فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 69 (پاییز 1392)

The author of this article mentions that "philosophy of religion" is combined of "philosophy" and "religion" and emphasizes that both words have a lot of diversity in the status of existence and affirmation. Therefore it is very difficult and useless to present a posterior definition of philosophy of religion. Explaining the theory of "coherence of bases of religion" which he suggests in philosophy of science, he believes if we present the definition according to this theory, the problem will be settled. He also mentions the conditions of a correct definition and the specialties of a "preeminent definition" and criticizes most of the previous definitions of philosophy of religion. He then presents his selected definition of "philosophy of religion". His recommended definition of philosophy of religion is: "the knowledge (or systematic cognition) responsible for a general-rational study "about religion" and "in religion" to access the general commands of religion and its basic elements. At the end of the article he has explained the components of his recommended definition and emphasizes that this definition does not have any of the problems of the previous definitions.

According to the monotheistic cosmology, the essence of universe is "being from Him" and "being toward Him". It is beautiful, harmonious as well as it has its discipline and order. It's dominated by the cause and effect system and some definite traditions are flowing in it. In a general scale, evil is considered as a good as well. The Hereafter is also a part of the universe which is the ultimate goal. I believe choosing a special lifestyle is the result of the "Dos and Donts" which is accepted by human in his life. There is a close logical relation between "Dos and Donts" and "Existence and Non-Existence"; in other words "Existence and Non-Existence" is considered as the theoretical foundation of cosmology. At last Islamic cosmology ends up with which lifestyle? Proofing the impressionability of lifestyle from the cosmological fundamentals and presenting the extensions and results of each of the elements and principles of cosmology, this article introduces "the pure life model" (Hayat Tayyibah) as the lifestyle which accords with Islamic teachings.

In this paper, I have first divided humanities into two categories: theoretical/descriptive and practical/normative. Descriptive humanities try to identify and describe the various aspects of human kind including individual, social, objective and subjective; while normative sciences try to systematically present some commands to regulate the human behavior. Based on the philosophical analysis of human's voluntary behavior, I have then pictured the role of target in humanities. According to Islamicphilosophy, human is an Intentional Agent (fâ’il-i-bilgasd) in his voluntary acts and performs them to reach a goal. The agent wants to achieve a specific aim, but since this aim is only achieved through performing a specific act, the desire of the aim (=the ultimate cause) will lead into its performance. Therefore, the value of a voluntary action depends on the value of its aim. Accordingly, the establishment of humanities is based on our consideration of the ultimate goal of human's existence, and also its intermediate goals. But the determination of these goals entails the knowledge of the reality of human's existence. We cannot understand what a human should become unless we recognize the reality of human. Anthropology, as a philosophical discussion, requires ontological and epistemological foundations. In conclusion, the applied humanities are based on descriptive humanities which are themselves based on philosophical anthropology, ontology and epistemology. Hence to refine the present Western humanities or establish Islamic human sciences, we should start by refining the theoretical foundations of these sciences.

One of the foundations of Plato's perspective is the soul and its eternity and over-lasting nature. Therefore he attends to prove it in a couple of his papers and presents four arguments for it. The important point is that intuition has an important role in the presentation of the theory of "the eternity and over-lasting nature of soul". The present article will first study and criticize the four arguments, and will then discus the role of intuition on the eternity and over-lasting nature of soul.I will conclude that Plato has presented the theory of the eternity and overlasting nature of soul to strengthen the foundation of intuition in his philosophy. Since intuition changes with the course of soul's changes, it can have three different levels. First is the pre-descendance level, second is the level of bodily life and finally is the ascendance of the philosopher's soul to the divine world. According to Plato each of these levels of soul corresponds with some intuitions.

The incorporeality of the soul has always been considered by Muslim scholars due to its close relationship with the other topics of Islamic studies. Since Allameh-Majlesi doesn’t accept the rational arguments for the incorporeality of the soul, he believes in the corporeality of the soul leaning on the formal meanings of narrations; although he sometimes hesitates and says incorporeality is possible as well. On the other hand, presenting various rational arguments and narrational evidences, Molla- Sadra believes that soul is incorporeal. Since both scholars have used Quran's verses and narrations to prove their idea, I have tried to inspect their narrational reasons. Studying the writings of the two scholars and investigating the relevant verses and traditions, this hypothesis is strengthened that Molla-Sadra’s view, i.e. the incorporeality of the soul based on narrational arguments, is more reasonable and consistent.

The theory of biological evolutionism has ended up with atheism for many of its believers. Whether or not there is a logical relationship between atheism and believing in evolutionism, this article is a report and criticism of the views of an atheist evolutionist. As an evolutionist, Richard Clinton Dawkins denies the existence of God and religious doctrines. The criticizers of his views mention the influence of the Christian intellectual background on his thoughts. In addition, they criticize the content of his ideas instead of presenting a methodological criticism. This article will particularly discuss his views regarding God and religion.

Both arguments emphasize on certainty. Descartes is certain about his own existence and realizes the concept of God within himself and Ibn- Sina is certain about the existence of the reality of being. However their difference is that Descarte's certainty is partial and only includes himself and the concept of God. According to Descartes’ view, the existing reality can be divided into finite (Descartes’ own existence) and infinite (the concept of God with its particular attributes); but Ibn-Sina believes that the reality of being is either necessary (wājīb) or possible (mumkin). The two rational binary divisions are similar to each other. In other words, the Cartesian 'finite' is the same as Ibn-Sina’s 'possible', and the Cartesian 'infinite' has at least the same instances as Ibn-Sina's ' necessary' while they differ in their concept and perspective. For Descartes, the criterion of causality (necessity of having a cause) is the need and incompleteness of the effect (ma‘lūl) and the infinite reality of the cause (‘illat). On the contrary, Ibn-Sina believes that the criterion and the basis for causality (necessity of having a cause for an effect) is being 'possible'.

Based on the fact that God's essence is absolute and Invisible, Ghazi Saeid believes He is not identifiable and has no name, no description, no attribute and no qualification. In other word, he believes that the essence of God is such that it is not possible to consider any plurality in it, including plurality of attribution; and God's names are an estate of the degrees of existence and are the manifestations of His hidden nature and are necessary for the manifestation of his absolute perfections. He attributes perfections and attributes to God – in his oneness degree, i.e. the degree of Names and attributes or the degree of Ism-o-llah – in an affirmative form and defers between the propositions of essence and attributes. Despite the accuracy of some bases of his thought, there are some criticisms to his sayings as well such as: confusion between theological and mystical discussions, inability to totalize the hidden meaning and the apparent meaning, believing in the separation of God from the world, the incompatibility between believing in the separation and the unity of being, believing in that God is veiled, and believing in that God is absolutely unidentifiable.