جستجوي پيشرفته | کتابخانه مجازی الفبا

Neither the Ash‘arites nor Kierkegaard’s systems of theology are anti-rational, for Kierkegaard regards the contradiction present in the object of faith as absolute rather than logical, suggesting thereby the existential dialectics for understanding this contradiction instead of resolving it. The Ash‘arites also hold that one can understand the existence of God through absolute reason, or reason that is not commanded by shar‘ (religion), yet such understanding does not lead to any practical outcome. The anti-rationalism option is thus rejected. The other two options here are supra-rationalism and rationalism. Kierkegaard’s theology is that of supra-rationalism while the theology of the Ash‘arite is rationalist. Faith, Kierkegaard says, is not rational because it will be undecided by the abeyance and postponementof philosophical reasoning, by the approximation of historical evidence, and because of the lack of confidence in the Bible; however, it is not irrational because the contradiction is present in the understanding of faith rather than in existence. For the Ash‘arite, however, faith can be made rational and justified through the command and guidance of shar’ in order to find sound reasoning. Reason has no contribution in Kierkegaard’s theology neither as a necessary nor as a sufficient condition. For the Ash‘arite, nonetheless, reason is a necessary but not a sufficient condition and is in need of shar‘. Reason, in Ash‘arite theology, both fails to penetrate into all of the premises of the argument and falls short of binding man to accept its knowledge. It is shar‘ which comes into play in order to help reason both improve its objection and compensate the binding and obligation

In this article the author first gives an introduction to his own approach to comparative theology (CT). After some introductory considerations, an outline of the idea and foundation of CT is given and is contrasted with traditional approaches to other religions; the methods, goals, and also the limits of CT are discussed; CT is differentiated from religious studies and the theology of religions; finally, CT is defended against some of its most important critiques. All in all, the author presents an approach to CT that suits Christian confessional theology, yet is open to Islamic theology as well, and which is inviting to theology as a dialogical enterprise which should be performed by Muslims and Christians and other religious believers together.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as he is more commonly known, was a Jesuit priest who died in 1955, having worked for some twenty years as a paleontologist in China. While being a renowned scientist, who assisted in the finding of the Peking Man fossil, Teilhard’s main desire and scholastic efforts were to reshape modern Christian theology in the light of contemporary science, especially in his own creative and synthesizing interpretation of the various theories of evolution. My hope is to discuss the following: the implications of the findings of modern science for how we understand time, space and mind; the theological concepts that Teilhard developed to help us to deepen our faith traditions: namely the ideas of personalization, complexity-consciousness, noosphere, omega point, and convergence; the ethical concepts for an evolving global ethic valuing the person, action and growth; a few concrete applications in the areas of research, the United Nations, an option for the poor and the need for global leadership.