Al-Daleel

Nowadays, scholars and philosophers, who are enthusiastic for science, try their best to make scientism as a basis for contemporary man’s culture. These efforts are often accompanied by persistent efforts made by the pioneers of contemporary atheism to exploit this tendency, which is strongly supported by atheists, in order to confirm their worldview. The main purpose of this study is not to trace the consequences that may inflict man’s existence and fate because of such a worldview, but it will focus on criticizing the logical and epistemological foundations, upon which such attempts and efforts are based, in order to show the defect of scientism as a basis for the attempts of obliterating religion, deluding man, and abolishing the independence of human sciences.

The issue of mind and mental states and the relation between them is one of the most important and complicated issues that have occupied contemporary philosophers of mind. Many important questions have been raised in this concern, such as: Is mind or soul a material reality or it is beyond matter? Are mental states the same as brain states, or they are different and immaterial? Philosophers have so widely differed on answering these questions. In this study, we discuss the opinions of Islamic and Western philosophical schools on this subject in a comparative method. Muslim philosophers have agreed on the abstractness of the soul and the states of the soul, and that these states are symptoms of the existence of mental essence or its affairs. But as for Western philosophers, they emphasize man’s duality and the abstractness of mind. in contrast, there is a large number of Western philosophers who, despite their agreement in their physical and material view about mind, differ extensively in the details of that. It is worth mentioning that physicalism leads to consequences and effects on personal identity and the purpose of creation and life after death.

One of the issues put forward for discussion in the philosophy of religion in our contemporary world is the problem of the relation between science and religion and the contradiction that appears between them. This matter is one of the problems that have occupied the scholars and thinkers’ minds since the Western Renaissance at least. It has occupied an important and serious position in the studies that tried to find a solution to this problem. This article tries to provide a quick overall look at the most important issues related to this problem, following an analytical, critical approach, by giving a general discussion of the most important Western views that have dealt with and provided solutions to the problem of the relation between (experimental) science and (monotheism) religion, such as the opinion of the complete independence and distinction between science and religion, and the opinions of interaction and contradiction, and, then, offering the opinion that can be adopted as a solution to this problem.

God has created man, perfected his creation, made him His deputy on earth, honored him and favored him over all other creatures. The loftiest sign of this honoring was that God had given man a great opportunity to be perfect and ready for creativity, and be spiritually and morally sublime. In order for man to get to this high rank, God has imposed a set of obligations upon him, and revealed to him a set of teachings and commandments to do, and ordered him to avoid doing many things else. The Holy Qur’an is full of divine obligations and prohibitions. Opposite to these obligations, orders and prohibitions, many questions have been raised about their viability and purposes. Are they inconsistent with human reason and the nature of human life, or not? How can they, with their fixed patterns, comply with all ages and coincide with different times? There are many answers to these questions, especially the question of obligation as an integral part of the religious system firstly, and secondly, the relevance of this question to the explanation of Divine action and the philosophy of the actual characteristic of God, and its connection with the urgent questions and contemporary spurious arguments that have accompanied legislation, religious rulings, and divine obligations, thirdly.

Quantum explanation of the divine act is one of the many explanations that have been put forward through recent decades to explain special divine actions in nature, such as miracles. Although the divine act, according to this explanation, does not result in the violation of natural laws, but it makes the external world subject to its influence. So, this explanation has come to be among other explanations after being confirmed by many and in different ways, the most famous and popular one of which is John Robert Russell’s. This article tries to give a brief introduction to quantum mechanics and the explanation suggested by the Copenhagen School for this mechanics. In addition, the article analyzes John Robert Russell\'s report on the quantum explanation of divine action, showing the most important objections to it, including its connection to a special explanation of quantum mechanics, and the fact that this claim is not evidenced and it just makes the problem more complicated. Although this explanation may give answers to some of the problems, it is not possible to accept them in their present form; because the direct influence of God on nature is not possible according to the famous foundations in Islamic philosophy.

There is a serious conflict between reason and faith since the Age of Enlightenment until present era. In order to show the relation between reason and religion, British mathematician William Clifford proposed the theory of Evidentialism. Based on this theory, religious beliefs cannot be accepted unless sufficient evidences and indications are established to support and confirm them; otherwise, they are rejected. The belief in anything is false if it is not based on sufficient evidences, arguments and indications. Evidentialism rejects the plausibility of religious beliefs and holds that they do not have sufficient rational evidences. There is a countertheory to Evidentialism called \"Fideism\". It emphasizes that religious doctrinal system is not subject to rational evaluation. So, every effort and attempt to prove religious beliefs by rational evidence, like proving the belief in the existence of God, would fail; because the field of religious beliefs is not a field for reason and reasoning. However, the domain of religious beliefs is not but love, emotions and feelings. In this study, we discuss both theories of Evidentialism and Fideism, following the analytical rational approach. we criticize and evaluate them, and then suggest moderate rationalism instead.

The issue of evil is one of the serious arguments cited by the atheist movement to prove the non-existence of God. Philosophers and theologians have tried to give an answer to this question throughout the ages. Western philosophy used to adopt apologetic and theodistic answer that proved divine justice, whereas Islamic philosophy had its own way between proving and denying the existence of evil through evidences and arguments. Moral Perceptions Theory is one of the important theories that did not discuss the existence or non-existence of evil, but rather, the theory discussed the origin of evil and showed its reality and nature. Although the theory proves the morality of a number of concepts, these concepts have many implications in reality. As this theory paves the way for a new perspective and a new answer to the question of evil and its existence in the world, the moral existence of evil does not contradict the logical question of evil or the divine existence. The article discusses the problem of evil through showing it in Western and Islamic philosophy, and then discusses the theory of moral perceptions, defining its origins, pillars and mechanism. Then, through the descriptive, analytical approach, the article explans of how to give an answer to the problem of evil through the theory of moral perceptions.

Since the first centuries, the viewpoints of Islamic thinkers about determining the relation between reason and transmission (of Hadith) have diversified. Consequently, various trends have appeared in the scientific arena, from extremist textual trend, extremist rational trend to the moderate rational textual trend. Each one of them tried to determine the kind of the relation between them on the methodological foundations in which they believe. The questions being discussed here are the following: What position reason has in religious texts? How can we benefit from religious texts to enrich reason? Through the descriptive, analytical approach, we have tried to answer these questions. We have concluded that legal texts reject the extremist textual trend, and do not support the extremist rational trend, but rather, they adopt the third trend which says that fixed transmission and evidentiary reason are both divine arguments. The first is an apparent argument and the second is an esoteric argument, for religion is sometime demonstrated through reason, and other time, by transmission. However, in many questions and partial branches, reason needs religious texts.