that his life is meaningless without God so he feels the need of divine guidance. Acting with accordance to moral conscience gives men a sense of satisfaction which leads him to find the correct meaning of life.