Mahdi Khayatzadeh

The most important issue in Immanuel Kant’s epistemological system is Synthetic a priori judgments. Some interpreters of Kant have criticized his philosophical system by presenting a psychological interpretation of Kant. Hermann Cohen, a German philosopher, is one of the interpreters of Kant’s epistemological system who, unlike this group, has strictly avoided Kant’s psychological interpretation and has criticized such interpretations by presenting a new and original interpretation of a priori authorship propositions. In his interpretation of Kant, he states three levels or degrees for a priori authorship propositions and refers the third degree to common experience. For this purpose, he starts from “place” and, by reflecting on the meaning of place, reaches three levels or degrees of a priority: 1) place as something that precedes every other sensory thing; 2) place as form; 3) place as a formal condition of the possibility of experience. By using the third-level a priori, Kuhn acquits Kant of the accusations of subjectivism. Kuhn considers the reference for third-order a priori propositions to be the principles of mathematics and the fundamental laws of pure natural science, namely mechanics. He believes that these principles and laws constitute the possibility of experience. This experience, unlike personal experiences, is general and common to all individuals. In his view, the task of philosophy is to arrive at third-order a priori principles by reflecting on this mathematical natural science. Such a science varies in every era and, as a result, the a priori propositions will also be different in every era.

Spinoza is one of the thinkers who has used existential arguments to prove the existence of God. He has presented six different versions of this argument. These arguments have received less attention from researchers. In the following work, these arguments are presented and criticized in a descriptive-analytical manner using library data. As understood by the findings of this research, Spinoza has used the concept of God in three ways in these versions: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God in terms of indicating something beyond itself, and the subjective existence of the concept of God. Also, these arguments have various criticisms, such as confusion between the first and common conception with regard to the predicate, confusion between the two with regard to the subject, contradiction, begging the question, and lack of attention to the quality of the formation of the concept of God in the mind. The final conclusion of this research is that all these arguments are incomplete for the purpose and are ineffective in proving the reality of God.

جان کاتینگهام فیلسوف معاصر انگلیسی دیدگاه خود در رابطة عقل و سااحت تعهاد ی ایماان را ذیا ل سا – - محور مطرح کرده است: 1 . کارکرد تعهد دینی در حیات اخلاقی انسان؛ 2. عدم منافاات م یا ان تعهاد د ینا ی و خودمختاری انسان؛ 3 . کارکرد متمایز قرین در تعهد دینی و علم تجربی. در اثر پیش رو دیا دگاه کاتنیگهاام در دو محور نخست ارزیابی شده است. وی در محور اول، پشتوانة تعهد دینی و التزام ب قوانین اخلاقی را اعتقااد ب منبع خیر بودن خداوند می داند. در محور دوم، باا اساتفاده از مباان ی اگزیستانسیالیسات ی در رابطا ة انساان و جهان، معتقد است انسان موجودی خودساز نیست و در شرایطی قرار دارد ک خود تاثیری در تحقق آن نداشات است. در چنین شرایطی، تسلیم در برابر قوانین اخلاقی، تسلیم در مقابال اراد ۀ بیگانا نیسات، بلکا انتخااب ی آگاهان برای رشد خویش است. دیدگاه وی در این دو محور با توج با آرا علاما ة طباطباا یی قابال برر سا ی است. در محور نخست، تبیینی عالی تری بر اساس مبانی فلسفی علام طباطبایی قابل طرح است. اماا نسابت ب محور دوم، دو نکتة قابل ملاحظ وجود دارد: نخست آنک پاسخ او در این مسال ، بیا انی متوسا در تب یای ن کلیدواژه: رابطة خداوند و انسان است، و دوم آنک تعهد اولی ب همان رکن ایمان مقدم بر عمل است، ن متاخر از آن.

metempsychosis is the concept of the transmigration of a human or animal soul into another human, animal, plant, or even an inanimate object. The theory of metempsychosis poses a challenge to the belief in resurrection (maʿād), making it necessary to reject metempsychosis before proving maʿād. Avicenna presents two arguments against metempsychosis. The first argument, found in numerous works, rejects metempsychosis on the grounds that it requires the union of two soul s within a single body. Avicenna alludes to the second argument in his Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat but postpones its full explanation to another unspecified work. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Fakhr al-Din Razi, and Qutb al-Din Razi have proposed different interpretations of this second argument. The variations in interpretation revolve around the number of implications Avicenna expressed for this modus ponendo and his reasons for rejecting them. Among these interpretations, only Qutb al-Din Razi's aligns more closely with Avicenna's original words. In the other two interpretations, there are either deficiencies or excesses compared to Avicenna's work.

John Cottingham, a contemporary English philosopher, believes that it is necessary to pay attention to the emotional aspect of faith in two ways: (1) the impact of the emotional aspect in human conversion and explanation of the problem of evil, and (2) attention to the language of religion and its function in philosophical issues. From his point of view, conversion is not a forced process but achieved through internal acceptance. This acceptance is not realized just by listening to rational arguments, but it is a response from all the intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual aspects of a person. In Cottingham’s view, the problem of evil needs an emotional explanation that considers the world based on Divine providence and God’s love. He also believes that although religious beliefs have propositional and cognitive content, such content is expressed in layers of figurative and literary metaphors in the form of symbolic language. The discovery and extraction of content from these layers need a unique method, so, the literal analysis of these phrases results in misunderstanding. Paying attention to the emotional aspect of human conversion is a valuable point, but weakening the rational aspect in this field is not in favor of religion, and this is one of the important weaknesses of Cottingham's thought. Regarding the emotional explanation of the problem of evil, generalizing it to all human beings -especially the prophets- is not true. Also, not all religious content can be understood by symbolic language, rather, religion consists of different propositions, many of which have a literal meaning.

John Cottingham focuses on two types of religious experience: general religious experience and specific religious experience. According to him, general experiences do not require special and complex education, scientific research or philosophical theorizing, but are a simple act of accepting a gift. Of course, unlike everyday observations, such experiences are not available to everyone and their realization requires special conditions. Regarding specific religious experiences, he also believes that when dealing with parts of the Bible that contain reports of such experiences, one should neither have a naturalistic or demythologizing approach, nor an appearance-oriented approach; Rather, these verses should be interpreted in such a way that both its amazing content is preserved and this content does not conflict with modern science. Using the basics of Islamic philosophy, this work has a critical review of both parts of his view. The result of these criticisms is that due to the personal nature of evidences from religious experiences, the epistemological guarantee of these experiences is obtained through the rational and revelatory method. And based on this, these experiences cannot be considered as an independent path alongside the rational and revelatory path. Also, the observation of specific religious experiences is not a sensory observation and occurs in the container of human imagination and fantasy, without being a part of these experiences, they have become a characteristic of the self.

Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals

One of the components of John Cottingham's thinking - a contemporary English philosopher - in the relationship between reason and religion, is the distinction between the field of science and religion. He has presented this distinction in two parts: the type of issues in the field of science and religion, and The method of inference in the field of science and religion. According to Cottingham, religious issues are related to outside the field of human knowledge, and the way of debunking them is not the way of debunking the best explanation in empirical sciences; Because despite the problem of evil, theistic hypothesis cannot be considered as the best explanation for the phenomena of the world. His proposed model for the field of religion is the legal model; That is, the fact that the explanation presented is not incompatible with empirical evidence is enough to justify religious belief. He considers his point of view between extreme faithism and pseudo-scientific inferentialism. This view is criticized in several ways; Including: 1. Failure to pay attention to the function of secondary philosophical concepts in understanding the metaphysical dimension of the world of matter and abstractions, 2. The problem of "ignoring", 3. The inefficiency of the proposed model with regard to the issue of evil.

As a contemporary neo-Sadraian philosopher, Muhaqeq Isfahani has proposed his own account of the ontological argument for the existence of Allah. This account of the argument is unprecedented and has caught the attention of many contemporary thinkers. There have been proposed five accounts of this argument upon three pivots. First is the concept of necessary being as a mental concept. Second is the concept of necessary being so far as it denotes something beyond the concept. And third is the very reality of necessary being existing by itself in the outside world. Each of the above accounts is open to some criticisms. Prof. Mahdi Ha’iri Yazdi has leveled four criticisms at that account of the argument such as counter-argument, begging the question, the confusion of categorical proposition with non-categorical one. The proponents of ontological argument have raised objections to Ha’iri’s criticisms. Most of those objections are not valid for they stem from the insufficient consideration of the fact that concepts such as “necessary being”, “God”, “partner of Creator” and the like are philosophical secondary intelligible. Accordingly, most of Prof. Ha’iri’s criticisms against Muhaqeq Ishafani are valid and thus the ontological argument fails to prove the existence of Allah.

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Gharawi Isfahani presented an argument for the existence of God which is classified among ontological arguments. Among contemporary thinkers in Iran, this argument has attracted serious supporters and critics alike. Overall, five readings have been put forth for this argument. In the present study, these five readings have been analyzed in three main frameworks including the concept of the Necessary Being as a mental concept, the concept of Necessary Being as representing something out of itself and finally, the reality of the Necessary Being or the objectivity of the Being by Itself. After presenting each reading, its compatibility with Isfahani’s argument will be analyzed. It will be shown that Isfahani’s argument should be regarded as an argument in the second framework.

John Cottingham, a contemporary English philosopher, considers the best way to understand religious beliefs to be an empathic understanding. He calls his theory “the epistemology of involvement”. Based on this theory, in order to understand religious beliefs, one should put aside the detachment approach and by entering the life of faith, provide the conditions for the realization of the religious experiences of the believers, and at the same time, maintain the critical opinion in this sympathetic participation in religion. He considers such an approach to be a middle way between Kierkegaard's irrationalism and Plantinga's relativism and considers it generalizable to other philosophical fields. This approach faces criticism. First, before entering a religious life, it is necessary to evaluate its worldview, and this evaluation precedes the practical system and literary and emotional texts of that religion. Second, there is no connection between an empathetic understanding of religion and entering into a life of faith, and thirdly, by entering into a life of faith, the acceptance of a belief will be involuntary, and after the realization of such a belief, it is not possible to criticize it.

The relationship between reason and faith is one of the most important topics in the philosophy of religion. This issue has been investigated from several aspects. One of these aspects is the relationship between action and religious belief. John Cottingham, a contemporary analytical philosopher, emphasizes the primacy of religious practice over belief, as well as the involuntary nature of belief. In his opinion, the factor that causes people to become religious is not intellectual discussions about God but the internal aspects of religion itself and the transforming power of religious practices in human life and experiences. In the present work, a critique has been made of his point of view with an explanatory-critical method. Criticisms that his point of view includes: First, the belief resulting from the course of action is only psychological certainty and such certainty is beyond the logic of verification. Secondly, knowledge of God and the practical system is a condition for entering it and precedes it. The third criticism is the problem of the plurality of religions and practical systems which causes people to mistrust reasons of the heart. The fourth criticism is that entering into a practical system is a confirmation of its benefits and anyone who does not believe this would have no reason to enter such a system. Introduction John Cottingham is a contemporary English philosopher, and one of the contemporary theorists in the field of the relationship between reason and faith. The relationship between reason and religious faith can be examined from four aspects: 1) The relationship between reason and the epistemological area of faith, 2) the relationship between reason and the practical area of faith, 3) the relationship between reason and the commitment area of faith, and 4) the relationship between reason and the area of faith. Explanation of Cottingham’s view Cottingham’s view can be presented in seven steps: Criticism of the current situation in analytical philosophy; Changing the topic of discussion from the religious field to the spiritual field in order to expand the topic of discussion to non-religious spiritual fields; Comparison of spiritual practice with devotional orders in the past philosophical tradition; Understanding religion is based on practical participation in it; This introduction is expressed according to Pascal’s point of view. According to Pascal, faith should be acquired in the atmosphere of a living tradition of practical religious worship, not through discussion and analysis in a seminar room. The basis of this view is that issues related to the nature and existence of God are beyond the reach of reason. The role of emotions in human understanding; Using Nussbaum’s point of view, Cottingham says: There are types of truth that the intellectual effort to obtain is equivalent to not reaching them. Religious truth is also a part of these truths. Because religious truths are beyond the direct understanding of humans and trying to understand them through logical analysis is moving away from them. Involuntary belief; Human belief, whether religious or otherwise, is not optional and there is a kind of passivity in all human perceptions. According to Cottingham, this point is shared by philosophers such as Hume and Descartes. Cottingham is also influenced by Pascal in this introduction. According to Pascal, although belief in God is not optional, there are indirect ways such as participating in religious activities to realize it, which are available to humans. The role of these ways in the formation of belief is a preliminary role and creating the ability to accept. The necessity of trusting the witnesses of the heart; According to Cottingham, such a thing is necessary for the human condition, and this issue exists in all fields of human knowledge, as well as in human daily life. For example, to go to work, a person must believe that when he turns the switch on the car, the car will not explode, even if such a belief is not the result of checking the car’s electrical system, you still have to trust this article or you will lose your job. Cottingham’s conclusion from the seven premises is that the factor that causes people to become religious is not intellectual discussions about God but the internal aspects of religion itself and the transformative power of religious practices in human life and experiences. Accordingly, faith in God is a product of trust and participation in a living community of faith. When the truth of religion is obtained through faith, and faith depends on a practical religious tradition, then there will be no other choice but to enter into the practical system of religion. Of course, he emphasizes that entering the life of faith does not mean abandoning the critical method in content analysis, and the previous reasons resulting from religious practice must be supplemented or regularized by subsequent intellectual reflections. According to Cottingham, worship precedes rational theory in four ways: 1) temporally; 2) heuristically; 3) psychologically; 4) morally Critical Review In the following, I will do a critical review of Cottingham’s view. His view on the priority of action over religious belief and that the understanding of religion is based on practical participation faces criticisms: First, the belief resulting from participation in religious actions is only psychological certainty and such certainty is beyond the logic of confirmation. Secondly, knowing God and the practical system is a condition for entering this system and has precedence over it. The third criticism is the problem of the plurality of religions and practical systems which causes people to mistrust reasons of the heart. The fourth criticism is that entry into a practical system is a confirmation of its benefits and anyone who does not believe this would have no reason to enter such a system. Therefore, at this stage as well, it is necessary to have a rational way to confirm the usefulness of this path. His view on Doxastic voluntarism is also under the involuntary approach of indirect belief, which is Pascal’s view. This component is also present in the opinions of Allamah Tabatabai. The difference between Cottingham and Allameh’s points of view is that Cottingham and Pascal consider rational arguments to be inefficient in the realization of belief and scientific verification, and they consider a practical commitment to be necessary for the realization of such verification, but Allameh Tabatabai considers scientific premises and rational proof to be the necessary conditions for faith. Conclusion Although the theory of the precedence of action over belief is faced with numerous criticisms, it is an undeniable matter. Paying attention to different levels of religious faith makes the value of theoretical discussions as well as paying attention to practical refinement and participation in spiritual actions be considered together.