Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad

One of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God by medieval philosophers is divine simplicity. This article explores the various interpretations of divine simplicity presented by medieval thinkers, evaluating their philosophical plausibility. It addresses the concept of divine simplicity primarily with respect to the absence of plurality in the divine essence. While God is free from material multiplicity, the discussion highlights that analytical plurality–comprising existence and quiddity–can still exist. Regarding the conception of divine simplicity as pure actuality, the article argues that this concept is acceptable only concerning the attributes of the divine essence. A third interpretation posits that God's attributes are identical to His essence. If this interpretation means that God's attributes do not contribute to multiplicity within the divine essence, then it could also apply to humans and is not exclusive to God. However, if it implies a complete semantic and ontological identity between God and His attributes, this interpretation would be problematic. In conclusion, the article asserts that the concept of divine simplicity is valid in certain senses but not in others.

Opponents of theistic science argue that science should inherently remain neutral towards facts, devoid of any theistic or atheistic assumptions. This article argues that specific areas of science, particularly within the social sciences, are inherently influenced by theistic or atheistic foundations, challenging the notion of complete neutrality. If a religious perspective is involved, this aspect of science may be classified as theistic science. Conversely, other areas of science do not inherently adopt theistic or non-theistic positions. Within this context, it is acknowledged that scientists may commit to methodological naturalism as a shared framework for achieving universal science. However, this commitment does not imply that knowledge obtained from religious scriptures for understanding facts cannot be considered scientific.

The revised compensation theodicy holds that the primary good of evils, in addition to the compensation of the afterlife, is to justify the existence evil. It holds that this primary good does not necessarily outweigh the evils present in the world, nor is it necessary that the primary good returns to the one who suffered. However, Reichenbach argued that this theodicy is fatally flawed. He asserted that the premises in this theodicy and its treatment of justice are objectionable, leading to an unacceptable conclusion where people are treated only as a means to produce goods. This article elucidates Reichenbach's position and responds to his objections, showing that the revised compensation theodicy has great potential in attempting to resolve the problem of evil.

Free will is an intuitive reality that all humans apprehend in their actions. Moral responsibility also stems from this freedom of will. This article first explains that the strong human intuition about free will cannot be dismissed as an illusion. It then examines the notion that a physical being cannot possess free will because it implies the ability to both perform and abstain from an action. In the physical world, all human actions are determined by preceding causes, leaving no room to avoid an action volitionally. Building on this, the article concludes that free will becomes plausible only when rooted in the existence of the soul. Consequently, free will serves as independent evidence for the existence of an immaterial soul.

Epistemologists have widely accepted that truth, justification, and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge. This article challenges the necessity of the two components, “belief” and “justification”, in the definition of knowledge. It argues that belief is distinct from knowledge; belief is an act of will, whereas knowledge is acquired automatically. One may possess knowledge without being actively willing to believe it, and conversely, one may will to believe something without actually knowing it. Additionally, justification should be seen as a method of validating knowledge, not a fundamental part of its definition. Therefore, knowledge without justification remains knowledge, even though its truth cannot be proven. Building on this perspective, the proposed definition of knowledge shifts to “awareness or recognition of facts.” According to this definition, the Gettier problem and the lottery paradox find alternative solutions.

One of the premises of the argument from design is the need for the order of a designer. This premise has been explained in various ways, one of which is the calculus of probabilities. It posits that the likelihood of an ordered thing coming into existence by chance is so low that human beings consider it nearly impossible; therefore, this order requires an intelligent designer. However, some contemporary Muslim philosophers, such as Ayatollah Jawādī Āmulī, along with certain Western philosophers, have contested the validity of the calculus of probabilities. They argue that the calculus of probabilities does not reveal reality but is merely practically useful. They assert that undesigned states have the same probability as designed states. In this article, I address these objections, refute them, and ultimately demonstrate the soundness of the argument from design based on the calculus of probabilities.

Various theories concerning how to speak positively about God have been proposed. One such theory, the theory of complete univocity, states that although the mode of existence between God and human beings is different, there are, in principle, ontological commonalities between God and humans in existence and His attributes. These ontological commonalities make it possible to attribute a single meaning to both God and human beings univocally. In this article, it is attempted to both explain and defend the theory of complete univocity, while also critiquing the theory of partial univocity, a theory which believes solely in semantic univocity and ontologically assumes that God is absolutely different and separate from humans. Further, as the commonality of meaning between God and humans requires the existence of an ontological commonality between them, the theory of analogy is also not acceptable. Because, firstly, the denial of shared attributes between God and humans has many unsatisfactory theological implications. Secondly, there is no middle term between univocity and equivocality. Therefore, the only theologically defensible theory is that of complete univocity.

Many contemporary philosophers of mind disagree with substance dualism, saying that despite the failure of physical theories of mind, substance dualism cannot be advocated, because it faces more serious problems than physical theories, lacking compatibility with philosophical arguments and scientific evidence. Regardless of the validity of the arguments in support of substance dualism, it is demonstrated in this article that this theory is coherent, with no philosophical or scientific problems. The main arguments of opponents of substance dualism are explained and criticized in this respect. Based on this, it becomes clear that the interaction of soul and body has a reasonable philosophical explanation, the problem of the pairing of soul and body, although it may not have a scientific explanation, it has a philosophical and theological solution, the principle of the physical causal closure lacks conclusive reasons and cannot reject the existence of the soul, the existence of the soul does not contradict the theory of evolution, the dependence of the soul on the brain is compatible with its independence, and finally, the principle of simplicity does not make any problem for accepting the substance dualism.

All previous solutions to the problem of evil have attempted to resolve the issue by showing that God permits them in order for a greater good. However, some contest that there are some instances in which there is no greater good, while in other cases good and evil have been distributed unjustly. I intend, in this paper, to show that if God compensates the harms of evil in the afterlife, any sort of good is enough to resolve the problem of evil; even if the good is not greater than the evil nor distributed appropriately. To attain this end, I have divided the theory of compensation into a weak and a more effective account. The weak account alleges that the goodness of evils is merely based upon their compensation in the afterlife. I have proposed, in this article, a new, strong account of this theory, which considers both primary goods of evils and afterlife compensation as combined elements that can justify evils. After distinguishing the weak and strong versions of compensation, the idea is explained, and the advantages of the theory are pointed out. Finally, there are two chief objections raised against the validity of this theory, both have been mentioned and answered in this paper.