In the name of Allah Invitation theory: explaining the argumentation for or against the religious beliefs Reza Akbari Imam Sadiq University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© Michael Lacewing Knowing God through Feeling Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

Divine Command The Role of Religious Belief in Moral Reasoning.
Western Worldview #3. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, others, all share a belief in God, or something very much like God, the grounding of all.
Faith & Reason: Kierkegaard, Clifford, & Aquinas ~ slide 1
PHIL/RS 335 The Evidential Challenge. Flew, “The Presumption”  Flew begins with a distinction fundamental to his understanding of the stakes.  It’s.
Introduction to Philosophy
The Wager: It is more rational to believe in God than not to believe 1)If God exists and you believe: infinite reward. If God exists Blaise Pascal ( )
Faith and evidence Philosophy of Religion 2008 Lecture 7.
© Michael Lacewing Faith without reason? Michael Lacewing
Ross Arnold, Winter 2015 Lakeside institute of Theology The Existence of God II February 20, 2015.
Christian Philosophy and Applied Ethics. Is something boring because of it or because of you?
Deontological & Consequential Ethics
Faith & Reason: Kierkegaard, Clifford, & Aquinas ~ slide 1
Perspectives on Religious Belief: Evidentialism-1  Definition: belief in God must be supported by objective evidence  Natural theology: attempt to prove.
Philosophy of Religion What is religion? “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as.
Pascal’s Wager. Epistemic Reasons Epistemic reasons to believe are related to truth. If I believe there is a God because I think the evidence supports.
Aquinas’ Proofs The five ways.
Section 6.3 Faith and Meaning Believing the Unbelievable.
THE EVIDENTIAL CHALLENGE: FLEW’S A-THEISM PHIL/RS 335.
Section 6.3 Faith and Meaning Believing the Unbelievable McGraw-Hill © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.
Unit 3: Believing in God In this unit you will learn about what Christians believe about God and how they come to believe this, and why some people do.
Basic Framework of Normative Ethics. Normative Ethics ‘Normative’ means something that ‘guides’ or ‘controls’ ‘Normative’ means something that ‘guides’
Faith & Reason: introduction & Kierkegaard, Clifford, Aquinas ~ slide 1 Religious faith & reason: general introduction lThe philosophical issues of religious.
Does God Exist? Does God Exist?
Philosophical Problems January 11, 2015 Pascal's Wager.
Philosophy of Religion What is religion? “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as.
Philosophical Answers to the BIG Questions. Try to imagine what it would be like to be God at the moment of creation. Notice that you have been alone.
Proof of God’s existence. Aim To have an understanding of the different ways people try to prove that God exists.
Cosmological Argument We are learning to … ■ Understand what the cosmological argument is. ■ Look at what we believe in class.
Morality and the Moral Life. Ethics (moral philosophy): The study of morality using the methods of philosophy. Morality: Our beliefs about right and wrong.
Aquinas’ Proofs The five ways. Thomas Aquinas ( ) Joined Dominican order against the wishes of his family; led peripatetic existence thereafter.
Philosophy Here and Now: chapter two
Philosophy of Religion
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
PHI 208 Course Extraordinary Success tutorialrank.com
Ethics and Values for Professionals Chapter 2: Ethical Relativism
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1
Review the article “How to be an Agnostic”
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
The evidential problem of evil
Science, faith, and reason
Matt Slick debating techniques: part 2
Michael Lacewing Mackie’s error theory Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil
Theory of Knowledge Review
The Religious Point of View
Arguments and Proofs Learning Objective:
Descartes, Meditations 1 and 2
Natural Law – Bernard Hoose’s Proportionalism
Ethics:.
Reformed Epistemology
Jez Echevarría 6th September 2013
The analogy of the Arrow
Christianity Theme 3 E Specification Content
How to Respond to Religious Disagreement
What is the difference between a sign and a symbol?
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
What does the word ‘box’ mean?
Natural Law – Bernard Hoose’s Proportionalism
Christian Apologetics
The Argument from Miracles
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons: Pt. 1.
THEOLOGY AND FALSIFICATION
THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL.
Epistemology What is knowledge? and How do we know things?
Revision Beliefs about God
Argument for the existence of God
Religious faith and emotion
Traditional Ethical Theories
Philosopher’s Views on
Presentation transcript:

In the name of Allah Invitation theory: explaining the argumentation for or against the religious beliefs Reza Akbari Imam Sadiq University

What does happen in religious epistemology? 1. A theist who involves in religious epistemology does something like these: Trying to show that religious beliefs especially the existence of God have justifications Trying to show that religious beliefs especially the existence of God have warrant. Trying to show that believers are rational in their religious beliefs especially their belief in the existence of God.

What does happen in religious epistemology? 2. An atheist who involves in religious epistemology does something like these: Trying to show that religious beliefs especially the existence of God have no justification Trying to show that religious beliefs especially the existence of God have no warrant. Trying to show that believers have no rationality in their religious beliefs especially their belief in the existence of God.

What are the theists and atheists’ approaches to religious beliefs? Evidentialism: we should have evidence for our beliefs to be justified there are at least two kinds of evidentialism Approach that relies on probabilistic argumentation Recall Swinburne’s Bayesian approach to the existence of God Recall Martin’s Bayesian approach for denying the existence of God Approach that relies on deductive argumentation Recall Avicenna and Aquinas’ approach to the existence of God (argument from necessity and contingency-five ways) Recall Mackie’s approach for denying the existence of God

What are the theists and atheists’ approaches to religious beliefs? 2. Fideism: we don’t need any argument to be justified in our religious belief there are at least two kinds of fideism: Any evidence especially historical is harmful for religious beliefs. Recall Kierkegaard Any argument is irrelevant to religious beliefs. Recall late Wittgenstein and wittgensteinian fideists such as D. Z. Phillips and Norman Malcolm

What are the theists and atheists’ approaches to religious beliefs? 3. Reformed epistemology: Although some arguments are good and useful, but believers don't need any argument for their religious beliefs. Recall Plantinga’s approach in his trilogy on warranted Christian beliefs and Motahhari’s theory about fitrah Note that in contrast with this theistic approach, we can consider A. Flew’s approach to atheism in which the burden of proof is on theist’s claim that God exists.

What are the theists and atheists’ approaches to religious beliefs? 4. prudentialism: practical reasoning is a good instrument to have religious beliefs Recall Pascal’s wager Recall James article against W. K. Clifford.

Why do theists and atheists take these approaches to religious beliefs? Think about these questions: Why does a theist or atheist give us arguments? Why does a theist or atheist write articles, books and so on? Why does a theist or atheist participate in conferences? Why does a theist or atheist give us a meta justification to show that he doesn’t need any argument for his belief?

Trying to find an answer for this serious question finding a correct answer for this serious question requires us to notice these important truths 1.Knowledge is an epistemic entity that has a close relation to our psychological and social life 2. Our epistemic faculties grow in a social epistemic circumstances. 3. When we are thinking about an object our feelings and emotions involve like our epistemic faculties. It seems that we choose the object of our thinking voluntarily. 4. By ‘voluntarily’ I don’t mean direct epistemic voluntarism but indirect epistemic voluntarism. Our form of life construct and develop our existence.

Trying to find an answer for this serious question 5.Using Mulla Sadra’s philosophical principles we can say that human being is the only existent who constructs his own existence including epistemic faculties, emotions, feelings and so on. 6. According to simplicity of existence there is no distinct components in an existence. We are who abstract distinct notions when we confront epistemically with an existence. So epistemic faculties, emotions, feelings and so on are different notions which are abstracted from a single existence which we call human being

Offering an answer for this serious quastion In any circumstances including religious beliefs man manifests his existence Every human being has his own historical background which differs from others’. It shows that every human being has his distinct existence. In any circumstances including religious beliefs there are many distinct manifestations of human beings (from 1 and 2) Metaphorically every human being is like a fountain of light. The power, shape and content of the fountain determine the power and brightness of the light.

Offering an answer for this serious question Some people invite others to themselves. It could be said that they have epistemic egoism or better to say existential egoism. They make use of every instrument for their purpose including argument, good deeds, kindness in behavior toward others. Some people feel obliged to help others in achieving good life that contains in their perspective religious beliefs. This is a kind of moral-epistemic deontologism

Offering an answer for this serious question Some people think that their life get better if they help other to achieve good life. Here we are encountering moral-epistemic utilitarianism Some people are virtuous. They work hardly for the purpose of truth itself.

Offering an answer for this serious question But regardless of differences in these approach one thing is common between them: existential invitation

Thank you very much