چکیده :
آنچه که در این تحقیق مورد نظر بوده نشان دادن اصول و مبانی نظری سیر استدلالیِ آراء و نظرات دینی مصباح یزدی و ملکیان، با مراجعه به آثار مکتوبشان می باشد.
نتایج حاصله این بوده که مصباح با رویکردی فلسفی – کلامی به دفاع عقلانی از حقانیت انحصاری دین می پردازد، دینی که کمال و سعادت انسانی درگرو ایمان آوردن و مطابقت تمام جنبه های فردی و اجتماعی انسان با آن می باشد.
ایمانی که مسبوق به علم یقینی به باورهای دینی و التزام عملی بر آنها است.
مصباح را که می توان قائل به عقلانیت و شناخت حداکثری دانست، معتقد است می توان با عقل فلسفی مدعیات اصلی دین یعنی توحید، نبوت و معاد را اثبات کرد،گرچه به منبع دیگری به نام وحی، جهت تحصیل معارف ماوراء عقلی ،که از حجیت عقلانی برخوردار است، نیز نیاز است.
از نظر وی به غیر از برخی از معارف دینی (ظنیات و معارف فرعی )، اکثر شان (قطعیات و یقینیات و معارف اصلی دین)،ثابت وتغییرناپذیرند، که بین آنها و نظریات علمی و فلسفی هیچگونه تعارضی وجود ندارد.
وی زبان دین را واقعنما و معنادار دانسته که با قواعد و اصول محاوره ای و عقلانی می توان به فهم صحیح و واحدی از دین رسید.
اما ملکیان که با رویکرد فلسفه دین و پراگماتیستی به تحقیق عقلانی و روان شناسانه دین می پردازد با قرائت معنویت گرایانه از دین، کارکرد دین را تنها به جنبه فردی و نیازهای وجودی و در جهت کاستن برخی از درد و رنجهائی که با ابتنای به علوم و معارف بشری قابل رفع نیست، معطوف می سازد.
وی که می توان او را قائل به عقلانیت و شناخت انتقادی دانست، مدعی است که مدعیات دینی نه خرد پذیرند و نه خرد ستیز، بلکه خرد گریزند،که متعلق ایمان قرار می گیرند نه متعلق علم و با توجه به دلایلی که اقامه می کند، معتقد است که هم دین و هم معرفت دینی متحول اند که باید بر اساس قواعد هرمنوتیک آنها را فهمید که با توجه به مجموعه یک شرایط اجتماعی و تاریخی و پیش فرضها ذهنی دخیل در فهم دین، دین قابلیت فهمهای مختلف را می یابد.
در نسبت بین دین و علم، وی دین و علم را از دو مقوله جداگانه با کارکردهای متفاوت می داند و در حقیقت با هم تقابلی نمی یابند تا تعارضی بین آنها پیش بیاید و تعارضهائی هم که وجود دارد ظاهری است و با رجوع به باطن دین قابل رفع است.
از طرفی هم به علت تحقیق ناپذیری علمی و فلسفی وحی و گزاره های وحیانی، وحی حجیت معرفت شناختی نیز ندارد
this research is emphasized on seeking to find out the theoretical principles and basis and comparing the ideas and views of malekiyan and mesbah based upon their written works including books, essays and papers in the area of religions and religious thoughts.
the religious approach of these two reflectives is addressed in the first section of this research.
it is shown that the religious approach of mesbah is a philosophical and theological as well as realistic approach.
as an apologist and theologian, he is trying to present a rational defense of exclusive truth of religions and religious interpretations.
in this approach religion in its special meaning, that is revealed religions specially islam, is meant.
on the other hand, it’s shown that religious approach of malekiyan is a philosophical and psychological as well as pragmatic one.
he is trying to present a rational research of religion and religions interpretations.
in his approach religion in its general meaning, including all religions whether revealed or non-revealed, are focused.
the second section, which is religion section, is expressed that mesbah, concerning to anthropological basis, believes that humans in order to reach to perfection have to compatible themselves with the religion, as necessity of wisdom of god for the aim of human creation and is sent from god and by prophets for perfection and prosperity of human being, on the basis of his approach, religion includes the entire of individual, social, cultural, political, economical, ethical dimensions, which is completely in opposition to modern thoughts of humanism, secularism, liberalism and democracy.
but malekiyan believes that religion is only for remove or reduce of those human sufferings that are impossible for them to resolve through other solutions.
to him, the mail goals of religion include inner transformation and reconstruction of human beings and therefore deepen ethical and moral aspects of them, and not all of them.
he believes in a spiritual interpretation of religion in which religion can harmonize itself with modern world’s characters.
otherwise, religion is unworkable and ineffective for the modern world through a tradition understanding.
in the third section, their description of faith is explained.
to mesbah, faith is precedent of understanding and knowledge, that is, practical undertaking to which they are informed.
but to malekiyan, faith is out of the area of knowledge as a justified truthful belief, but it is believe to unreasonable belief that according to epistemology, it is neither provable nor defeasible.
in the forth section that is devoted to religious epistemology it’s explained that mesbah known as one who believes in utmost intellectuality, believes that human beings can prove the main claims of religion, that is unity of god, prophecy, eschatology, through reason as the most important resource of epistemology.
but in addition to reason, human beings also needs to another epistemological resource called revealed because achieving to some knowledge is impossible solely by reason and he believes in reveal that its epistemological justification is proven by reason.
but to malekiyan whose epistemology is known as critical cognitivism, believes that none of religions claims are neither provable nor defeasible according to epistemology and he doesn’t believe any epistemological justification for reveal.
regarding to the development of religion epistemology it is explained that mesbah, except to some of detailed religious knowledge that is suspicions, believes that the most of religious knowledge are static and unchangeable and permanent.
he calls them as certainty of religion.
but malekiyan believes in changeability of both religion and religious epistemology.
regarding to the language of religion, mesbah believes the language of religion is meaningful and realistic which can be understood based on the common and rational principles and therefore, a unit interpretation of religion can be concluded.
but malekiyan stresses more on symbolic language of religion and believes that religion should be understood by harmonistic methods.
and religion can be interpreted and understood diversely, concerning to conditions, preoccupation and pre-knowledge involving in understanding of religion.
it’s stated in relation between religion and knowledge that mesbah believes there is no inconsistency between them and they are compatible in certainty regarding to precise observation of methodology.
but malekiyan first believes that religion and knowledge are two different factors, each of them have its own function and believes that religion is not for stating the practical, historical and rational facts.
second, since the religious claims can not be examined by any of humanistic knowledge, therefore, there is no epistemological justification for religious and revelation interpretations