The Quarterly Journal of Philosophical Investigations

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای فلسفه دین، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه فلسفه دین، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار گروه فلسفه، دانشگاه تهران

10.22034/jpiut.2020.37483.2479

چکیده

یکی از مهم‌ترین استدلالاتی که به نفع محدودیت شناختی بشر از سوی خداباوران‌شکاک (خداباورانی که قائل به محدویت شناختی بشر در شناخت اهداف و دلایل خداوند هستند) ارائه شده، «تمثیل والدین» استفان ویکستراست. ویکسترا با ارائۀ این استدلال، نشان می‌دهد همان‌طور که کودک نمی‌تواند دلایل والدینش را برای رواداری رنج بداند، آدمی نیز نمی‌تواند از دلایل خداوند برای رواداری رنج آگاه باشد. به همین‌خاطر از نظر او نمی‌توان از نیافتن دلایل خداوند به نبودِ آنها استنتاج کرد. ازاین‌رو استدلال قرینه‌ای شر ناتمام می‌ماند. این استدلال از سوی فیلسوفانی چون بروس راسل و ویلیام رو و ترنت دوئرتی به چالش کشیده شده است. آنها در مقابل این استدلال، «تمثیل والدین مهربان» را عرضه می‌کنند که عکسِ استدلال ویکسترا، مطرح می‌کند والدین عاشق و مهربان در زمان سختی و رنج، کودکشان را تنها نمی‌گذارند یا به طریقی سعی می­کنند تا دلیلِ سختی و رنج را برای کودک روشن کنند. لذا از نظر آنها اگر خداباوری صادق باشد، انتظار می‌رود که این جهان، جهانی شفاف باشد و بتوان به دلایل خداوند پی ‌برد. در این مقاله می‌کوشیم نشان دهیم اساساً «تمثیل والدین» با محدودیت‌هایی مواجه است که نه می‌توان به سودِ خداباوری شکاکانه از آن بهره جست و نه علیه آن. از سوی دیگر ادعای شفافیت منتقدان را نیز نقد خواهیم کرد. در نهایت با پرداختن به استدلالات آلستون نشان خواهیم داد که ادعای محدودیت شناختی از سوی خداباوران شکاک بدون پشتوانه نیست. ملاحظه خواهیم کرد که استدلالات او معتبر است. از این رو، می­توان، ادعای محدودیت شناختی از سوی خداباوران شکاک را موجه دانست.

تازه های تحقیق

-         Alston, William P. (1991)“The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition,” Philosophical Perspectives 5: 29–67.

-         Alston, William P. (1996). “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press) 311–32.

-         Copi, Irving M. (2014). Introduction to Logic. Pearson Education Limited.

-         Dougherty, Trent G. (2012). “Reconsidering the Parent Analogy: Further Work for Skeptical Theists.”International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72(1): 17–25.

-         Draper, Paul. (1996). “The Skeptical Theist.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 175–92.

-         Hick, John. (2007) “Evil and the God of Love”, USA, Palgrave Macmillan.

-         Jordan, Jeff. (2017). “the “Loving Parent” analogy” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion . DOI 10.1007/s11153-017-9623-4

-         McBrayer, Justin. (2004). “Evidential Arguments from Evil and the "Seeability" of Compensating Goods”  In Auslegung: a journal of philosophy, Volume 26, Number 1 (Winter/Spring, 2004), pp. 017-022. ISSN: 0733-4311.

-         Rowe, William. (1979). “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335–41.

-         Rowe, William. (1984). “Evil and the Theistic Hypothesis: A Response to Wykstra.” In International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1984), pp. 95-100

-         Rowe, William. (1991). “Ruminations about Evil.” Philosophical Perspectives5: 69–88.

-         Rowe, William. (1996). “The Evidential Argument from Evil: A Second Look.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).

-         Rowe, William. (2006). “Friendly Atheism, Skeptical Theism, and the Problem of Evil.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 59.

-         Russell, Bruce and Stephen Wykstra. (1988). “The "Inductive" Argument From Evil: A Dialogue” In PHILOSOPHICALTOPICS. Volume XVI, No. 2.

-         Rutledge, Jonatan Curtis. (2017). “The parent analogy: a reassessment” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82:pp 5–14

-         Timothy Perrine and Stephen J. Wykstra. (2017).  “Skeptical Theism”. In. Edited by , Bethel College, Indiana, Paul K. Moser, Loyola University, Chicago Publisher: Cambridge University Press.pp 85-107.

-         Trakakis, Nick. 2007. The God Beyond Belief: In Defence of William Rowe's Evidential Argument from Evil, Springer Netherlands.

-         Wielenberg, Erik. (2015).” The parent–child analogy and the limits of skeptical theism” ” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

-         Wykstra, Stephen J. (1984). “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance’.” International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 16(2): 73–93.

-         Wykstra, Stephen J. (1996). “Rowe’s Noseeum Arguments from Evil.” In The Evidential Problem of Evil. (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 126–50.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Skeptical Theism and Cognitive limitations of Humanity

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeا Saeedi 1
  • AbdolRasoul Kashfi 2
  • AmirAbbas Alizamani 3

1 Ph.D. of Philosophy of Religion, Faculity of Theology and Islamic Studies, Tehran University.

2 Associate Professor, Philosophy of Religion Group, Faculity of Theology and Islamic Studies, Tehran University

3 Associate professor Faculity of Theology and Islamic Studies, University of Tehran-Iran,

چکیده [English]

“Parent analogy” is one of the important arguments that was suggested by Stephen Wykstra, one of the prominent philosopher of Skeptical Theism. By formulating this argument, Wykstra shows that like infant who doesn’t understand reasons of her parent who permit suffering for her, Human being also cannot understand reasons of God who permits suffering. According to this we cannot infer from not seeing the reasons of God to there is no reason for God. Therefore, evidential argument from evil fails. Bruce Russell, William Rowe and Trent Dougherty challenge “parent analogy”. They offer “loving parent analogy” instead. “Loving parent” never leave their child alone in suffering or at least they make clear that there is reason. In their view, if theism is true, it`s expecting that this world be a transparent one and we can understand God`s reasons. In this article we show that parent analogy confront limitations which shows that it can be used neither for Skeptical Theism nor against it. But we show that there are other ways to justify cognitive limitations of human being. For example Alston instead of appeal to parent analogy, offer other analogies and enumerate at least six limitations for human beings. Accordingly, we can say that the claim of cognitive limitation form the view of Skeptical Theism is justified

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Skeptical Theism
  • Cognitive limitations
  • parent analogy
  • Stephen Wykstra
  • William Alston
  • Progress analogy
-         Alston, William P. (1991)“The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition,” Philosophical Perspectives 5: 29–67.
-         Alston, William P. (1996). “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press) 311–32.
-         Copi, Irving M. (2014). Introduction to Logic. Pearson Education Limited.
-         Dougherty, Trent G. (2012). “Reconsidering the Parent Analogy: Further Work for Skeptical Theists.”International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72(1): 17–25.
-         Draper, Paul. (1996). “The Skeptical Theist.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 175–92.
-         Hick, John. (2007) “Evil and the God of Love”, USA, Palgrave Macmillan.
-         Jordan, Jeff. (2017). “the “Loving Parent” analogy” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion . DOI 10.1007/s11153-017-9623-4
-         McBrayer, Justin. (2004). “Evidential Arguments from Evil and the "Seeability" of Compensating Goods”  In Auslegung: a journal of philosophy, Volume 26, Number 1 (Winter/Spring, 2004), pp. 017-022. ISSN: 0733-4311.
-         Mirbagheri, Mohammad Ali؛ Abbas Yazdani and Amirabbas Alizamani. (2018) “CORNEA under magnifier: an assessment of usability of CORNEA against William Rowe’s evidential argument from gratuitous evil” In The Journal of "Hekmat e Mo'aser" (Contemporary Wisdom) of IHCS. {In Persian}
-         Nabavi, Lotfollah. (2010). The Elaments of Logic and Methodology. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University, Central Publication of Scientific Works. {In Persian}
-         Rowe, William. (1979). “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335–41.
-         Rowe, William. (1984). “Evil and the Theistic Hypothesis: A Response to Wykstra.” In International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1984), pp. 95-100
-         Rowe, William. (1991). “Ruminations about Evil.” Philosophical Perspectives5: 69–88.
-         Rowe, William. (1996). “The Evidential Argument from Evil: A Second Look.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press).
-         Rowe, William. (2006). “Friendly Atheism, Skeptical Theism, and the Problem of Evil.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 59.
-         Russell, Bruce and Stephen Wykstra. (1988). “The "Inductive" Argument From Evil: A Dialogue” In PHILOSOPHICALTOPICS. Volume XVI, No. 2.
-         Rutledge, Jonatan Curtis. (2017). “The parent analogy: a reassessment” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82:pp 5–14
-         Saeedi, Fateme ؛ Abdolrasul Kashfi and Amir Abbas Alizamani. (2019) “Critical Consideration of Bergmann’s Skeptical Theism and Moral Skepticism Impasse” In Jostarha-ye Falsafe-ye Din (Philosophy of Religion). {In Persian}
-         Shahriyari, Shima؛ Mohammad Mohammad Rezai and Mohsen Javadi. (2019) “William Rowe's Evidential Argument from Evil and the Skeptical Theists Responses” In Philosophy of Religion. 10.22059/JPHT.2019.266801.1005601. {In Persian}
-         The Book of Job. Persian Report by Qasem Hashemi Nezhad. (2017) Tehran: Hermes Publication. {In Persian}
-         Timothy Perrine and Stephen J. Wykstra. (2017).  “Skeptical Theism”. In. Edited by , Bethel College, IndianaPaul K. MoserLoyola University, Chicago Publisher: Cambridge University Press.pp 85-107.
-         Trakakis, Nick. 2007. The God Beyond Belief: In Defence of William Rowe's Evidential Argument from Evil, Springer Netherlands.
-         Wielenberg, Erik. (2015).” The parent–child analogy and the limits of skeptical theism” ” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
-         Wykstra, Stephen J. (1984). “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance’.” International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 16(2): 73–93.
-         Wykstra, Stephen J. (1996). “Rowe’s Noseeum Arguments from Evil.” In The Evidential Problem of Evil. (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 126–50.
CAPTCHA Image