Investigation and Analysis of the Philosophical Foundations of the Issue of Religious Realism and Non-Realism with Emphasis on Peter Byrne’s Point of View

This article, emphasizing Peter Byrne’s thought, one of the most important figures of contemporary religious philosophy, in addition to explaining his views on realism and non-realism as well as theism, religion, and theology, analyzes the philosophical foundations of this issue. Byrne’s critical approach to various dimensions of non-realism contains a fundamental distinction between theism and theology in adopting a realist and non-realist point of view about them; considering the separation of the two fields of theology and theism, he believes in the unrealistic nature of liberal theology as an academic discipline and the realism of religion, God, and theistic discourse; the purpose of the theistic discourse refers to an extra-mental, extra-mundane, transcendent entity. Ultimately, has analyzed the philosophical foundations of this issue; and Peter Byrne’s brief reference in examining the origin of the distinction between realism and non-realism, and also highlighted the modern non-realistic interpretation of religion, and in addition to analyzing the roots of the problem of religious realism and non-realism and by emphasizing the relationship between subject and object-especially in Kant’s philosophy, he has reviewed this philosophical foundation in the opinion of Peter Byrne.
 
 
 
Introduction
Peter Byrne is a professor of philosophy of religion and ethics at King’s College, London, and editor of the International Journal of Religious Studies in the field of philosophy of religion. The main focus of his research and studies is the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of ethics. This article tries to explain and analyze religious realism and non-realism and their philosophical foundations, considering Peter Byrne’s approach to the field of philosophy of religion. What is religious realism and non-realism? Do religion, religious propositions, religious beliefs, God, holy matter, etc. imply something real? Or is it just a representation of the human mind, history, and culture and has no external reality? Byrne’s answer to this problem is that he considers religion, God, and belief in God to be realistic and he believes in the unrealistic nature of liberal theology. In his works, he also makes a brief reference to Kant’s thought as the root of theological non-realism and in general, the formation of the distinction between realism and non-realism. This article, while examining and analyzing the roots of religious realism and non-realism, also criticizes it.
Peter Byrne’s realist and non-realist views on theism, religion, and theology
In Peter Byrne’s view, realism means that the concept of God and religion refers to a transcendent and sacred entity beyond us and the world. However, non-realism, for them, does not consider a reality beyond the representations of the subject. He says: “One can interpret theism realistically while interpreting theology non-realistically. One can take the realist intent of theism seriously without taking the realist intent of theology seriously” (Byrne, 2003, p. IX).
He believes that “it is of the essence of religion in general and of theism in particular to attempt to refer to realities which exist beyond human representations” (Byrne, 2003, p. IX), and in Byrne’s opinion “all major religions make a common reference to the transcendent” (Byrne, 1995, p. 57). He also compared theology with natural sciences. “He offers a clear analysis of the problem, criticizes some of the major proponents of anti-realism, and defends his own view that theology is not properly understood as a realistic science” (Legenhausen, 2003). “He argues that the tradition exhibits no accumulation of insight into the nature and workings of God – that one could not claim to know anything more about the nature of God today than did the early Church Fathers” (Eshleman, 2005). He believes that “God is not an object among objects, an existent among existents” (Byrne, 1980, p. 4). So in his view, theism as a belief, action, and attitude centered on symbols that refer to Theos (God) is realistic, and theology as the theoretical, systematic exploration and adumbration of such belief, action, and attitude is non-realistic.
Philosophical foundations of the issue of religious realism and non-realism
In the analysis of this brief mention of Byrne, we can be guided to the issue that Byrne’s belief about the non-realistic nature of theology is formed by looking at the criticism of Kant’s thought and the relationship between subject and object. He says: “The roots of many of the themes in realist versus anti-realist debates lie in philosophical attempts from Kant onwards to tell us what the limits of knowledge and sense are” (Byrne, 2003, p. 3).
Therefore, the proposal for this issue is based on a change in human thought and understanding that started from the Renaissance period. Byrne says: “My interpretation will emphasize the subjectivist strands in Kant’s treatment of religion, even while it acknowledges contrary tendencies toward objectivism. These are strands that make the truth and meaning of religious affirmations relative to human needs. In the jargon of contemporary philosophy of religion, there is a strongly anti-realist thrust in Kant on God” (Byrne, 2007, p. 5). So one of the foundations of realism and non-realism is modern epistemology. The evolution in the structure of the system of knowledge and cognition and its limits is one of the important elements of the new philosophy, which has reached its perfection in Kant’s critical philosophy. This issue indicates one of the most important historical developments of the new period and it is one of the principles of realism and non-realism. With this incident, in the new thinking and also considering the separation of noumenon and phenomenon in Kant’s view, the possibility of knowing the per se reality of objects has been ruled out, and human knowledge is focused only on the phenomenal aspect of things. Also, this knowledge is not the knowledge of the object, but the coordination of the object with the prior information of the subject’s understanding (Clarke et al, 1993, p. 86).
Criticism of the philosophical foundations of the issue of religious realism and non-realism

Thought is a historical thing and its critique should also respecthistory.
Byrne’s thought is on the border of the critique of modern epistemology and liberal theology and on the threshold of a transition in the system of knowledge.
Seeing theology as unrealistic for Byrne is associated with Kant’s critique.
The discussion of religious realism and non-realism be accomplished in the field of modernity and its critique can open a way to the future; based on the foundations of modern philosophy, including Kant’s critique and considering our traditions and historical inheritances.

Conclusion
In the aegis of the relevance that a human being instates for existence, and with his understanding of it, history emerges and becomes consistent. During the Renaissance, the modern human being found another relation with existence; different from the previous human ratio, this change of respect is associated with the transition in the system of cognition, that is, the emergence of the subject and the dissolution of the object in the subject. In the postmodern era, with the critique of modern thinking, this all-encompassing absolutism of the subject is coming to an end. Because the critique of modern thought appears as a historical critique on the horizon of thinkers; it seems that by regarding the historical inheritances of the East, it is possible to find another relevance with existence and open a way to the future of history from this closed horizon.