فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 75 (تابستان 1399)

In Peripatetic philosophy essences are divided into substance and accident, and because God is not essence, so it is neither substance nor accident. But in the transcendent wisdom, not only God is called the essence, but beyond that, the only substance of being; and Except for him, all beings are accident. Now, on what basis does Mulla Sadra reach such a position? And can God be called "Substance"? The answer is: Mulla Sadra has experienced three philosophical trips and spoken on three distinct bases, for various reasons: 1. Fundamentality of essence, 2. Fundamentality of existence on Gradational Unite. 3. Fundamentality of existence on individual Unit. In every gradual evolution of Mulla Sadra's philosophy, there is a kind of evolution in the subject of substance and accident. In every philosophical course of Sadra there is a mode of evolution in the discussion of substance and accident; It is in the final course that God is called Substance.

and their relation to the theory in question is called "fundamental methodology”. By the means of a descriptive-analytical method and a fundamental methodology approach, this paper investigates John Locke's social contract theory and aims to clarify the relationship of this theory with Locke's ontological, epistemological and anthropological principles. In terms of ontology, subjectivity and humanism, as well as secularism govern Lock's social contract thought. Combining empiricism with a kind of metaphysics and weakening of sacred intellect by placing the reason as the judge of revelation, are the two important principles of Locke's epistemology in this theory. In terms of anthropology, an optimistic view towards the human nature has influenced his thinking. Accordingly, Locke's social contract theory, which has been put forward after the modern era, has a new nature, a nature that represents a new attitude towards man and his relation to the world, an attitude in which man and his wills and desires is centered.

The interpretation of common human and divine attributes is one of the basic problems in Islamic philosophy and theology. Commentators, like philosophers, are not consistent in interpreting these attributes and have interpreted them differently. Jamaluddin Ghasemi, a well-known commentator on Salafism, takes a special approach to interpreting common human and divine attributes. Judging the veracity of Ghasemi's beliefs in interpreting the attributes seems difficult since in his interpretation, by quoting extensively the words of his predecessors, he seeks the unequivocal approval of positivism. On the other hand, his desire for the interpretation of figures of speech and interest in Zamakhshari and Alusi's views are at odds with his positivism. He downplays the seriousness of Ibn-e Taymiyyah’s denial of metaphorical expression, alleviates the problem in his view of the physicality of the divine essence, and even aims to render the difference between the deniers and believers of metaphorical expression a verbal one. The affirmation of some attributes using “Balakeif” rule, interpretation of attributes and the tendency to approximate positivism to interpretation represent a distinctive feature between the two groups of the attributes, and based on the differences among the attributes, he talks about them by alterantively using analogy (similar but different simultaneously) and metaphorical expression.

The answer to the question of "what is the meaning of life?", which is asked many times by all human beings during their lives, would play a fundamental role in their life styles. It requires a good understanding of human nature and their lives to properly answer to this fundamental question. Sadr-ol-Mote'allehin considers a human as a composition (unitive union) of both soul and a physical body. He adopts the life within three meanings, i.e., general, specific, and more specific. The fundamental distinction between humans and other creatures lies within the "more specific" life which is based on the human characteristics such as intellect and will. The soul is continuing its life during the completion motion within the three states of this, the intermediate (isthmus), and the other world. The death results in a discontinuation of relation between the soul and the body but does not lead to a destruction of the soul itself. Therefore, the soul will be transferred to another world and will continue its life. Concludingly, any theory given about the "meaning of life" that does not consider the reality about the human nature will be incomplete and incomprehensive, and would not satisfy the human thirst for knowledge.

There are, concerning how is rightfulness and salvation from religions’ point of view, three main approaches including exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism that each one has its own merits and defects. The gradual approach is introduced as a new alternative theory which tries to be immense from their defects and to have their merits. In this approach, recognizing absolute divine reality and the totality of religions’ teachings and openness of salvation is gradually explained, so that, all heavenly and maybe some non-divine religions have gradually and hierarchically participated of the absolute reality and the way of salvation, with this difference that every latter divine religion, like Islam, has the perfections of former religions and some new teachings that can’t be found in previous religions. Meanwhile all divine religions have gradual unity and commonality in particular regarding fundamental beliefs. So according to gradual participation of reality by believers of religions, the way of salvation, also, is opened. In this case, in this paper, by referring to the holy Quran, we can consider some factors, like gradual unity of revelation, direct way, the gradual reality of Islam, plurality of religious beliefs, the importance of divine merciful attributes that support our theory concerning gradual approach to religious pluralism. In this paper, having noticing significance of finding efficacy approach regarding logical response to the question of rightfulness and salvation in the eye of religions, is tried to test this theory.

In this paper, first, the conflict between Scientific worldview and Divine action from the historical point of view is explained, and then, different approaches to solving this problem are introduced. In the next step, Physical Closure, as an important metaphysical basis of modern Science is illustrated and would show that the most severe obstacle in front of divine action in the world is that. After the explanation, Plantinga's approach to solving this conflict is explained. Then the proposal of new Theologians and Scientists, who intend to accommodate divine action and indeterministic laws of nature would be discussed and evaluated. By this evaluation, it would be shown that none of these approaches would be successful enough in criticizing the Physical closure. However, each of these approaches has salient points, and especially Plantinga's approach is well in his basic view. Finally, the Conscious and Free Will of human is introduced for showing the actual possibility of violating the closure of natural laws and physical world.