Essays in Philosophy of Religion (Jostarhaye Falsafeh Din)

Abstract In various works that have discussed the hiddenness of God, there have been different interpretations of this argument, each with its own characteristics. None of these works fully explain all the versions of the proof of the hiddenness of God.The innovation of the preceding article is the complete enumeration of all the versions of the proof of divine concealment; its second innovation is the presentation of a novel classification of these versions, which is not presented in any of the works mentioned.Research Method: This article seeks to use an analytical-documentary method to infer and enumerate all the proposed versions of this argument and to identify the approaches that govern them, so that the aspects that should be observed in the critique of this argument can be identified.Research findings: The study conducted on these interpretations reveals that in all the interpretations, which are divided into two general categories: deductive and inductive;Two approaches stand out in them; some have argued with an ontological approach and some with an epistemological approach. This is because the focus of some versions is based on the statement of the absence of a relationship between God and the servant and they have considered divine concealment in the sense that such an experience does not occur on both sides of the relationship. In the other group of versions, the epistemological approach prevails.Because the core of the arguments is based on showing the absence of evidence, proof, and proof of the existence of God - including the lack of experience of God's presence - in human life.

Abstract The Satanic Bible  of Anton LaVey is one of the most important and influential books published in the United States among various currents of satanism. This book contains extremist ideas in challenging many of the prevailing moral and religious norms of American society, as well as promoting humanistic ideas centered on radical moral and social freedoms to strengthen human desire and instinct and to deny moral domination. Undoubtedly, this book was written under the influence of modern and postmodern intellectual traditions, and the influence of many anti-normative and anti-religious ideas can be seen in this; But the influence of Nietzsche's critical thinking on Christian ethics and European culture, as well as the promotion of the idea of the superhuman as the creator of life values and his praise of Nietzsche's anti-normality and invincibility, can be well seen in Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey. LaVey uses the idea of the death of Nietzsche's god, which heralded the end of Christian morality in Europe, as well as Nietzsche's critique of Christian nihilism, and inspired by Nietzsche's Dionysian view of the concept of Satan as opposed to the concept of God in religious culture as a symbol of libertarianism. Abnormality is used in order to praise the natural and physical desires of human beings and tries to challenge the denial and humiliation of human instincts in Christian morality by praising the value of life.

Abstract The historical aspect of the problem of evil and the questions that it creates about the Existence of God and His Absolute Attributes, caused theodices and defenses to be explained in Christian theology in order to defend the doctrine of theism. Such an issue has caused wide-ranging debates about it from the first centuries of AD to the present day. Saint Augustine (354-430 AD), who is one of the most prominent Christian thinkers and had a great influence on Christian theology, made a tremendous effort in his works to explain the problem of evil and provide solutions to justify it. What is clear from Augustine's thoughts and opinions about evil is that he considers evil in a negative sense, not a positive one, and considers evil to be the misuse of things and objects that are intrinsically good. In this article, an attempt is made to investigate and analyze Augustine's theodicy and finally criticize it based on the principles of Shia theology.
Methodology
In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, an attempt is made to investigate and analyze Augustine's theodicy and criticize it based on Shia theological principles.
Findings
The problem of evil was an influential and important issue in Augustine's life and was the main cause of some of the evolutions that occurred in his life. Therefore, he has made major and comprehensive discussions about the problem of evil in his works. Augustine's theodicy is influenced by the principles that Augustine believed in and solved the problem of evil based on them. These principles are influenced by Christian beliefs, and Augustine explained and solved the problem of evil based on them. From Augustine's point of view, God did not create and does not create any evil, and it is man who causes evil by misusing and abusing his will. Augustine has stated solutions such as “achieving good through evil”, “few evil and abundance of good”, “necessity of the evil for the system of creation” and “evil is relative” to justify the problem of evil (Copleston, 2009, vol. 2: p.107). The theodicy of Augustine sees God's relationship with creatures and the universe in the form of impersonal relationships (Sefidkhosh and Moradi, 2015: p. 77). Therefore, man was created as a part of a hierarchy of forms of existence that would be incomplete without Him, and man has absolute reliance on the Absolute Goodness of God and His Grace. According to the theodicy of Augustine, it is basically impossible to get rid of evil and obtain good affairs without the help of the Divine Will and the granting of grace from Him. Augustine considers evil to be non-existent and moral evil also comes from human will and action that abuses his will.
Discussion and Conclusion
The principle of defending the existence of God and His Absolute Attributes, defending the best system of creation, free will, fall of man, original sin and Divine Grace are among the principles based on which Saint Augustine explained and solved the problem of evil. Augustine believes in his theodicy that everything that is and exists is good and negation is evil because it does not benefit from existence. The theodicy of Augustine sees God's relationship with creatures and the universe in the form of impersonal relationships (Augustine, 2006: p.103). Augustine considers evil to be not essential and inherent, but an accident affair that lacks essence and substance and means the lack of perfection in an object. He believes that the minimal existence of evil is accepted and its negation is expressed by considering its minimal aspect (Augustine, 2012: p. 120). Augustine considers evil to be non-existent, which is why it does not deserve the existence of a cause; because the first and most important condition for the existence of an object is to have a cause (Brown, 2000: p.73). According to Augustine, any object or phenomenon that has stages of perfection and is useful is good, and if an object lacks stages of perfection, it cannot be called good anymore, but it is an evil that has no cause, and since it has no cause, it does not exist, and as a result, it is a non-existent affair. Augustine divides evil into moral and natural evil, and considers moral evil as human sin and natural evil as the punishment that a person must taste natural evil because of committing moral evil (De Paulo, 2006: p.34). Finally, it should be acknowledged that Augustine in his theodicy, despite the many efforts he had in solving the problem of evil, but this theodicy based on the approach of Shia theology faces criticisms such as “the lack of effect of original sin in committing moral evil”, “incorrect explanation of the relationship between evil and the material world”, “incorrect explanation of the agent of the realization of natural evil” and etc., which makes the acceptance and acceptability of his theodicy difficult.

Abstract Since the day when mankind entered the field of existence, religion and religious beliefs have also been created, and the question of the origin of religion has always been a fundamental question that every human being has faced. In the meantime, some thinkers like Auguste Comte (1798-1857) consider the origin of religion to be human ignorance (Comte, 1998: p.231). Marx (1818-1883) considers religion to be a product of the ruling class to dominate the weak class of society (Marx and Engels, 2019: p.36), and Feuerbach (1804-1872) also believes that religion has a human origin (Feuerbach, 1854: p.104). Freud (1856-1939) also considers religion to arise from the repressed human desires and instincts (Freud, 1983: p. 80). Such atheistic approaches to religion are contrary to the view of Divine religions, which consider the origin of religion to be Divine revelation and the teachings of Divine prophets.
One of the approaches to consider is the sociological approach of the origin of religion, and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is the most prominent sociological theorist and the one who had the greatest impact on the sociology of religion. Emile Durkheim's view about the origin of religion is one of the views that is widely discussed and known today and can be rejected from various aspects. In this research, an attempt is made to analyze and criticize his view from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari (1919-1979) and John Hick (1922-2012).
Methodology
This article analyzes Emile Durkheim's view on the origin of religion and its criticism from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari and John Hick, with a descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach.
Findings
Durkheim believes that to investigate the origin of religion, one should start from primitive religions (Durkheim, 2017: p.89). Durkheim believes that religions have an evolutionary journey that started with totemism and evolved into current religions (Moreno, 2011: p.109). Durkheim emphasized that religion is both a reasonable phenomenon and an eternal and undeniable reality. At the same time, Durkheim believes that the essence of religion is not in believing in a God beyond nature and the world (Durkheim, 1995: p.109). Durkheim considers the simplest existing religion to be "totemism" or the religion of the Australian aboriginal tribes. From Durkheim's view, totemism is important from two aspects; first, totem is the essence of religion, and second, totemism is a factor for solving conflicts between science and religion; because from his view, in today's individualistic and rationalistic societies, science has the supreme moral and intellectual authority. On the other hand, religion also defines certain frameworks for people, and science, by discovering the deep reality of all religions, does not create another religion, but creates the confidence that society has the power to create the gods it needs in every era (Ritzer, 2012: p.23).
Discussion and Conclusion
According to Durkheim, the origin of all religions is totem, and totem is also derived from society's propositions (Durkheim, 2012: p.67). Durkheim does not consider religion useful except for social benefits, and beyond that religion is useless, but this view has been criticized and is in conflict with rational principles. Shahid Motahhari has criticized Durkheim's view based on Islamic principles. From his view, as Durkheim thought, society is not the main factor in the birth of religion, culture, art, etc., and society should not be considered the real and effective factor in the birth of such important affairs in human life (Motahhari, 2003: p.76). He also has stated consequences such as monopolizing the function of religion in individual life and alienation for Durkheim's theory, and that such a view of religion, although it may be true for other religions, is not true for Islam (Motahhari, 2009: p.90). Shahid Motahhari also considers the belief in totemism, which is one of the principles of Durkheim's theory, to be illusory and unacceptable (Motahhari, 2010: p. 102). John Hick has also tried to challenge Durkheim's sociological view of the origin of religion (Hick, 1993: p.78). Hick considers Durkheim's statement that "society is the origin of religion" to be unproven and unjustifiable, which will never be able to explain the origin of religion well. From Hick's point of view, Durkheim's view can ultimately explain one of the effective factors in religious life, not the origin of religion. According to the criticisms expressed by Shahid Motahhari and John Hick on Durkheim's sociological theory about the origin of religion, it can be acknowledged that Durkheim's theory has no rational basis and proven argument.

Abstract ‘God’ and the correlating ideas are of great importance in Nietzsche’s philosophy. However, his way of considering these concepts is completely different from other thinkers. He, unlike others, does not employ traditional philosophical argumentations to approve his claim; instead appealing to abstract argumentations irrelevant to the reality, he uses the methods which is resulted from his concrete look to the era he lives in. His conflicting exposition in this context, ‘the death of God’, leads to many different and sometimes contradictory interpretations. ‘The death of God’ is the subject and also the basis of his ideas, so that his other ideas such as ‘Nihilism’ and ‘Superhuman’ are shaped quite in relation to it. In this paper, we attempt to explain Nietzsche’s position on the idea of “God” and outline his concerns after the phenomenon “the death of God”, as he calls.

Abstract Extended abstract Introduction The problem of evil is one of the important issues in philosophy and the new theology, which has always been a place of discussion and reflection by different thinkers. Saint Irenaeus (130-202 AD) is one of the prominent Christian thinkers who played a major role in the defense and evolution of Christian teachings. The explanations he made in this field have caused him to be referred to as one of the greatest “Christian teachers” (Norris, 2004, p.102). Regarding the problem of evil, he has defended the ideas and teachings of Christianity about God and His Absolute Attributes, which describe Him as Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolence God. According to Irenaeus, evils are the basis for the cultivation of the human soul, and through the evils, man can cultivate his soul in this world, which is the prison of the soul, so that he can reach his true position in the next world again. Despite the efforts of Irenaeus in his theodicy to solve the problem of evil, it must be acknowledged that his theodicy is faced with challenges and deadlocks, and in this research, an attempt is made to analyze and criticize his theodicy from the perspective of Immāmiyya theology.   Methodology In this research, with a descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach, an attempt is made to investigate the theodicy of Irenaeus and then criticize it from the perspective of Immāmiyya theology.   Findings Irenaeus believes in the Attributes of Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolence of God, and that He has created man in His Own Image in order to get rid of the immaturity that is one of the characteristics of the material world, to cultivate his soul. All these cases can be considered as the strengths of Irenaeus's theodicy, which are highly consistent with Islamic beliefs. The theodicy of St. Irenaeus, although based on the teachings of Christianity, such as the issue of fall of man, original sin, epistemological distance, etc., has tried to solve the problem of evil, and consider evils as necessary for the cultivation of the human soul, but this theodicy, according to its foundations, faces challenges that make it difficult to be truthful and cannot be a complete answer to solve the problem of evil. According to Immāmiyya theology, the theodicy of Irenaeus is faced with deadlocks that it cannot defend the Existence of God with His Absolute Attributes. According to the principles of Immāmiyya theology, it is clear that some evils are necessary to live in the material world and they cannot be separated from material life, and moral evils are not exempted from this rule (Javadi Amoli, 2006: p.90). On the other hand, relying solely on the role of the evil in the cultivation of the soul is neglecting other underlying factors in this regard. Considering only evil as the cause of cultivation is in conflict with the Attribute of Omnibenevolence (Javadi Amoli, 2008: p. 109). Also, Irenaeus' theodicy ends with pointless evil, but from the perspective of the Holy Quran and reason, there is no pointless evil in the realm of existence (Subḥānī, 2010: p. 109).   Discussion and Conclusion In the theodicy of Irenaeus, it is emphasized that evil is necessary for the advancement and cultivation of the human soul, and it is with the presence of evil that a person is able to achieve perfection as well as ultimate happiness (Irenaeus, 2012, p.84). In his theodicy, St. Irenaeus tries more than anything to justify the problem of evil in a way that does not cause the denial of God's Existence and does not challenge His Absolute Attributes, and on the other hand, does not make the best world of creation seem disordered and endless. From the point of view of Irenaeus, what is considered evil is not really evil, or it is the ignorance of a person who wrongly considers good to be evil (Irenaeus, 1919: p.56). Irenaeus attributes most of the things that are considered evil to human ignorance (Irenaeus, 2012: p. 91; LaCocque, 1987: p.109). Irenaeus wants to explain the nature of evil according to moral evil. Irenaeus believes that moral evil is a necessary condition for the creation of man at an epistemological distance from God, and epistemological distance is a gift to man, which causes him to freely say yes to God based on it, and in response to God's non-coercive presence to actualize man as His servant, to evolve and cultivate his soul and to exalted man from face to likeness (Irenaeus, 2013: p.101). However, it should be noted that although one of the causes of actual human pain is the abuse of human freedom, there are other sources of human pain and suffering that are completely independent of human will; such as floods, earthquakes, famines, or in a more general sense, natural evils (Khalili Noush-Abadi, 2016: p. 107).

Abstract The answer to the question of the meaning of life has been the concern of many philosophers and thinkers. Some like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Sartre have not given any meaning to life. But many others have tried to give different answers to this question and show with arguments that their point of view can better explain the meaning of life. This paper intends to first show the main viewpoints proposed in this field (such as God-centeredness, soul-centeredness, naturalism, subjectivism, and objectivism) along with their arguments and criticisms from competing viewpoints. Then, by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of these views, it should be shown what characteristics a comprehensive theory for the meaning of life should have. Finally, the comprehensive and new viewpoint of the author will be presented and the reasons for preferring this perspective over competing views will be shown.

Abstract Explain the relationship between reason and faith is one of the main concerns Kierkegaard and Mulla Sadra. The most important feature of faith from the perspective Kierkegaard, is its anti-intellectual or paradoxical nature. In this thinking, person can never be achieved to faith by rational thinking and appealing to historical evidence. Basically life of faith from view Kierkegaard is life within Christianity and very life of christianity is that protects it against all theoretical efforts. Mulla Sadra On the other hand believes that the faith, although it is related to the heart but faith of heart is not limited to knowledge Intuitive. But Knowledge of God with reason and proof, that is to say belief that is obtained through theoretical reason, can be considered the heart of faith. In other words, all his efforts are focused on that reconcile between reason and faith or mysticism and the argument.