فصلنامه ذهن
سال بیست و پنجم شماره 2 (پیاپی 98، تابستان 1403)

The issue of religious science is one of the most challenging issues in the field of philosophy of science and philosophy of religion. In this field, different views have been formed. Some views are immature and primitive, while others are in the structure and format of a scientific theory. Among the viewpoints that have a theory structure is "Theory of Religious Science" by Professor Ali Akbar Rashad. This theory has been formed with regard to the injuries of common sciences and their criticism, as well as the capacities of the Islamic religion , the mission and the goal of the religion.

The present article, with analytical and philosophical method, intends to criticize and Review Professor Rashad's theory in terms of principles, criteria and pillars of religious science.

In this article, In addition to explaining the theory, pointed out its strengths and weaknesses and reached the following results A) Some strengths of the theory are: relative comprehensiveness, having a theoretical framework, based on reliable and religious foundations and the like. b) Some of the ambiguities and gaps are: the difficulty of writing, ambiguities in the application of some concepts and terms, ambiguities in the definition of religious science, ambiguities in the criteria of religious science and the like.

How mental perceptions and representation of the world located in the world of the mind is an epistemological question that has occupied the minds of thinkers throughout history. Based on the answer to this question, two main currents were formed, one of which insists on the correspondence of mind and object to each other, like the reflection of an image on a mirror, and the second current considers human knowledge to be entirely a construct of the mind, which does not have a way to the real world. perceptions to be the product of the interaction between the mind and the external reality. Although critical realism assumes the external world to be independent from the cognitive agent's mind, it does not consider the perception of the external world to be equal to the external world. For this reason, Warsi considers his criticism of the world as necessary to achieve an authentic knowledge. The present article, while accepting some claims of critical realism, shows that the critical approach to the problem of truth cannot be the basis and criterion for all propositions.

Property Dualism in substance is physicalist and dualist in its prperty; That is, at the same time that he considers man as a physical substance, but believes that the mentioned substance carries two types of physical and non-physical (mental) characteristics. It is the physical feature that physics has access to and theorizes about it, on the other hand, the mental feature is beyond the reach of physics. If we prove that every mental thing occurs in the existential realm of the mind and every physical thing occurs in the existential realm of physics, then the requirement of the dualism of the attribute is that the mental attribute is in one realm of existence and its physical substance is in another realm of existence. Comes true. The present article considers the unreasonableness of the mentioned requirement because the characteristic of a substance is one of the existential levels of that substance and is co-ordinate with its substance and must be co-planar with its substance; So if it was a mental characteristic; That is, we proved that it is realized in the field of mind; It indicates that a suitable substance (in addition to the physical essence of the body) is realized in the same existential plane; Therefore, the requirement for the truth of dualism is the characteristic of the realization of substanct dualism.

Our method in this article is analytical and argumentative.

The realm of mental affairs is separate from the realm of physical affairs; If we believe in the dualism of the mind and physics, we must accept that the mind is manifested in the field and world of the mind. As a result, Johari must also be a researcher in the mental field, which carries mental characteristics; And this means that we have reached from property dualism of substance dualism

From the perspective of the duality of the characteristic, mental characteristics are beyond the reach of physical science due to their personal nature. In this article, it is necessary to be beyond the reach of physical science, because if a mental property is beyond the reach of physical science, it is a non-physical thing by definition, and if it is a non-physical thing, it is out of the realm due to the objectivity of the physical realm and physical affairs. The physical is outside and it is realized in a non-physical plane. Since the quality or breadth cannot be realized without substance, the mental quality (realized in the non-physical realm) also requires a substance, and due to the fact that width is the dignity of substance and they are realized in the same order of existence with their essence, then physical substance cannot be the carrier of mental characteristics, therefore, mental characteristics must have a substance of the same plane; That is, a non-physical substance. In this way, the requirement of the duality of the characteristic is the duality of substance, that is, the promise of the existence of two types of physical and non-physical substance is proportional to the physical and non-physical characteristics.

 Undoubtedly, from long ago, one of the most important questions that have occupied the minds of thinkers is what is the standard for measuring and verifying human consciousness? Or in other words, how to prove the ideas in the mind with reality in the outside world. In other words, if there is a reality in the outside world, what is the guarantor of the identity of these ideas and that reality? The following article has analyzed the possibility of "mathematical doubt" in the human mind and compared the relationship between this type of doubt and "mathematical certainty". The results indicate that there is a connection between "mathematical doubt" and "mathematical certainty" in terms of possibility, in such a way that if one is possible, the other will necessarily be possible, and if the realization of one is prevented, the other will also be so.By proving this combination, it can be concluded that the case of doubting human evidences and imaginations such as; Creation of "argumentative and temperamental doubt" is in the human mind, and basically such doubt cannot be countered with arguments because the foot of any argument will practically weaken in front of such skepticism, what is confirmed is that the only way to counter the aforementioned skepticism is to create some kind of "psychological certainty" » Using the problem of preference in avoiding possible losses

One of the verses that can be examined in the knowledge of theology is verse 116 of Surah Mubaraka Ma'idah. In a part of this verse, God quotes a word from Jesus (pbuh) that he said... Ta'almu ma fi nafsi wa laa a'lammu ma fi nafsik. Translation: You know what is in my soul; And I do not know what is in your soul. Pronounced phrase "Walaa A'alam Ma fi Nafsek" whichh was expressed by God's Prophet Jesus (pbuh) on the Day of Judgment proves that God has a soul, while the soul is only applied to material beings, and also for the soul, a vessel (fi) Is placed. Given. While the soul is not a simple and capable being, Muslim scientists have tried to adapt their scientific findings according to the presuppositions of their theological schools and also with a literary approach. Without referring to the meaning of self, Zamakhshari applied it to the style of Mashakala. He believes that the word "nafsek" was mentioned because of the word "nafsi" in the previous sentence. But writers such as Jurjani, Taftazani and Sialkoti Koch, whose orientation is also theological and philosophical, did not accept the use of soul for God because of the problems and considered its meaning to be essential. This meaning is consistent with the report of lexicographers. They believe that this part of the verse is one of the similar verses. Some theologians, such as Fakhrazi, believe that it is possible to apply the meaning of the self in the verse of essence and the art of the problem. Some philosophers, such as Mullah Sadra, also consider the meaning of the word soul to be essential and believe that the soul is not only applied to bodies, but it can also be applied to God. Jovini did not accept the definition of self for God because of the problem and they consider this definition to be true. His reason for saying this is the repetition of such wording in the Qur'an and hadiths reported from the Prophet (PBUH). The second challenge is related to the capacity in the letter "phi". As mentioned in Khafaji's speech, the problem is in the letter fi. They have tried to solve the challenge in this way. But In many views, the meaning of capacity in the challenged phrase has been ignored. There is a possibility that the importance of applying self to God is the reason for this neglect. Because this application in the Qur'an means confirming the application. Based on this point of view, the interpretation "La Aalm ma fi Nafsak" is not much different from the self-made interpretation "La Aalm Nafsak".

The study method in this writing is rational analysis.

The findings of this research are:Based on the foundations of cognitive linguistics, the view of Zamakhshari's problem is not acceptable. Because the problem is only a verbal literary style in which one word is mentioned in connection with another word in the sentence before it. While language is a reflection of the conceptualization of the mind. In this way, the mind first conceptualizes the external situation and then expresses the appropriate word and phrase based on knowledge. But there Is no conceptualization in the problem. In order to get rid of God's personification, Muslim scholars have chosen the meaning of essence for the word soul. This choice, as mentioned, agrees with the report of lexicographers. But one of the important problems of this choice is its incompatibility with the wisdom of choosing words in the Holy Quran. Three: In the challenged Quranic phrase, two metaphors are intertwined. Separating them is very important and a way for a more correct understanding. The first metaphor is in the word ego, which is a metaphorical part of personality, and the second metaphor is capacity.

The results of this research are as follows: The difference between theologians and metaphor researchers is that in order to reject embodiment, the word can be considered in its original and tangible meaning, but it does not involve the embodiment of God. In other words, the analysis of the challenged phrase is in two ways. Some traditional literary methods try to answer and analyze it. Some have also answered the challenge through conceptual metaphor. Two conceptual metaphors can be generalized to other news attributes

While belonging to two different intellectual cultures and adopting different philosophical principles Suhrawardi and Descartes emphasize the role of self-knowledge in acquiring knowledge. In Descartes' philosophy, Cogito, ergo sum is considered as the basis of knowledge, from which the knowledge of other levels of Being, such as God and the world, are deduced. In Suhrawardi's philosophy, the human soul is a light of divine lights, which in the light of self-knowledge can apprehend the superior lights, the light of lights and material things. Of course, Suhrawardi and Descartes pay attention to the issue of soul and self-knowledge from two different viewpoints. Suhrawardi deals with this issue from the viewpoint of intuitive knowledge and Descartes from the rational-reasoning viewpoint. Now, according to this introduction, important issues arise: What is the difference between Suhrawardi's and Descartes' viewpoints on self-knowledge? How do the different viewpoints of these two philosophers on the issue of self-knowledge affect their views on other knowledge? This article, with a descriptive-analytical method, tries to explain how the different perceptions of Suhrawardi and Descartes about the human soul and self-knowledge cause these two philosophers to have a different view of the way to pass from self-knowledge to the knowledge of others.