Javad Darvish Aghajani

Reformed epistemology, based on the reliability of the functions of cognitive faculties, holds that one can believe in God directly without argument or evidence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the proponents of this view, replaces justification with warrant in the classical definition of knowledge and considers true belief, which has a warrant as knowledge. On this basis, he considers it reasonable to believe in the existence of God because it has a warrant and arises from our healthy cognitive faculties without the need for an independent argument. Some defenders of the cognitive science of religion also seek to provide evidence from cognitive science to explain religious beliefs in such a way as to show that there is a natural mechanism in man to know God. They argue based on this mechanism in favor of the existence of God. Justin Barrett, one of the leading proponents of this view, uses a mental bias called the Hyperactive Agency Detection Device, which is evolutionarily developed in humans, to explain the process of generating belief in supernatural intentional beings, including God. In recent years, efforts have been made to integrate these two approaches and use the experimental results of cognitive science to validate reformed epistemology. The 2010 joint paper by Barrett and Clark, the former a cognitive scientist and the latter a reformed epistemologist, is a prime example of this effort. Although this paper lists some of the differences between the various perspectives in cognitive sciences of religion and reformed epistemology, its ultimate goal is to show the correlation and convergence of the two approaches. One of the similarities emphasized in this article is related to a particular type of cognitive faculty, called the sense of divinity or Sensues Divintatus, and in both approaches is mentioned by various terms.While acknowledging some similarities between the two theories, the present paper seeks to undermine the view that tries to use the cognitive science of religion as a scientific basis for validating reformed epistemology. This task has been done in this article by pointing out and providing evidence in favor of the fundamental differences between the two theories. In this article, two arguments are presented to show their fundamental differences.The first argument is based on differences in the origins and roots of the two theories. According to this argument, HADD as a cognitive tool in Barrett’s theory can be counted as a mediator, proof, or scientific evidence to prove God; while the foundation of reformed epistemology is to put aside these intermediaries and explain the rationality of belief in God, without resorting to an argument. As the scholars of the cognitive science of religion agree, what creates human bias towards intelligent factors is a spandrel or byproduct property that is not adoptive in the human evolutionary process. Some of them consider the generation of this property as the reason for the existence of God, but regardless of whether this argument is true or false, human cognitive biases in this argument are mediations to prove the existence of God. Accordingly, the two theories, despite their apparent similarities, are fundamentally different.The second argument emphasizes the difference in the goals or visions of the two theories. The main concern of the cognitive science of religion, according to Barrett, is how to produce belief; while the main concern of reformed epistemology is the rationality of belief. In fact, by relying on HADD, one can only remark on how a belief is made, regardless of its rationality. However, this does not meet the purpose of reformed epistemology. In reformed epistemology, Plantinga considers belief in God to be a kind of basic belief that we are reasonable to accept. Here, some have said, the belief produced in the evolutionary process can also be reasonable. This claim can be examined in its place, but so far as the ultimate goal of the cognitive science of religion is the explanation of belief production, and it is different from the ultimate goal of the reformed epistemology, that is, the explanation of the rationality of belief, it is sufficient for this article to show their differences.

A typical scientist has no responsibility other than to explain how a natural event occurred. However, when a philosopher asks about the conditions under which a scientist’s explanation is true, he is, in fact, raising an ultimate question, the concept which Karl Popper used for the first time. Answering this question requires that no elements are neglected in the explanation, and no significant factors in the explanation are overlooked. In other words, in explaining a phenomenon, at any level of its explanation, there should be no remainder. These require-ments can be achieved through the full explanation. In the present article, by drawing on concepts such as theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination of theory by evidence, and the role of models and metaphors in developing a scientific theory, it is illustrated that a complete explanation includes both a scientific explanation and personal explanation. A per-sonal explanation comprises mental properties such as belief, desire, and intention, which are irreducible to physical properties. Therefore, we cannot provide a personal explanation while restricting ourselves to scientific methods. Consequently, it is argued in this article first, the personal explanation is irreducible to a scientific explanation. Second, the personal explana-tion is inevitable in order to provide a full explanation. Third, (methodological) naturalists claim that the ultimate judgment of what is natural and unnatural is possible only by scientific inquiry. Finally, accepting these three premises entails the inability of a naturalist to answer ultimate questions.

To differentiate between the laws of nature and accidental generalizations, we must adopt a view of necessity that is capable of being realized in relationships existing among natural objects. In neo-Sadraian Islamic philosophy, metaphysical necessity is accepted as part of the cause-effect relationship. This paper compares the neo-Sadraian interpretation of necessity and necessitarian theories about the laws of nature, particularly essentialism and universal theory. By resorting to specific forms al-shûrat al-naw’iyyah, the origin of the essential properties of natural objects, I argue that neo-Sadraians have proposed a perspective on metaphysical necessity that is epistemologically a posteriori.

One of the criticisms of the philosophers to the Muslim theologians concerning the debate on the eternity or the creation of the universe is that adopting of the universe temporal origination could lead to detachment of Divine Grace, because Temporal Origination requires specific time on which, despite the presence of God, the universe has not been existed. However, if it can be shown that the physical universe would not have eternal capacity, then Divine Grace would not be damaged. So, in this paper, we have applied two approaches to show that Temporal Origination does not require the rejection of Divine Grace. The first approach is an a posteriori reasoning based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Accordingly, the Physical World’s entropy as an isolated system, tends to increase and therefore lead to Heat Death. So it has not capacity to be eternal. And the second one is an a priori reasoning using the concept of the Universe Temporal Origination. The implication of philosophers’ definition about Temporal Origination, leads to the assumption of a period in which the physical world did not exist. But this is a subjective and contradictory assumption.