نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش آموخته دکتری فلسفه دانشگاه تهران
2 دانشیار گروه فلسفه دانشکده الهیات پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The contemporary world is embroiled in an antirational-irrational form of fideism; the most important factors are the human need for a full commitment based on faith, and the inability to find a final answer through the empirical sciences and secular political movements. In this essay, we read Hume with the same approach. Contrary to what has been stated in most accounts, that Hume intends to make arguments against the existence of God, his aim is to attack the claim that religious propositions can be argued; not a complete rejection of these propositions. He considers religious propositions epistemologically outside human knowledge, but ontologically he accepts the existence of God. With such a view, we can dismiss the atheistic-agnostic interpretations and relate him to kind of mystical-fidesim. The key to deciding whether or not Hume is a fidesit, is to determine what criteria we have to consider someone as a fideist? Two very influential components here are: (1) to believe in the existence of God; and (2) to believe that the existence of God is far from our usual reasoning. These two questions show the classical statement of fideism: What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? With acceptance of No. 2 and without No. 1 Wittgenstein has been called a fidiest! Why do we consider Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein to be fideist? And not Hume?! What if Hume’s skepticism is a solution to weaken rationalism and strengthen fideism and opposition to popular natural theology in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? In this study, we show that Hume, based on the text of his works, crosses beyond skepticism, and manifests a special kind of fideism. We observed the clues of Hume’s fideism in his epistemology, and in his philosophy of religion (in the origin of religion, in arguments for the existence of God, in the problem of evil). At the same time, there is an emphasis on the mystery of the proposition that God exists, he represents the Christian faith as inextricably intertwined with irrational and mysterious propositions such as the incarnation of God. In Dialogues, Demea accepts religion and a priori arguments but rejects the philosophical and rational interventions based on empirical evidence. Also, Philo is skeptic to natural theology and systematic religion but not to the religion itself; because he accepts the existence of God in the last paragraphs of the book. The evidence for Hume's fideism is: (I) an explicit acknowledgment of a cause for order in the world in the text of his works; (II) Hume's acceptance of God's properties; (III) his acceptance of the order of the world; and (IV) solutions that Hume made for the problem of evil. Let's take a moment to think about Hume and put the following statements together: Introduction I: God exists. Introduction II: The existence of God cannot be proved by rational arguments; such as the argument from design, the cosmological argument, the miracle argument, etc. Conclusion: The way to accept the existence of God is not rational, but antirational-irrational. If these propositions are true about person A, we have no way to call person A a fideist, and a mystic. Hume should be called a Christian mystic; because he said the same thing that this person A said; but for him, because of the preassumptions we have, it is difficult to accept being a mystic-fideist.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله