metempsychosis is the concept of the transmigration of a human or animal soul into another human, animal, plant, or even an inanimate object. The theory of metempsychosis poses a challenge to the belief in resurrection (maʿād), making it necessary to reject metempsychosis before proving maʿād. Avicenna presents two arguments against metempsychosis. The first argument, found in numerous works, rejects metempsychosis on the grounds that it requires the union of two soul s within a single body. Avicenna alludes to the second (...) argument in his Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat but postpones its full explanation to another unspecified work. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Fakhr al-Din Razi, and Qutb al-Din Razi have proposed different interpretations of this second argument. The variations in interpretation revolve around the number of implications Avicenna expressed for this modus ponendo and his reasons for rejecting them. Among these interpretations, only Qutb al-Din Razi's aligns more closely with Avicenna's original words. In the other two interpretations, there are either deficiencies or excesses compared to Avicenna's work. (shrink)

Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its (...) essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals. (shrink)

One of the components of John Cottingham's thinking - a contemporary English philosopher - in the relationship between reason and religion, is the distinction between the field of science and religion. He has presented this distinction in two parts: the type of issues in the field of science and religion, and The method of inference in the field of science and religion. According to Cottingham, religious issues are related to outside the field of human knowledge, and the way of debunking (...) them is not the way of debunking the best explanation in empirical sciences; Because despite the problem of evil, theistic hypothesis cannot be considered as the best explanation for the phenomena of the world. His proposed model for the field of religion is the legal model; That is, the fact that the explanation presented is not incompatible with empirical evidence is enough to justify religious belief. He considers his point of view between extreme faithism and pseudo-scientific inferentialism. This view is criticized in several ways; Including: 1. Failure to pay attention to the function of secondary philosophical concepts in understanding the metaphysical dimension of the world of matter and abstractions, 2. The problem of "ignoring", 3. The inefficiency of the proposed model with regard to the issue of evil. (shrink)

John Cottingham focuses on two types of religious experience: general religious experience and specific religious experience. According to him, general experiences do not require special and complex education, scientific research or philosophical theorizing, but are a simple act of accepting a gift. Of course, unlike everyday observations, such experiences are not available to everyone and their realization requires special conditions. Regarding specific religious experiences, he also believes that when dealing with parts of the Bible that contain reports of such experiences, (...) one should neither have a naturalistic or demythologizing approach, nor an appearance-oriented approach; Rather, these verses should be interpreted in such a way that both its amazing content is preserved and this content does not conflict with modern science. Using the basics of Islamic philosophy, this work has a critical review of both parts of his view. The result of these criticisms is that due to the personal nature of evidences from religious experiences, the epistemological guarantee of these experiences is obtained through the rational and revelatory method. And based on this, these experiences cannot be considered as an independent path alongside the rational and revelatory path. Also, the observation of specific religious experiences is not a sensory observation and occurs in the container of human imagination and fantasy, without being a part of these experiences, they have become a characteristic of the self. (shrink)

As a contemporary neo-Sadraian philosopher, Muhaqeq Isfahani has proposed his own account of the ontological argument for the existence of Allah. This account of the argument is unprecedented and has caught the attention of many contemporary thinkers. There have been proposed five accounts of this argument upon three pivots. First is the concept of necessary being as a mental concept. Second is the concept of necessary being so far as it denotes something beyond the concept. And third is the very (...) reality of necessary being existing by itself in the outside world. Each of the above accounts is open to some criticisms. Prof. Mahdi Ha’iri Yazdi has leveled four criticisms at that account of the argument such as counter-argument, begging the question, the confusion of categorical proposition with non-categorical one. The proponents of ontological argument have raised objections to Ha’iri’s criticisms. Most of those objections are not valid for they stem from the insufficient consideration of the fact that concepts such as “necessary being”, “God”, “partner of Creator” and the like are philosophical secondary intelligible. Accordingly, most of Prof. Ha’iri’s criticisms against Muhaqeq Ishafani are valid and thus the ontological argument fails to prove the existence of Allah. (shrink)