Essays in Philosophy of Religion (Jostarhaye Falsafeh Din)

Abstract The psychological illustration and analysis (search in hidden layers of unconscious psyche) of historical roots and nature of belief in God from the view point of Freud (1856-1939), the Austrian psychotherapist, is still among the dominant views in the realm of psychotherapy of God and is one of the common theories in “religion psychology’.

He was never able to reconcile with the spiritual aspect of human being; on the other hand, through his sheer dependence on the psychotherapy (hypnotism, and soul purification) which dominated his lifelong scientific endeavor, led him to this idea that God in no more than a sheer hallucination on the line of achievement of man’s yearnings.

In his belief, God was a reflection of utopian father who is omniscient and omnipotent that has been envisaged since infancy. His vast command of literature alongside his determined belief in his achievements led him to conclude that the unfulfilled Libido, fear and needs are the basis of art creation, literature, religion in general, and attraction towards God in particular which in reality is an ilk of projection of a real father as Odepeous Complex in boys due to the sexual affair with mothers and Electra Complex in girls as the unfulfilled sexual affair with fathers.

Ultimately, the basis of human attraction towards religion and the religiosity of human beings originate in his beliefs are based on hallucination, and in his terms called it as Public obsessive-compulsive disorder; and finally human attraction towards God roots in Totems.

Seemingly, the influential factors affecting his basic attitudes in decoding the mysteries of human attraction towards God include A: the dominance of philosophical school of thought in 19th century, namely extreme science influenced by positivism which could be detected in his work the Future of an illusion which dealt with formation of this viewpoint in positivism, extreme scientific and atheism B: Schopenhauer’s Pessimistic philosophy and the dominance of Sensations and emotions on human beings C: Leibnitz’s teaching in which the teachings are the center and basis of activity and energy D:

This paper following critical-analytical approach and based on affairs like the absence of commonality and similarity between the witness or control groups who were afflicted with psychological problems with the giant group of God believers, limited observations and generalization of the results to other people, lack of clear answer ability to the raised critics, adherence to the presuppositions on the way of natural sciences that have lost their scientific validity, materialistic ideology of the existence instead of philosophical rationalism, irrational rejection, without objective evidence, of the existence of God, gave rise to the creation of this paper to approve the incomprehensibility and certainty of the deficiency of his psychoanalytical theory on the line of designing decryption the cause and nature of human attraction towards religion and God in long life existence on the globe

Abstract Questions like: "Is There a God?" and "Does God give meaning to life?" are two of the most vivid philosophical questions and Nietzsche reflected on both of them. Nietzsche denies the objective existence of God on the basis of a version of the divine hiddenness argument. He maintains that if one accepts the theistic conception of God then he won’t be able to explain the silence of God throughout the history. He then thinks about the dying role of believing in God in giving meaning to human life. By using allegorical characters such as the madman with lantern, the old saint, the retired pope and the ugliest human being, Nietzsche tries to show how the death of God will result in spiritual crisis. The doctrine of Übermensch fills the emptiness that emerges after the death of God but Nietzsche’s argument against the existence of God is not successful and cannot establish an atheistic ontology. In addition to that, despite of some examples in different religions, there isn’t any necessary relation between believing in God with the Resentment and the denial of life. Finally, it will be shown that the doctrine of Übermensch is such an unachievable goal that will lead to human's psychological dissatisfaction.

Abstract In this paper, the term "Priority theology" is introduced to describe the theological system of Abu al-Husayn al-Basri in discussing the problem of divine action or, more generally, the problem of "God and the world." He believed that in a causal relationship, the cause does not necessitate the effect but only makes the effect more likely to occur. According to him, since nature as a whole and as a collection of things and relationships is a creation of a Free God, the natural relationship, causality in nature, is only preponderant (أولی), not necessary; therefore, peripatetics and asharits' ideas of necessity and coincidence in causality are inaccurate. According to priority theology, God can act freely to create the world, choose states and objects for existence, and reset or change natural flows. Furthermore, priority theology emphasizes the role God, man, and nature play in reality. The explanation of miracles done by prophets, miracles of saints, answering prayers, termination of decisions, and appearance (بداء) in al-Basri's theology show that man and nature follow the order and authority established by God. However, God can intervene in the world for some reason, such as the revelation of his power and authority. By presenting a theological analysis of the philosophical approach, al-Basri's theology could create a new way of defending theological claims. Later, Ibn al-Malahim, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Sadid al-Din al-Hemmasi al-Razi, Khawaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Allama Helli, and others welcomed his theological way and established the basis for their theological systems. Some of the effects and consequences of al-Basri's priority theology include presenting new definitions of necessity, further explanations of causality in the world, the solution of predestination and delegation through intermediate position, miracles, and the like, and finally, solving the problem of evil.

Abstract The question of the beginning and end of existence is one of the fundamental issues that philosophers have addressed with different approaches such as evidentialism. Antony Flew is one of the philosophers of evidentialism who, during the two periods of his scientific life, based on evidence, sought the analysis of theism and first turned to atheism and then to deism. Of course, changing his belief in God does not mean completely changing all the beliefs of his atheistic times. What is his view in the age of atheism and deism and the analysis of what Flew has actually preserved from his atheistic thought and what he has changed,, and to what extent his reasons are compatible with its results and what weaknesses are there in his theistic thought, are the subjects of this article. As a result of this analysis, it will be clear that Flew still stands on many of the positions of his time of atheism. His thought has weaknesses, and Flew has contradictions about his reasons and conclusions.

Abstract Since time immemorial in Islamic and Christian civilization, thinkers and theologians have raised many discussions about the concept of faith and disbelief and the issues surrounding them with different interpretive, philosophical, theological and mystical approaches. These topics have brought many social reflections such as excommunication and sanctification. After explaining the difference between science and knowledge, Eynolghozat Hamedani considered the way of true knowledge to be beyond reason and by criticizing the philosophers in the discussion of the essential concept of faith, he stated that its meaning is to confirm the words of the prophets and the lowest order is to act in accordance with the commands and directions of God. he does. Faith has two aspects: knowledge and action, and its sign is "bowing to Allah" and "loving God's people". After stating the types of disbelief, he considers some types of disbelief to be acceptable but also necessary for faith. On the other hand, with a philosophical epistemological perspective, in the meaning of faith and unbelief, Mulla Sadra gives originality to science and knowledge and gives the main role to knowledge and science in all levels of faith such as verbal, imitative, proof and even discovery faith. He considers disbelief to be the worst form of ignorance. In this article, the views of Eynolghozat Hamedani (492-525 AH) and Mulla Sadra (1050-979 AH) about faith and disbelief and some of their important issues have been comparatively investigated with a descriptive and analytical method.

Abstract Kierkegaard analyzes the relationship between faith and reason with a faith-oriented position. He believes that the rationalization of faith is a contradictory matter, and faith, which is a subjective passion and truth, can never be caught in the shackles of rationality. Mutahhari, contrary to this faith-oriented attitude, believes that the basis of faith is rationality, although the subjective way or the way of Fitrah also plays a role in reaching the truth. Both Mutahhari and Kierkegaard consider the role of will in faith. Both believe that faith, in its nature, is to be surrendered and both present a picture of the exalted human being. However, Kierkegaard considers faith to be the paradoxical matter of God incarnated in human form, while Mutahhari, with emphasizing mystical and passionate faith, believes in the rationality of religious faith. What, despite these differences, brings Mutahhari and Kierkegaard closer to each other is their view of moral life, a life that has a basis of faith and is shaped by inner submission to the God who created human nature. It seems that a way can be found to combine the different views of Kierkegaard and Mutahhari. Our search for this path balances the fervor of Kierkegaard's faith with a perfected degree of intellectual development in Mutahhari, which involves an understanding of the limitations and inadequacies of human reason.

Abstract The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”.  On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in conflict with the doctrine of divine omnipotence. An omnipotent being is one that can do all things possible; and, surely, it is possible to do immoral action. Nelson Pike discusses this matter in detail. He suggests as to how the various senses of “God cannot do moral actions” ought to be sorted out. Based on Pike’s suggestion, although the individual that is God has the ability to do immoral actions, His nature or character is such as to provide assurance that He will not act in this way. Joshua Hoffman maintains that Pike’s strategy for resolving the dilemma fails because it commits him to God’s being contingently omnibenevolent (not necessarily). In response, Pike accepts that God is not necessarily omnibenevolent and it’s the only way to resolve the dilemma. In Pike’s defense, the discrimination between “logical necessity” and “metaphysical necessity” should be noted. Further, we should distinguish between “the title of God” and “the individual of God”. “The title of God is benevolent” is metaphysically necessary while “The individual of God is contingently benevolent”. Therefore “God is necessarily benevolent” based on His title but this necessity doesn’t result in any limit for divine omnipotence.

Abstract Relying on the concept of "common human culture", Allameh Jafari considers different thinkers in different eras and societies with a holistic view and, with his own methodology, formulates religious knowledge in such a way that our attention to it will review and Rethinking invites different areas of thought and common thought patterns. He considers religious knowledge to be the result of weekly epistemological climates (scientific, philosophical, intuitive, theological, moral, mystical, religious). Accordingly, the division of knowledge into two religious and secular spectrums loses its function and meaning.Secular is basically not a secular or anti-religious meaning, but a specific concept of Christian society in the non-monastic sense that Muslims have chosen by internalizing this concept as the theoretical and intellectual basis of their bio-world; Islam, on the other hand, rejects both monastic and clerical interpretations of religion and considers sectarianism and direct communication with God. Therefore, instead of the religious / secular duality, a new formulation of the bio-world of Islam can be presented according to the concept of "custom" and "common human culture", which is rooted in the historical tradition and cultural and religious interpretations of Muslims.

Abstract The Divine hiddenness argument, as presented by Canadian philosopher, John L. Schellenberg, is one of the atheistic arguments based on which, lack of sufficient evidence for theism is itself an evidence against theism. Since the argument was set forth, a lot of thinkers have made some efforts to rebut it, a lot of which have opted a super-structural attitude while others have gone for a sub-structural approach, one of whom is Michael C. Rea. He holds that through considering some misconstrued conceptions and presuppositions which are hidden behind the hiddenness argument, one can figure the confutation of this argument. After briefly articulating the hiddenness argument itself and Rea's responses to the argument, this article aims at inspecting and critically analyzing his rebuttal. The conclusion which will be eventually put forth is that although Rea has pointed us toward a betted direction in order to analyze and inspect the hiddenness argument, but if we use a reflexive approach and use his methodology on his own ideas, one will be able to discern that they can't reach to their desired target.

Abstract In theology, it has been a long-lasting problem to determine whether the world is created ex nihilo or in its own it had a certain existence. For this issue, the first chapter of Genesis has imposed a great deal of effort on Jewish theologians. In Islamic intellectual tradition,ie. Islamic philosophy and theology, on the other hand, clarification of the problem of Creation was an unescapable subject-matter. In this article we shall first try to investigate the multiple dimensions of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and to see in what ways it leads to misunderstandings and then we approach to see what is the interpretation Mulla Sadra developed on the Hidden Treasure (al-kand al-makhfi) in this way We shall show his mystic background and how he gets to such a ground-breaking exegesis. Mulla Sadra’s interpretation will open a new window to see the problem anew and to gather our findings for developing a wholly new interpretation of Creation. By doing these two investigations, we shall demonstrate that creatio ex nihilo is rejected by these two sides and thereafter it will be suggested a new justified meaning for Creation and its beginning and the problem issued before will be resolved.