جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « c. s. lewis » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

Faitheists consider faith to be self-founded and based on internal components, which derives its validity from sources of knowledge other than reason. Whether faith does not need reason or is in conflict with reason, or whether the epistemological and metaphysical domains of faith and reason are separate. C. S. Lewis proposes another kind of faithism, according to which, although faith is rational based on rational reasoning in the first step, after the realization of faith and person’s devotion to God, he no longer is not interested in reason and evidence against faith, and is right in this matter; Because there, one should listen to the unseen and faith is no longer a part of scientific issues which scientist must always be aware of the agreeable or opposed evidence. The most important challenge of this approach in escape from reason of faith is the failure to explain the two stages of faith, and it is not clear what the essential and existential relationship between faith based on reason and faith based on stubbornness. If the truth of faith is the belief based on rationality, the faith of the second stage does not have an independent truth. If the truth of faith is disregarding the opposite evidence, then its initial rationality is meaningless. This article seeks to explain and analyze Lewis's point of view by rereading his foundations and claims. This research is organized in a descriptive-analytical way and based on the analysis of the theory's internal coherence and its consistency with previous philosophical foundations.

Faitheists consider faith to be self-founded and based on internal components, which derives its validity from sources of knowledge other than reason. Whether faith does not need reason or is in conflict with reason, or whether the epistemological and metaphysical domains of faith and reason are separate. C. S. Lewis proposes another kind of faithism, according to which, although faith is rational based on rational reasoning in the first step, after the realization of faith and person’s devotion to God, he no longer is not interested in reason and evidence against faith, and is right in this matter; Because there, one should listen to the unseen and faith is no longer a part of scientific issues which scientist must always be aware of the agreeable or opposed evidence. The most important challenge of this approach in escape from reason of faith is the failure to explain the two stages of faith, and it is not clear what the essential and existential relationship between faith based on reason and faith based on stubbornness. If the truth of faith is the belief based on rationality, the faith of the second stage does not have an independent truth. If the truth of faith is disregarding the opposite evidence, then its initial rationality is meaningless. This article seeks to explain and analyze Lewis's point of view by rereading his foundations and claims. This research is organized in a descriptive-analytical way and based on the analysis of the theory's internal coherence and its consistency with previous philosophical foundations.

Causality in some contexts such as “Hamid’s failure to water his plants was a cause of their death.” and “Rickets is caused by a deficiency of vitamin D” can be called "absence causation". In this paper, the main question is whether the use of the term “cause” in such instances due to carelessness and a misuse of language or denotes something that is real and independent of our minds. Defending the first view can be called “anti-realism” in absence causation and the second as “anti-realism”. Helen Beebee is one of the contemporary philosophers that defend anti-realistic theory of absence causation. Her main argument is, in short, as Davidson said, that causation is a relation between events, whereas there are no negative events, therefore, there is no genuine absence causation. However, the main objection that those like her encounter is the common and strong linguistic intuition in sentences like Hamid’s inattentiveness to plants. Beebee has argued that our intuitions in these cases are wrong and the author strives to show that her arguments have failed to achieve this goal.

In this paper, according to C. S. Lewis's approach to moral objectivism and belief in some sort of relativism in ethical behavior, and also considering his theistic view to human moral life, we will explain part of moral philosophy Motahari and to justify his belief in moral relativism in behaviors and customs in various societies human, we will follow this claim that Motahari, like Lewis, belief that moral values is absolute, eternal and true and generally objective, and he supported of theistic view as backup and represents of moral values. By comparison between these philosophical discourses of two philosophers will be obvious that transcendent moral principles and values can be achieved only by believe in absolute and eternal moral values and believe in existence of God as the protector of this moral life and will be obvious that believe in Meta-ethics relativism, that influenced by the materialist view of the universe, can’t justify properly this transcendent and holy principles and values.