فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال بیست و یکم شماره 2 (پیاپی 63، تابستان 1403)

One of the debates surrounding the issue of religious experience in the philosophy of religion is whether religious experience can be used to justify religious beliefs. Although the term “religious belief” can include various beliefs, this discussion is usually limited to proving God's existence based on religious experience. This limitation is because it is generally supposed that what is experienced in religious experience is absolute existence, or those who categorized these experiences only considered a certain type of religious experience. But if we consider the diversity of religious experiences and what is experienced within them, these experiences can be used to justify other religious beliefs, such as supernatural entities, the afterlife,  and the embodiment of deeds, ideas which are also important in the system of religious beliefs. Some of them can ultimately justify belief in God based on several arguments. In this article, regarding the variety of religious experiences, we want to show that these experiences can justify different religious beliefs. For this purpose, we will take help from near-death experiences, which can be considered a kind of religious experience, and we will show that if religious experiences are to be used to justify religious belief, these experiences have important advantages over the experience of absolute existence.

New atheism is a new movement that has been active since the beginning of this century. This movement, founded by thinkers, such as Dawkins, Dennet, Sam Harris and Hitchens, has used fundamental concepts such as rationalism to justify its principles. The founders of this movement have tried to use this fundamental concept to make atheism appear rational, and belief in God completely irrational. They have done this by stating the merits and benefits of disbelief in God and the disadvantages and harms of belief in God. In this article, which is written in an analytical-descriptive way, we aim to critique rationalism. For this purpose, first we get to know what rationalism is. Then we will show how the new atheists have used this concept in favor of atheism and in rejecting theism. In the end, relying on the thoughts of philosophers, we will critique rationalism. Rationalism as another reading of scientism, rationalism as another interpretation of profit maximization, rationalism as the ground for separating knowledge from value, and rationalism as a school that does not pay attention to its goals are just some of the criticisms that have been made against this school. Taking these criticisms into account, all the problems that affect scientism, utilitarianism, and the view of separating knowledge from value will also affect this school. With this description, this school cannot be a good justification for the new atheism.

The argument of possibility and necessity is one of the arguments to prove the existence of God. In addition to Muslim thinkers such as Farabi and Avicenna, Western thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz have also presented interpretations for this proof. In this article, we examine which of the existing interpretations for the proof of possibility and necessity possesses more mastery compared to the criticisms expressed. In total, sixteen different criticisms on various interpretations of the proof of possibility and necessity will be presented and analyzed. Some of these critiques can be answered based on all three interpretations, while some can only be answered based on Avicenna's interpretation. By analyzing these criticisms, it is clear that among the various interpretations expressed for the argument of possibility and necessity, Avicenna's interpretation stands out due to this thinker's reference to more accurate foundations, such as considering eidetic possibility as the criterion for the effect's need for a cause and starting the argument from the concept of possibility. This interpretation demonstrates more strength and mastery than the interpretations of other thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz. Furthermore, with Avicenna's philosophical system, we can respond to all the criticisms directed at this interpretation.

The theory of nature has a privileged position among monotheistic thinkers in both Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, the theory of nature became prominent because the teachings of Christianity lacked the capacity of reasonableness. Therefore, Christian thinkers tried to address this shortcoming by establishing the theory of nature. According to this theory, they could make many Christian teachings seem reasonable. In the Islamic world, many contemporary thinkers were committed to the theory of nature according to some Islamic verses and traditions. However, what is important is that this theory, in the last few decades, has gained traction among Muslim thinkers, according to Motahari's scientific point of view.. Motahari in opposition to the anthropological theories of materialist schools, such as Marxism and existentialism which considers the essence of human existence to be material, proposed the theory of nature to negate the view of human materialism, and established a new framework in Islamic anthropology. The purpose of this research is to critically examine Professor Motahari's opinions regarding the theory of nature, which is derived from the epistemology of his religious belief. He examines religious belief through the relationship between reason and faith, advocating for  the theory of nature. In this research, according to the reflections and criticisms that can be directed at the theory of nature, it becomes clear that this theory does not have the desired function. Therefore, those who hold opinions on this matter should build a foundation characterized by the  reasonableness of religious belief(s).

Regarding the meaning and relationship between science and religion, there are various views, and most Islamic and Western thinkers have expressed the meaning of science and religion and the relationship between them. This research deals with presenting Imam Khomeini's chosen meaning of science and religion and then explores his opinion about their relationship. The present research, using the analytical-adaptive method, and using library data, has studied and analyzed the works of Imam Khomeini on this subject. According to Imam Khomeini, the meaning of science and knowledge is expressed in two types: true and conventional. Experimental science (both natural and human), as a side of the conflict in the new theological problem of the relationship between science and religion, is defined based on true and conventional knowledge. Imam Khomeini considers natural sciences as conventional sciences, and human sciences as true sciences. Regarding the meaning of religion, Imam Khomeini believes that religion is the True Law, and the great law of God for the management of the individual and social life of man, and his eternal happiness. This does not overlook any point, no matter how insignificant, in the education of man and society, and material and spiritual progress. Imam Khomeini, by rejecting the conflict and distinction between science and religion, believes in the penetrability of science and religion in the case of human sciences, and in the case of natural sciences, believes in the interaction, adjustment, and mutual completion of science and religion.

Richard Rorty never limited himself to a single philosophical school. Although pragmatism and analytical philosophy are his primary philosophical concerns and most of his works are in this field, he was never unaware of the possibilities available in other intellectual and even literary traditions to improve and modify his own thinking, and, if possible, to expand them. Rorty has discussed the Western and Greek foundations of philosophy and the negation of Eastern philosophy in general, and Chinese philosophy in particular, without having a racist and hierarchical view to the East like Kant and Hegel. At first glance, Rorty's approach to Eastern thought seems incompatible with the spirit that governs his thinking. Therefore, this question naturally arises for the readers of Rorty's works: how can a thinker who tried to establish a connection between the two continental and analytical philosophical traditions -considering their fundamental differences- and who also spoke about the coexistence of philosophy with literature, while constantly recommending that novels should be used to advance philosophical goals, neglect the possibilities offered by Eastern philosophy? In terms of richness of thought, Eastern philosophy is far superior to his novels. In this article, citing Rorty's works, the reasons for his opposition to comparative philosophy are evaluated.