فهرست مطالب zeinab salari

Epistemological orthodoxy is a purist one in the sense that it permits only truth-related factors to be relevant to whether or not true belief amounts to knowledge. Contrary to this orthodoxy, ‘Pragmatic Encroachment’ argues that embracing fallibilism we must concede that in addition to truth-related factors, there are pragmatic conditions on knowledge mainly in what is at stake for us in our practical situation. Independent of fallibilism there is also a positive case for ‘Pragmatic Encroachment’ to be made namely a principled argument for a pragmatist link between knowledge and action (KJ). What you know is warranted enough to justify you in both action and belief. KJ is defended on the basis of two premises on reasons, and when combined with fallibilism, it entails the denial of purism. This may seem counterintuitive; thus, theories like epistemic contextualism and subject-sensitive invariantism have tried to combine purism and the intuitions concerning pragmatic encroachment. This endeavor, as we shall show, is without success. Critical reflections on pragmatic encroachment are based for the most part on its relation with belief, including certain conceptions of outright belief and degrees of confidences or credences in graded belief. In contrast to what these reflections aim at, pragmatic encroachment is not reducible to a pragmatic account of belief. Bearing in mind above considerations, it may turn out that the denial of purism is not as much counterintuitive at it may seem.

In the thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg , God is the absolute determinant of reality, and his divinity covers the whole existence and creation, including nature .Hence, Pannenberg thinks that the interaction and dialogue between theology with the center of God and science with the focus of nature is ineludible. From his point of view, to know that how this interaction and dialogue is possible, we must compare this tow realms, more than anything else, based on their specific methodologies . Such a comparison leads to review on the nature and extent of science and theology and to accept the possibility of engagement and dialogue beyond their particular realms, and on the third level, philosophical reflections. pannenberg has not succeeded in explaining the possibility of this dialogue based on his key claims, but has certainly been an influential and inspirational pioneer in this field

One of the most controversial issues in the history of church has been the debate about the ‘true nature’ of Christ and His function in Christianity. While the position of orthodox Christianity regarding Christology revolves mainly around the divine-human nature (known as the two natures) of Christ, modern Christian theology with its scientific orientation approaches the traditional doctrines of Christ in a critical manner and often underscores the historicity of Christ’s personality. The response of the bulk of orthodox theologians in the face of all these criticisms have been to label ‘theology’ as being above and beyond all scientific and historical criticisms. However, Pannenberg is one of the contemporary theologians who has responded to these criticisms by a recourse to the method of historicism to solve theological matters. Pannenberg claims that his interpretation of traditional theology through a historical reading of it is justified since it leads to a proper understanding of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Thus, Christology finds a central place in his corpus that endorses vision and historical manifestation of God as Christ and discusses various apocalyptic issues comprehensible only through the manifestation of Christ. In spite of Pannenberg’s interesting views as found in Christology which is based on a historical understanding of Christ, they were criticised by others.

The problem of imagination has been considered among those permanently dealt with in theology and theological antropolgy both. Wolfhart Pannenberg, a contemporary German theologian, when examining the discussions made on religious experience, tried to present a new point of view in the field. Being aware of the weaknesses and strenths of the views proposed on religious, discarding the weaknesses and retaining the strenths, he, therefore, put forth the problem of imagination under some of his anthropological opinions on religious experience. This paper examined Pannenberg‘s epistemological grounds of anthropology, regarding modern thought in general and Christian theology inparticular, briefly at first and then, explained his views on the place of human imagination and its properties as a capacity for encountering God.