University of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522A Critical Survey of Pascal’s Wager for the Existence of GodA Critical Survey of Pascal’s Wager for the Existence of God53713110.22091/pfk.2011.131FAAbbassKhosravi FarsaniRezaAkbari0000-0002-5231-7849Journal Article20150809Pascal’s Wager is one of the most important and challenging arguments for the existence of God and the rationality of religious believes. According to this argument, where the rational and theoretical arguments for the existence of God are not satisfying, still in practice and decision-making, living on the basis of belief in God and other religious doctrines like life after death, is the most prudential and rational option and the best bet; although these believes are not rationally and certainly provable; Avoiding the probable loss of atheism, namely eternal and infinite damnation in afterlife – that is more important than certain utility and restricted and finite pleasure of life in this world, is the ground of rationality of this decision-making. The psychological use of this argument is very effective, but the justificatory use of it have many difficulties; This article is concerned with the most important criticisms of this argument in terms of plurality of religions, rationalism, evidentialism, ethics of belief, voluntarism and probabilities calculus.Pascal’s Wager is one of the most important and challenging arguments for the existence of God and the rationality of religious believes. According to this argument, where the rational and theoretical arguments for the existence of God are not satisfying, still in practice and decision-making, living on the basis of belief in God and other religious doctrines like life after death, is the most prudential and rational option and the best bet; although these believes are not rationally and certainly provable; Avoiding the probable loss of atheism, namely eternal and infinite damnation in afterlife – that is more important than certain utility and restricted and finite pleasure of life in this world, is the ground of rationality of this decision-making. The psychological use of this argument is very effective, but the justificatory use of it have many difficulties; This article is concerned with the most important criticisms of this argument in terms of plurality of religions, rationalism, evidentialism, ethics of belief, voluntarism and probabilities calculus.https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_131_28da23295864a6fc34d7bc5c44c54c1c.pdfUniversity of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522The Necessity of Causality from Avicenna’s and Spinoza’s ViewpointsThe Necessity of Causality from Avicenna’s and Spinoza’s Viewpoints375813210.22091/pfk.2011.132FARezaBerenjkarJournal Article20150810Avicenna and Spinoza defend the necessity of causality. In some cases, Avicenna, takes it evident and in other cases argues for it. Spinoza takes it evident, decisively. All the Avicenna’s arguments beg the question. On the other hand, not only the necessity of causality is not evident, but also non-necessity is intuitive and evident. The author believes that the discussion of the necessity of causality originates from the separation between necessity and possibility, and the insistence on the justification of the generation of entities only by these two concepts, while these two concepts can only explain the difference between entities, and we need another concept to explain createdness.
Avicenna and Spinoza defend the necessity of causality. In some cases, Avicenna, takes it evident and in other cases argues for it. Spinoza takes it evident, decisively. All the Avicenna’s arguments beg the question. On the other hand, not only the necessity of causality is not evident, but also non-necessity is intuitive and evident. The author believes that the discussion of the necessity of causality originates from the separation between necessity and possibility, and the insistence on the justification of the generation of entities only by these two concepts, while these two concepts can only explain the difference between entities, and we need another concept to explain createdness.
https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_132_5e57bf3ef60ade8c0a00f7b435c9c3a9.pdfUniversity of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522The Validity of Aristotelian Logic in Contemporary Western ThoughtThe Validity of Aristotelian Logic in Contemporary Western Thought598613310.22091/pfk.2011.133FAHassanIslami ArdakaniJournal Article20150810Aristotelian logic, as a part of Islamic philosophy, from the very beginning has been attacked by some opponents amongst Muslims. So, some of Muslim philosophers have tried to defend it against the criticisms raised by these opponents and strengthen its validity. Beside the old criticisms, recently some Shiite scholars under the name of Maktebe Tafkik, (The Separation School) have raised new criticisms against Aristotelian logic, claiming that this system of logic has been refuted and abandoned in the Academic circles of the West and has been replaced by the scientific method introduced by Francis Bacon. Therefore, based on some faulty arguments, they call for letting Aristotelian logic aside. This article tries to evaluate these claims and show its falsehood.Aristotelian logic, as a part of Islamic philosophy, from the very beginning has been attacked by some opponents amongst Muslims. So, some of Muslim philosophers have tried to defend it against the criticisms raised by these opponents and strengthen its validity. Beside the old criticisms, recently some Shiite scholars under the name of Maktebe Tafkik, (The Separation School) have raised new criticisms against Aristotelian logic, claiming that this system of logic has been refuted and abandoned in the Academic circles of the West and has been replaced by the scientific method introduced by Francis Bacon. Therefore, based on some faulty arguments, they call for letting Aristotelian logic aside. This article tries to evaluate these claims and show its falsehood.https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_133_8a009dd83d465ace05d9071df147a491.pdfUniversity of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522A Critical Examination of UtilitarianismA Critical Examination of Utilitarianism8712613410.22091/pfk.2011.134FAMohammadHoseini SourakiJournal Article20150810Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy, holding that the right course of action are the one that maximizes the overall "good" consequences of the action.It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The theory in the early nineteenth century was put forward and the most influential contributors to utilitarianism are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, we review, evaluate and critique the claims, the principles and the features of this teleological view, focusing on the classic exposition Jeremy Bentham (the founding father of utilitarianism).Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy, holding that the right course of action are the one that maximizes the overall "good" consequences of the action.It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The theory in the early nineteenth century was put forward and the most influential contributors to utilitarianism are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, we review, evaluate and critique the claims, the principles and the features of this teleological view, focusing on the classic exposition Jeremy Bentham (the founding father of utilitarianism).https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_134_a827d0532d357af46b11a99bc6b6aa7e.pdfUniversity of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522The Epistemological Discontinuity of the Philosophical Paradigms from Rorty’s ViewpointThe Epistemological Discontinuity of the Philosophical Paradigms from Rorty’s Viewpoint12714413510.22091/pfk.2011.135FAShahlaIslamiJournal Article20150810In this article, Rorty’s theory of philosophical paradigm is considered in two stages: at first we describe and analyze his historical view about philosophical problems. In this stage, Rorty shows that philosophical history consists of three paradigms; metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of mind, each of which has its own special problems. Rorty pointed with his therapeutic method to the errors of philosophers in applying philosophical problems that related to one paradigm to another one, and he criticized representationalism. After that, his original view about knowledge was considered; he finally comes to this conclusion that philosophical problems should be set aside rather than solved. In the second phase of examining his view, we express some important criticisms including those of Habermas and Tailor. The latter disagrees with Rorty about discontinuity of philosophical paradigm. In the conclusion, Rorty’s view about philosophical paradigms is examined and criticized.In this article, Rorty’s theory of philosophical paradigm is considered in two stages: at first we describe and analyze his historical view about philosophical problems. In this stage, Rorty shows that philosophical history consists of three paradigms; metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of mind, each of which has its own special problems. Rorty pointed with his therapeutic method to the errors of philosophers in applying philosophical problems that related to one paradigm to another one, and he criticized representationalism. After that, his original view about knowledge was considered; he finally comes to this conclusion that philosophical problems should be set aside rather than solved. In the second phase of examining his view, we express some important criticisms including those of Habermas and Tailor. The latter disagrees with Rorty about discontinuity of philosophical paradigm. In the conclusion, Rorty’s view about philosophical paradigms is examined and criticized.https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_135_25cb4c29f21174c558ec86a583ed127c.pdfUniversity of QomJournal of Philosophical Theological Research1735-979112320110522The Relationship between Religion and Ethics in Kant’s ThoughtThe Relationship between Religion and Ethics in Kant’s Thought17019713710.22091/pfk.2011.137FAA.Heidarpour KiaeiJournal Article20150810This article is an attempt to prove that from the viewpoint of Kant, the true religion is the ethics based on pure practical reason. Considering origin and content, this religion differs from divine religion; the ontological role of God also is different. Moral law which is emanated from practical reason determinates the will. According to the pure practical reason, the supreme good is object of moral law; and the condition for its realization is that it must presupposed the existence of Gog who has suitable attributes. In Kant’s view, religion consists in confirming all moral duties as divine commands of wise and free will but not as dogmatic will of Supreme Being.This article is an attempt to prove that from the viewpoint of Kant, the true religion is the ethics based on pure practical reason. Considering origin and content, this religion differs from divine religion; the ontological role of God also is different. Moral law which is emanated from practical reason determinates the will. According to the pure practical reason, the supreme good is object of moral law; and the condition for its realization is that it must presupposed the existence of Gog who has suitable attributes. In Kant’s view, religion consists in confirming all moral duties as divine commands of wise and free will but not as dogmatic will of Supreme Being.https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_137_b19afc636643c285fc6b2464c87aa29f.pdf