THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, THE LOGIC OF EXPLORING RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGIOUS COGNITION
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND DISTINCTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER

By Ali Akbar Rashad

Preface
In our times, many new questions on the subject of major categories of issues of religion, exploration of circumstances of religion as well as about religious cognition have been raised. Responding to these questions, requires renewed understanding and innovation in the four spheres of perceptions, definitions, communications and research of religion. Establishing and coordinating the philosophy of religion, the logic of exploring religion and the philosophy of religious cognition are among the most pressing connotations of religious research and orthodoxy.
The respected researcher in the course of six years of effort and scientific contemplation, for exploration / cognition of religion, has found a comprehensive, methodical instrument which he calls “the logic of exploration of religious statements and doctrines”. Similarly, considering the need and urgency for an expansive and intellectual study of religious cognition, he proposes yet another knowledge which he calls ‘the philosophy of religious cognition’. Considering that the writer of this article, opines that due to the fact that philosophers of religion typically reflect on mystical and Sufi religions – and not revelatory ones – being the subject of the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of the perfect religion is not possible, therefore they emphasize on the need to establish philosophy of religion (Islamic). In this article, the writer, while commenting on the need to establish, to define and to mention the objectives and mission of the aforesaid knowledge, has attempted to explain their relationships and distinctions as well as their exchanges and relations with one another.
The writer welcomes the opinions and criticisms from experts on religious studies on the subject of the claims made in this article.
Key terminologies: new religious understanding, religious knowledge, understanding religion, basis of exploration of religion, researching religion, logic of exploring religion, philosophy of religious cognition.

Introduction:
Today, we are faced with fresh questions on the subject of major categories of the topics of religion, exploration of cases of religion, religion as well as religious knowledge including the questions “what is religion?” what is the scope of religion? What are the objectives of religion? What are the sources of religion? Is religion exploratory? If the exploring and understanding of religion is possible, does exploration of religion follow a recognized norms and criteria? If the examination and understanding of religion follows a procedure, then what is the secret of the variety and evolution of religious cognition? What are the principles and influential factors for the appearance of differences and occurrence of transformations? Also, do the different interpretations of religion have the same cognitive value or can they be categorized? If the value of different interpretations of religion is not the same, then how is it possible to differentiate between the pure and the impure in religious cognition? In the event of occurrence of an error, what are the methods for identification of the weak points of religious cognition? In other words, what factors and afflictions result in error in finding the ‘right’ in religion? How can we prevent the intervention of factors that cause our mind and understanding of religion to go wrong?
Similarly the question is asked that how can religion as a collection of statements and doctrines that has descended at a specific point of time in history from a heavenly sphere be harmonized with transformations of time and changes in human life – that also has an evolutionary aspect – continue to respond to the fresh needs, queries and issues of mankind? Is the ability to be transformative and conforming as well as presence of contradictions between deductions of mankind from religion at different periods not necessitate genealogy and relativity of religion or religious cognition?
For answering the above mentioned questions and other newly appeared needs, we require new understanding and innovation in all aspects of research on religion and orthodoxy. Religious innovation is applied to any kind of methodical scientific initiative, (fundamental, applied or practical) in the sphere of ‘recognition’, ‘definitions’ and application of religion. Innovation consists of new establishing, coordination, revision and implementation and includes new thinking and modernization and is other than modernism, heterodoxy and religious reformation. It also has a commonality with religious revivalism.
Here under, we mention a list of the aspects of innovation in the four-sided spheres of religion (it is clear that each one of these instances require sufficient explanation and elucidation that because of the observance of brevity, we shall deal with them at a suitable and appropriate opportunity.)
Modernization of religion can occur in the following spheres and levels:
1- in the sphere of understanding (logic of exploration of religion) :
1/1. Presentation of a fresh assertion of hackneyed reasons (on the subject of understanding and substantiating statements and doctrines of religion)
1/2. Initiation of new reasons for understanding and substantiating religious doctrines
1/3. Processing a new order or criteria or establishing a new principle in the sphere of logic of examination of religion
1/.4. Explaining a fresh procedure for examination of religion.
1/5. Establishing a new method for examination of religion and religious sources (documents / proofs)
1/6. Discovery and application of new proofs and documents for examination of religion
1/7. Creating an innovative cognitive instrument for examination of religion
1/8. Creating a fresh awareness for understanding religion.
1/9. Positive criticism of the existing inherited method.
1/10. Establishing new practical criteria for testing the reliability of religious deductions at various levels and spheres.
2. in the sphere of examining the interpretations and teachings of religion (conceptualization of religion)
2/1. Exploring the new statement or doctrine from the reliable religious documents and proofs.
2/2. Deduction of an innovative theory in one of the cognitive spheres of religion on the basis of reliable documents and proofs
2/3. Establishing of a fresh religious science (with deduction and arrangement of some part of the religious concepts and data in the relevant field)
2/4. Explaining and coordinating a new field of cognition in religion (with deduction and arrangement of some part of the religious concepts)
2/5. Presentation of a new positive criticism of the exploratory concepts of religion by the predecessors
3. in the sphere of communication of religion (communicating religion to others):
3/1. Employing new publication for statement of religious concepts
3/2. Innovating and employing a fresh language for speaking on religion
3/3 establishing a new method for communicating religion
3./4. Drafting an original statement for conceptualization in one area of cognition of religion or one part of knowledge of a single sphere or in one of the religious sciences
3/5. Bringing about a transformation in the superstructure of religion and presentation of a new and comprehensive perception for explaining all the doctrines.
3/6. Positive criticism of the tools and methods as well as the existing conceptual structures.
4. In the sphere of realization of religion (implementation)
4/1. deduction and coordination of a new executive body in a particular ‘section’ of a ‘cognitive field’ in the ‘Hikmat philosophy’ of religion (such as the interest-free loaning body in the economic field).
4/2. designing and deduction of a fresh executive order for implementation of a cognitive field (such as field of economics) or for implementation of an entire cognitive field from ‘Hikmat’ philosophy of religion (such as in the field of commandments or religious ethics)
4/3 deduction and feedback of a comprehensive system for the entire fields of the practical Hikmat philosophy of religion (commandments, ethics and physical education)
4/4. Positive criticism of the existing executive religious systems and orders
In our view, among the most essential innovations, is establishing and management of some new religious cognition. Among the most important of these are the three cognitions of ‘philosophy of religion,’ (consisting of the principles of all the fields of cognitive geometry of religion) ‘logic of religious statements and concepts’ and the ‘philosophy of religious cognition’. In this article we undertake to briefly describe the definitions, structure, objective and treatise of each of them as well as their relationships and dealings with one another.
Creation of knowledge is at times the product of centuries of productive reflection and research of scientists and scholars of a field of study. The source of the coming into existence of knowledge is the labor of a number of new questions and of efforts to answer them. It evolves gradually and by attaching to some of the existing scientific heritage, they are organized in the form of an independent body of knowledge. Today we are faced with innumerable sciences that have come together and appeared through the pathway of emergence of new questions and answers and their amalgamation with existing doctrines as well as in the form of new cognitive orders. Thus at times, we can find a single origin for a hundred sciences. This characteristic (the process of appearance and development of issues and concepts as well as expansion and separation of existing cognitions and birth of new science) occurs in all fields and sciences and is a perfectly natural affair.
Now we take a passing look at the three essential knowledge namely, the philosophy of religion (Islamic), the logic of examination of religion and the philosophy of religious knowledge.
The philosophy of religion
Although the philosophy of religion is now present in the form of a knowledge or field of study in the sphere of research of religion, however, in our opinion, in addition to the fact that the philosophers of religion have considered recognized religions – and not revealed religions – that go as far as to contradict one another as the subject of this cognition, (refer to book, Hick, 1999, introduction by the author) the possibility of a single and absolute “philosophy of religion” can be speculated because of the blight of generalization and maximal thinking or referential and minimalist perspective of the founders and proponents of this field concerning interpretation of religion (Alnaby, 2003, page 22) that typically does not conform with the interpretation of Islam the existing ‘philosophy of religion’ – in all honesty – is not answerable to questions involving the religion of Islam. For this reason, we need to coordinate the philosophy of religion. (Islamic) in the first chapter of the book ‘Philosophy of religion’ I have explained this concept comprehensively. (Rashad, 2004, Chapter One) the philosophy of religion is different from the science of Islamic theology and the new Islamic theology. Although there are many common subjects and issues between the two of them, however, the aspect of entry, method and approach of the two cognitions to issues is different. Islamic theology is a science that studies religion from the inside – or both from inside and outside. This science is responsible for the engineering of the divine statements and propositions and defending religion, whereas the philosophy of religion is responsible for the expansive and rational study of the major categories of issues of religion.
Other expansive sciences also exist in the sphere of religious research that view religion and orthodoxy from the top and study them from the outside such as the sociology of religion that studies the movements and actions and reactions of the orthodox society and the social behavior of the orthodox from that aspect that the group is orthodox from both the top as well as the outside of that society. Similarly it is like the psychology of religion which is an expansive science that studies and explains the behavior of the orthodox individual from the aspect of his orthodoxy. However, their study approach is not necessarily rational because the sociology of religion in their studies makes use of sociological principles while the psychology of religion uses psychological principles – that are generally empirical. Also the subject of study of these cognitions are not the soul of religion and major categories of its issues; and it is only the philosophy of religion that studies with method, approach and with rational principles the soul of religion.
Although the philosophy of religion in its new society in the west has evolved and developed and the philosophers of the religion of the west typically analyze between eight to ten issues as the issues of the philosophy of religion (refer to book, Hick, 1994) however, in our view and based on the definition that has been presented, limiting the topics of this cognition to aforesaid issues has no justification. Thus despite the pioneering role of foreigners in this field, it is not necessary to endorse all their points of view and claims.
The researcher of religion in order to explore the subjects of religion and understand religious texts must first achieve a clear idea of the fundamental pillars and variations that have an impact on the creation of knowledge of religion and only then undertake to examine and understand them. These include issues such as origin and source, essence and substance, objective and scope, documents and references, language, application and rationality of religion and so forth that are the major topics that form the starting point of the journey to exploring religion and religious statements and concepts. If the receiving and taking what comes from Allah from these sources is wrong, consequently religious cognition will go wrong. The topics of philosophy of religion form a substantial part of the sources of examination and exploration.
In our view, the topics under examination on the philosophy of religion are as follows:
Categories of philosophy of religion
1- What is religion (= about religion)
In this chapter categories such as those mentioned below can be included:
1-1. Concepts of religion
1-2. Gem and oyster or margins and periphery of religion
1-3. objective or objectives of religion
1-4. scope of religion
1-5. Performances of religion
1-6. religious pluralism (=question of unity and variety of religions)
1-7. perfection, comprehensiveness and eternity of religion
1-8. faith
1-9. religious experience
1-10. worship

2. Origin of religion
Under this caption, psychological, lingual, historical, sociological concepts etc…on the subject of dawn of religion are researched.
3. Cognition of religion
In this section issues such as the following:
3.1. Comprehensibility of religion
3.2. Sources and documents of cognition of religion
3.3. Language of religion (=revelation)
3.4. Evolution of cognition of religion and harmonizing of the texts
Features of desirable “logic of examination”
4. association and interaction of religion with philosophy, science, mysticism, ethics, culture, art etc…
5. major categories of religious claims;
In this topic, initially “justifiability of religious beliefs” and “significance of religious statements” and thereafter the below mentioned topics must be examined in detail.
5-1. God (concept and reasons proving and denying): This subject is considered to be the most important and most extensive concern of philosophy of religion and the befitting detailed explanation under this heading is beyond the scope of this list.
5-2. attributes
5-3. conditions and shortcomings (question of justice, mercy, wisdom of God and the objectivism of life)
5-4. creation and the manner of coming into existence (the question of genesis)
5-5. immaterial and material
5-6. Revelation and prophetic mission
5-7. miracles
5-8. spiritual reality of life
5-9. freedom to choose
5-10. religious traditions, customs and rituals
5-11. religious obligation and the ethical order of the world (and the question of termination of history)
5-12. Happiness
5-13. immortality of the soul
5-14. resurrection (eternal bliss and affliction)
It is worth mentioning that:
a- Some of the topics have been included in the list as a digression or as supplements to the main topics of philosophy of religion (taking into consideration the willful definition) while some others out of respect for the traditionalists of this cognition.
b- Although issues such as the need of human beings for religion, the expectations of man from religion etc…can be put forward summarily in the philosophy of religion, however, these discussions are closer to anthropology, psychology, sociology and the history of religions.
c- Many of the above mentioned issues are considered to be in some ways related either to the subject of philosophy of religion or in other ways to cognitions related to them. Thus one must necessarily resort to a sort of apparent blending of subjects concerned with related sciences.
d- the place to put forward the specific issues of religion such as “the Holy Trinity and incarnation of God” is comparative theology or specific theology of each religion.
Logic of examination of statements and concepts of religion
The cognition that we now know of as ‘principles of jurisprudence’ were at one time applied to a small collection of principles, disciplines and criteria of examination and understanding of Islamic laws. At first this collection was discussed in relation to topics on jurisprudence so that the theologians would refer to them for purpose of deduction of divine laws. However, gradually, these principles, disciplines and criteria were organized by writers of books on jurisprudential theology in an independent manner and as a introduction to jurisprudence until with the birth of new questions and giving replies to them, this section gradually became more and more bloated. Finally, it separated from jurisprudence and it came to be identified as an independent science called the science of principles of religious jurisprudence.
In our view, the existing principles of Islamic theology are in need of planning and development as well as completion and separation. In its present form this science – despite its wonderful and amazing depth and richness – is not sufficient to respond to some of the new questions and needs that nowadays confront the category of examination and understanding religion. This is despite the fact that the present-day science of Islamic jurisprudence itself contains the basic material and substances of several independent sciences and for this reason it possesses the required strength for separation and development. Thus, it is necessary that this science while being revised and complemented is separated and explained in the context of its own latent potential. In the process, a comprehensive and encumbered science entitled ‘logic of examination of religious statements and concepts’ that shall contain the general science of examination of religion and the specific methodologies of religious fields is to be created. Putting forward such a claim today – with reference to what has been mentioned on the subject of development of sciences – is a perfectly normal affair. However the chances of acceptance and success of this claim and argument is tied to very many factors. Among the factors – and the most important of them – is that this proposal is put forward and explained in a totally scientific and precise manner so that it is considered a priority issue in the relevant scientific and academic gathering. This means that the new cognition and proposed model must possess such a depth, width, richness and attention to detail so that it can defend its merit in the presence of jurisprudents implying that a religious jurisprudent, fundamentalist, commentator, an accomplished orator when being confronted with the output of this scientific endeavor and witnessing the principles and logic of these claims, confesses to its specific performance as well as its inalterable and different efficiency in relation to other cognitions and to accede that its presence fills the void of methodology for an up-to-date and efficient intellectual effort. Naturally such cognition wants its own specific principles, concepts and engineering while it also makes its own terminologies and literature.
Among the most noticeable shortcomings of the current science of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence is neglect of the role and share of all factors and variations involved in the formation and transformation of religious cognition and of course not undertaking to record and sanction their impact on examination of religion.
Identification and manner of implementation of the factors and variations of ‘in truth’ and ‘rightfully’ involved in formation and transformation of religious cognition is the focal topic of examination of religious questions and understanding sacred texts. The factors that are effective in creation of understanding of religion in a person and in transformation of religious cognition are on the whole divided into three hypothetical groups as follows:
1- Principles and factors that are in truth and rightfully effective in formation of religious cognition meaning variations that are truly effective in shaping our understanding of religion and their involvement also is pertinent (meaning that religion must be understood on the basis of those same principles and variations). For example, the mind can from various aspects become the source of reference in examination of religion and orthodoxy. The mind is considered the basis for explanation of communication of revelation to a human being and the essential requisite of prophetic mission. Because a human being is intelligent, he is self-determining and has an independent will and because he is independent he has obligations and responsibilities. Because animals are devoid of knowledge and self-determination, they are not the audience of revelatory religion and also have no obligation and responsibility. If a human being also did not possess intelligence, he too would not have obligation and God also – like in case of other animals – would only guide him for generic and existential purposes. ‘must’ and ‘must not’ befits a creature that is able to distinguish between good and bad and can get rid of each of them and incline towards the other. In other words, the understanding of religion in relation to human beings is equal to the examination of the spiritual and material obligations. It is the duty of man both to understand religion as well as to practice it. Because man is blessed with wisdom and intelligence, he must and he can endeavor and take action to examine and apply the divine wishes. By all means, a human being with intelligence understands some of the divine statements and concepts and with the help of wisdom, understands the revelatory and sacred texts; he weighs his own understanding of the texts as well as that of others etc…Thus the involvement of intelligence in the examination of religion is intrinsic so that the more intelligent a person, the more proper, profound and extensive is his understanding of religion. When it is said that the intellect as a source and factor is rightfully and is in truth involved in comprehension of religion, it means that the intellect inherently and necessarily is involved in the examination and application of religion. It means that God has given permission or rather, has obligated such an involvement and He has taken into account this factor (the source) in communicating His religion.
2- Principles that are rightfully but fallaciously involved meaning those factors that are actually involved in our understanding of religion but this involvement is misplaced and fallacious so that if a solution is not found to nullify the impact of these sort of factors, we will err in our understanding of religion such as in the impact of the incorrect hypothesis in understanding religion and comprehension of the sacred texts.
For example if a person does not have a proper understanding of God and His Attributes, it will be impossible for him to understand His Theology. Thus if a person believes for example that justice of God is not mandatory and that God can be unjust and oppressive, then he shall not abstain from ascribing oppressive and unjust statements and ideas to religion meaning that with this erroneous preconceived notion, inadvertently, injustice shall be justified and promoted in Islamic jurisprudence and ethics.
3- The third group are those factors that are “thought to be involved” in the understanding of religion but in fact they are not involved leave alone that their involvement be evaluated rightfully. Nevertheless, a group of people insist on involvement of this factor. For example, some individuals believe in an exaggerated manner that if on the other side of the universe, a particle moves, thus because all factors are linked with one another, our world – including our understanding of religion – is influenced. (Soroush, 1996) Similarly it is possible that some factors have a minor influence on the understanding of human beings but a group of people, by exaggerating the minor factors, consider a macro and major role and share in discovery and organization of religious cognition for those factors. For example they say that, “all our understanding of religion is shaped by our preconceived notions, presumptions and hypothesis in the same way that a commentator is replaced by a commentator! (Shabestari, 1996, page 247) it depends on what expectation we have from religion and what idea we have of the subject of religion and its topics or what knowledge we acquire beforehand. That is how our understanding of religion shall be determined!” as an example, if our expectation of religion is such that in addition to managing our life in the hereafter, religion also manages our life in this world, then inadvertently, we will pursue those instructions that endorse this perspective and we shall also practically grasp these doctrines. Likewise, if a person believes in the lack of relationship between religion and worldly life as well as in the limited ability of religion to foster personal and spiritual relations of the worshipper with God, and considers all obligations and non-obligations as well as all ambiguities of religion to be purely for objective of bliss in the after worldly – and not worldly – and solely in the sphere of personal living, then when he refers to the verses of the Quran and the narratives, he shall see the validation of these same doctrines in them and will notice that religion was much the same that he had surmised and that all the topics of religion fit into the confines of eschatological instructions and have nothing to do with worldly affairs of man. Thus from his point of view, theocracy and economics, politics and religious and Islamic canons also will be non-existent. However, if the hypothesis of the commentator is not except this, then his understanding of religion will also not be except this.
4- Of course it is clear that it is never so, because many times we refer to the glorious Quran or the narratives to find an answer to a particular question but are confronted with the opposite and realize our mistake just as it is possible that sometimes we go after a text empty-headed and come out of the text full-headed and loaded! Also such that at times we go after a text full of hope and expectations and come out with an empty mind. Thus our hypothesis and expectations beforehand are not the sole factor that shapes our mind and understanding of religion. However, our intent is not total denial of every sort of impact of the assumptions, concepts and perspectives that historically aid our understanding of religion, rather, this impact is acceptable only at a concise level and in the form of an issue that results in payment of levies by non-Muslims. The amount of impact of these variables can be stated in the class of division of the legitimate and illegitimate principles and factors involved and thought to be involved.
Thus, the principles and factors that play a role and have a share in the creation and transformation of religious cognition are of three classes: 1- Principles and factors involved rightfully and in truth 2- Principles and factors rightfully but unjustly involved and 3- principles and factors presumed to be involved. Our duty – as commentators on religion – is to organize and regulate the principles and factors that are rightfully involved in understanding religion. The result of this task will be the shaping of the logic of examination of religion.
Prevention of the intervention of the unjust factors involved in understanding religion that results in occurrence of error in religious cognition is also the duty of logic of examination of religion. The logic of examination of religion by explaining the effective and ineffective factors taking into account the criteria relevant to application of the ‘rightful’ factors and arresting the destructive factors, will safeguard us from committing error in examination and understanding.
Without being in possession of a certain amount of knowledge and awareness we cannot confront religion and thus it is necessary to have a certain amount of a general idea of religion before coming face to face with religious texts. For example, we must know and accept that this universe has a system and an overseer and mankind also is part of this system of existence. He needs laws and system that must be communicated to him by the Director of this system; thereafter, this knowledge in the form of basic organizations and principles become the basis of other principles and knowledge. Thereafter the output from these principles be listed in the form of norms and criteria and from their harmonization, procedural machinery be established that is called the logic of examination of religion. When we say that this universe possesses a system and discipline, it is inferred that the system must have a director who is prudent because a creature that lacks wisdom cannot create a system. Thus when He sends a person to guide the people, He must necessarily give commands that are based on wisdom and his teachings must be prudential. Likewise, when religion and command are based on wisdom, then one must be able to understand it with the help of the intellect. Wisdom of the command necessitates that it be comprehensible by means of the intellect. We need to examine the intellectual criteria and norms in order to understand rationally. These rational inferences gradually shape our intellect so that the groundwork and tools for our entry into the realm of examination and understanding religion is prepared and from it will be from now on that we shall refer to the texts in order to examine religion in detail.
Similarly, (before coming face to face with the text of religion) we must be informed on the subject of essential properties of religion – such as whether religion is a human phenomenon or whether it is a revelatory and supernatural reality. Attention to the heavenly and supernatural characteristic of religion in the context of examining the topics and understanding the religious texts will be very productive. Likewise, on the subject of the scope of religion – that whether religion is responsible solely for promoting personal and individual relations of the worshipper with God in affairs of the afterworld or whether religion inclines towards worldly affairs and secularism although its outcome is in the after world (this same is the difference in criteria of religion with man-made doctrines such as Marxism) – we need to have information and understanding. Without having such information we cannot get close to the territory of the semantics of religion. The audiences of religion possess certain attributes and characteristics including that a person who is addressee of religion in position of “understanding of religion” as a commentator as well as in the role of “establishing religion” as one with a legal obligation is in possession of certain capabilities and also suffers from certain disabilities. The ‘Wise’ God in communicating and interpreting religion as well as in implementation and religious obligation must take into consideration these capabilities and disabilities. Similarly, a human being has two types of needs including fixed needs and variable needs. Thus the wise divine legislator must communicate to him twofold orders that are able to respond to the twofold needs of humanity. Thus our knowledge of human being and the audience of religion also have an impact on our cognition of religion. In conformity with the principles of existentialism, audience cognition and human cognition, the principle of epistemology step into the ring of ‘principles of examination of religion’. The extent of possibility to gain access to understanding realities, the tools of attaining cognition, the manner of attaining cognition etc…are topics that we must in advance adopt our stances –as tutor and commentator – vis-à-vis them so that we can enter the field of interpretation of religion. This is because in proportion to that for example, we consider the intellect to be or not to be the ultimate authority, definitely our understanding of religion will differ and our understanding of the religious texts will be different. In case we do not believe in the final authority of the intellect without taking into account the rationality or irrationality, we shall submit to the beliefs and commandments that are contrary to the intellect. However, if we consider the intellect to be the final authority and creator of cognition, our understanding of religion and basic topics related to it will be prudential while in relation to the derived commandments it will be sagacious. Therefore, our epistemology also has an effect on our cognition of religion.
Understanding the characteristics and attributes of the fields of religion (beliefs, ethics, decrees etc…) is determining in the position of deduction. Each field has certain demands and these demands have an impact on the methodology of examination of religion; even though topology also is involved in understanding the instructions of the subjects such that when the subject of a decree changes, following it the decree also changes. For example tobacco is a subject and the Islamic jurisprudent decrees that because in the language of the canonical evidence the consumption of tobacco has not been forbidden, thus it is permissible. However, when under certain conditions, tobacco is transformed into a tool of colonialism for destruction of the economy and plundering the wealth of an Islamic state, then the subject changes and thus the decree also changes. Thus the religious jurisprudential authority decrees that it is to be boycotted. When tobacco is transformed into a new subject that harms the independence of the country, its consumption acquires significance. Based on the jurisprudential norm of ‘denial of evil ways’ derived from the Quranic verse…., the domination of infidels over Muslims is forbidden. Thus anything that brings about this domination will also be forbidden. In this manner, the decree changes following change of subject and the Islamic jurisprudential authority decrees ban on the consumption of tobacco.
The logic of examination of religion is a macro order that is responsible for the designing and explanation of the principles, categories and commonalities of methodology of examination of religion. However, for each of the fields of cognition of religion (science, beliefs, ethics, decrees and training etc…) and in the next stage for each of the branches of each field of study (such as economics, law, politics etc…) specific specialized methodologies have been compiled. This implies that after we have explained the universal ideas and categories of the logic of examination of religion, in the second stage in order to deduce the theoretical religious wisdom and practical religious wisdom, thereafter for the cognitive field of religion, we systemize separate procedures and methodologies. These methodologies are also derived from those same universal ideas and categories of the logic of examination of religion.
The main treatise of the cognition of logic of examination of religion
The logic of examination of religion consists of a large number of treatises and actions including the following:
One: strengthening the process of the foundation principles in cognition of religion is the foremost mission of the logic of examination of religion. As we have mentioned that the majority of these principles have been obtained from the philosophy of religion while some of them have also been obtained from principles of absolute philosophy or epistemology and such sciences. The logic of examination of religion, the norms and criteria have been deduced and arranged on the basis of these principles.
If we suppose that God is wise, just and merciful – and it is so – then we shall obtain a norm called ‘principle of favor’ meaning that God on the basis of the aforesaid attributes, always furnishes the favor of guidance for mankind and never withholds the blessing of guidance from mankind. The principle of favor in the status of understanding religious ideas, in the science of theology and in the status of deduction of religious decrees has application in Islamic jurisprudence. Thus one of the tasks of logic of cognition of religion shall be that actions, inputs and outputs of methodology strengthen the principles of cognition of religion. It is the job of this cognition to establish and undertake actions dealing with methodology of principles in the form of norms and criteria. Application of the norms and criteria that has been systemized by the logic of examination of religion is the duty of the cognitions of Islamic theology, Islamic jurisprudence, ethics and so forth…
Two: As\mentioned earlier, factors effective and having impact on formation of examination / cognition of religion and having a share in the shaping of religious cognition are divided into three groups, namely: 1- Factors and variables that are rightfully and in truth effective in formation of understanding of religion and transformation of religious cognition 2- Factors that rightfully but illegitimately involved 3- factors that are assumed to be involved. The second duty of the logic of examination of religion (in addition to strengthening the rightful and ‘in truth’ factors is to prevent the intervention of ‘unjust’ factors involved in understanding religion.
With these explanations, the logic of examination of religion shall consist of the comprehensive procedural apparatus of exploring the existential and actual will as well as the expected and obligatory divine providence. In other words, this cognition makes it possible to explore the actualized Divine will in the sphere of genesis and the communicated Divine providence in the sphere of obligation.
Specialized procedures
Religion is the cognitive providential apparatus consisting of coherent statements and concepts that is communicated to human beings by the Source of Existence in order for him to attain perfection and happiness. In other words, one-half of religion is existential and actualized Divine providence while the other half is His institutional providence that has as yet been communicated to mankind with the actualized Divine providences and his desired expectations that have not been communicated to mankind and mankind has also not got hold of them. Although actual religion in the form of religious laws have been gradually communicated to mankind. Religious laws are conclusion of gradual Divine communication. In certain narratives it has been mentioned that when His Holiness the Savior and Final Word appears, he will also present new teachings and doctrines. This means that His Eminence will proclaim some of the teachings that conform to the rationality and circumstance of the perfected man in the era of appearance (that was perhaps revealed on behalf of God to the Honorable Prophet of Islam but was not communicated to us).
Religious statements speak of actualized providence meaning they report of ‘the present’ and ‘not present’. For example, religion states that there is a God; that there are angels; there is paradise; that a perfected order governs the universe; that there is hell etc…they also mention that God has no partners; that absolute evil, languor and variation do not exist in creation. The sum of these statements is the scared and metaphysical statements and inherently belongs to faith. Other statements are also found which we must interpret them as metaphysical statements – scientific statements that are mentioned in the texts of religion. For example in the Quran, there is mention of the universe, the earth and the sea etc…or that the Honorable Prophet of Islam (SA) like a physician and biologist, talks of physical ailments, the effect of a medication and the benefit of a substance or of the condition of a living being – these are non-metaphysical statements.
Thus a part of religion which is a collection of so-called actual statements can themselves be divided into two metaphysical and non-metaphysical statements respectively although another part of religion also that comprise religious statements are themselves divided into two groups: 1- Directive and obligatory (commandments) 2- value and discretionary (ethics). The first group describe the instances and connotations of the firm ‘must’ and ‘must not’ or according to religious interpretation the ‘lawful’ and ‘the forbidden’ but the second group (value statements) comprise of the ethical ‘maybe’ and ‘maybe not’.
Each group of the double statements (metaphysical and non-metaphysical) and also each group of the double doctrines (decrees and ethics) comprise a particular field and need an independent and exclusive method of examination. We denote the term logic of examination of religion to the entire procedural apparatus and systems.
As we mentioned earlier, the bounds of each of these fields of cognition of religion, have certain characteristics and properties that must be included in the examination of the statements and doctrines of that field and in understanding of the texts in conjunction to each one of the fields of study. Therefore, it is necessary that the logic of examination of religion place some of the specialized and exclusive methods at the disposal which incorporate the specific features of the bounds and subjects so that a specialized field can be examined and understood from each of them.
Of course specialized procedures sometimes because of being exclusive to a field of a specific subject, are considered to be specialized. (for example, deduction in the sphere of beliefs demands its own specific method) sometimes considering that confinement to understanding and applying each of the documents and proofs (intellect, nature, legislated revelation, narrated traditions, current traditions) are divided into various specialized items. Specialized procedures of application of documents and proofs can be divided into two groups namely:
1- Methodological models of interpretation of sacred texts and objective documents that explain how we must interpret the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet of Islam.
2- Methodological models of application of the subjective proofs meaning methodology of application of the intellect, intrinsic nature etc…in examination of religion.
Thus the logic of examination of religion in addition to commonalities and universal ideas consist of specialized procedures of subjects, documents etc… such that one can consider some of them to be equivalent to an independent cognition and regard logic of examination of religion as a scientific field that encompasses all of these cognitions. However, for the time being we consider this entire field to be a single cognition.
Now at the end of this section, we mention a summary of the main axis of the principles of logic of examination of religious statements and doctrines.
Scope and structure of the principles of logic of examining religion:
Preface) Process of examination and understanding religion:
Understanding religion is made possible by moving over from “elementary principles” reliable “documents and proofs” with the intent to examine and coordinate the religious “cognitive-providential” orders for actualization of the “objectives of religion”.
Ultimate objective of religion (and belief on the statements and emphasizing the doctrines of religion) — moving towards the Source of Creation (God)

Ultimate material objective ——————creation of Divine society
Religious rule
Religious self-development

Five-sided fields of study of religion —————–religious actions
Religious education
Religious knowledge
Religious perspective
Religious character

Five-sided documents of religion ————–intrinsic nature
Sacred book
Current traditions
Intellect
quoted traditions

Five-sided principles of understanding religion—–
Primary principles of understanding religion

Note: the geometric designs (circle in the center, pentagonal shape, and triangle) are likewise meaningful and valid for each of the figures as well as the location of each of the elements at the angles and sides.
1- Description of the distinguishing features of the primary principles of understanding religion.
1-1 Definition and division of the principles of examination of religion: 1/1/1- principles of genealogy (explanation of origin of religion)
1-1-2 Principles of audienceology (characteristics of the audience / interlocutor)
1-1-3 Principles of conditionology (fundamental characteristics of religion)
1-1-4 Principles of epistemology (proofs of the final word)
1-1-5 Principles of indeterminology / subjectology of knowledge (ipseitology of the fields of knowledge – sustenance of religion and their dependents)
2/2 a description on the methodology aimed at characteristics and attributes of each of the principles in examining religion (and the philosophy of religious cognition)
2. General and original documents and proofs of comprehension and understanding religion
2/1 Definition and division of documents and proofs: ( 1- inherent nature 2- intellect 3- Book 4- quoted tradition 5- current tradition) 2/2. Description of the structure of the analyses and issues of the documents of religion
3. Cognitive / sustenance fields and orders of religion
3/1 Definition and division of the cognitive fields of study (and orders) of religion (1- Religious perspective, 2- religious character, 3- religious actions, 4- religious knowledge, 5- religious training)
3/2 Commentary and analyses on the ‘absolute’ characteristics and attributes of each of the cognitive fields on the specialist procedures of communicating and coordinating the cognitive / sustenance orders of religion.
Characteristic features of the universal logic of examination of religion (proposed model)
1. realism in analyses of the effect of the principles and variables involved in truth
2. using basis in selection of documents and argumentation (reasoning and showing evidence)
3. reflective / periodic usage of documents (= dialectic proofs)
4. securing dynamism and meaning in religious definitions (dynamic characteristic of religious cognition = process of finding and conforming cognitive-sustenance orders of religion)
5. universality in the expanse of application )

Philosophy of religious cognition
When we obtain a knowledge from religion, in order to specify its substance as well as the various types and causes of the transformation of religious cognition, the possible errors and the causes for the occurrence of errors, the various approaches to knowledge of religion and also the pathology of the derived knowledge, we need to perform a series of macro, outward-looking and rational studies. These must be organized in the body of an independent cognition. We call such cognition ‘the philosophy of religious cognition’.
The philosophy of religious cognition can be defined as follows: Philosophy of religious cognition is a far-reaching intellectual study derived from valid quest for examination of religion. The philosophy of far-reaching and overlooking religious cognition analyses its own subject. Considering that philosophy of religious cognition must in a visible manner and on the basis of witnesses presented, undertake investigations on its own subject and analyze it rationally, we can include induction in it as well; and because it examines and investigates the religious cognition obtained from application of logic of examination of religion, the derived valid quest for examination of religion shall be the subject of philosophy of religious cognition.
When with every type of logic of examination, we go after the documents and texts of religion so that a religious cognition takes shape, automatically this questioned is put forward that whether this knowledge is right or is not right. (Is it right or wrong?) At times as a result of the awareness of the commentator himself or drawing attention of others, one comes to the conclusion that he has made a mistake in his examination of religion and understanding of the texts. There are three points of view on the subject of essence of religious cognition as below:
1- The indulgent point of view that believes that whatever we have in our possession in the form of knowledge is more or less sacred and conforms to the actual fact of religion.
2- The negligent point of view that states basically a knowledge that we acquire from documents of religion can never conform to the reality of religion. This point of view of religious cognition considers religion to be two things that are absolutely distinct from one another. (Soroush, ibid)
3- The third point of view states that if with proper procedures, valid logic as well as reliable documents and proofs, we resolve to examine religion, we shall acquire a knowledge that may probably be right through and through as well as it is possible that some of its statements and ideas do not conform with the actuality of religion, but we have summarized data that most of what we have acquired are actual while the subject of error also if it has been obtained by a reliable method is valid. (the writer of this article supports this premise)
In our view, if a person undertakes to examine religion with a correct logic, like the All-Knowledgeable God, he has knowledge of the mental and practical potential and capability of a human being and the relevant realities, the output of the attempt of a person to examine religion is valid and deemed to the final word. This is because assuming there are errors in some instances, these types of human error is not a crime because a human being is not blameworthy; rather he is weak. Secondly, considering that conformity of non-conformity of the acquired knowledge with the fact of religion is not unknown, the individual is obliged to believe and to be committed to that same acquired knowledge. The possibility the view of the expert and specialist individual dealing a blow is hundred times more than the error in the opinion of the common and ignorant individual and commitment to the biased opinion of the errant individual in causing disruption to social and individual life or acting according to the opinion of the amateur is far more rational and closer to the truth. For this reason, the men of wisdom also do not castigate acting on the erroneous directive of the specialist or do not punish the errant specialist. God has two visible and true decrees so that each one of the two decrees is legally binding and valid in its own place.
The philosophy of religious cognition makes clear what factors are involved in actualization of religious knowledge and what factors are not involved. In addition, the pathology and diagnoses in religious cognition will also be the responsibility of the philosophy of religious cognition. This means that this cognition makes it clear whether knowledge acquired from religion is pure and correct or impure and wrong.
It is necessary to mention that distinction must be made between ‘cognition of religion’ and ‘religious cognition.’ Religious cognition is a cognition related to religion and perhaps, it may not be in total conformity with the subject matter of the reality of religion. Thus we use combination in the ‘attribute’ form and not in the form of a correlation or supplementary whereas cognition of religion is a correlative combination and in correlative combination religion is the subject of understanding and knowledge so that whatever is tacit is actual religion. In the attributive combination of cognition, the subject of attribute is religious attribute meaning that cognition is religious from one aspect and consideration. This aspect can be the same aspect of conformity and connection of cognition with the reality of religion and can be another aspect such as religious and reliability of logic of deduction. For this reason on case by case basis, we sometimes use the term ‘religious cognition’ and at times the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘grasp’ of religion.
The ultimate aim of logic of examination of religion and the fruit of applying its norms is acquiring the right knowledge of religion and examining its statements and doctrines. If the instrument of logic is designed accurately and correctly, it must result in the cognition of religion. However the possibility of every kind of error arising incompetence of the commentator or error in application of the logic exists. The reason why we use the term ‘religious cognition’ in the topic of philosophy of religious cognition is that philosophy of religious cognition takes shape after application of logic of examination of religion and reviews the derived product of application of logic of examination of religion.
Despite the extensiveness of the subject field of philosophy of religious cognition this topic has still not been organized in the form of an independent science. However, topics pertaining to it can more or less be found in between the works and sciences of course not with the detail, accuracy and organized manner that we now mention. With reference to the topics that we have spoken about, the structure of science of philosophy of religious cognition will be as follows:
Structure of themes of philosophy of religious cognition
First chapter) Nature of religious cognition: attributes and qualities of the phenomenon of absolute religious cognition and the characteristic features of religious cognition based on independent choice (such as 1- procedure, 2- principality of documents and contention 3. objectivity (maximal conformity with the fact of religion) 4. uniformity 5. flexibility and transformability 6. perfection or homage and…)
Recollection: There is a general and specific relationship existing among the attributes of religious cognition as meaning independent and the attribute of religious cognition as defined as “totality of deductions attributed to religion”.
Second chapter: Existence of religious cognition: Study of the process as well as analyses and distinction of various types of principles involved and having a role in the existentialism of religious cognition.
Chapter three: Conforming typology of the important existing procedures and ways on the topic of acquisition of religious cognition. Inductive analyses of the history of longitudinal (=contemporary) and latitudinal (= simultaneous) classification of modes and factual demonstrations of religious cognition.
Chapter four: Transformation of religious cognition: Objective inductive analyses of the causes and varieties of transformations in religious cognition and evaluation of theories of transformation as well as presentation of independent theories.
Chapter five: Deviation of religious cognition : Identifying the hindrances to examination of religion and comprehending the documents of religion as well as the ‘unjust’ factors involved in formation and transformation of religious cognition; analyses of the methods and norms and criteria of recognition of the pure from the impure.
Chapter six: Cognitive value of religious cognition: Investigation of the relationship of religious cognition with the actual fact of religion and a correct understanding of it.
Chapter seven: Structure of religious cognition: triangular or quadrangular or pentagonal division of the domain of religion; basis and logic of classification of the religious statements and doctrines in the independent cognitive fields and disciplines.
Chapter eight: Occurrence and surfacing of data of philosophy of religious cognition in the logic of examination / grasp of religion and religious theorization.
Note: comprehensive-intellectual research of knowledge derived from books and traditions can also (taking into consideration the relevant demands) be the responsibility of philosophy of religious cognition.
As it is observed, we have designed chapters dealing with religious philosophy into eight subjects but among them, two of the subjects deal with two issues that are considered to be the most important and basic issues of the mission of the philosophy of religious cognition as below:
1- “Formation of religious cognition” that deals with breakdown of the process and analyses and differentiation of the principles involved and critical in formation of religious cognition.
2- “Transformation of religious cognition” that shall deal with inductive, objective and subsequent breakdown of the causes and various types of transformation in religious cognition as well as evaluation of the theories of transformation and presentation of theory of transformation.
These two issues are the most important and elementary themes that can be put forward and analyzed under the heading of philosophy of religious cognition. Basically, even the matter of ‘essence of religious cognition’ meaning examining the inherent nature and attributes of religious cognition can be adapted and derived from the aforesaid two main subjects. The subject of pathology and ‘deviation of religious cognition’ also reverts in some way to these two themes. The cognitive value of religious knowledge is based on these two themes. Perhaps one of the central themes of philosophy of religious cognition is formation of religious cognition while the other is its transformation. These two issues are the major challenges of the last one or two decade in Iran and prior to that in the rest of the world of Islam and even earlier than that in the west, while the rest of the subjects in some way or the other are either deduced or based on these two subjects and the kind of answer that are obtained from them. It is necessary to point out that of these two subjects, the formation of religious cognition takes precedence over transformation of religious cognition.
The subject of formation of religious cognition is in one respect linked to the subject of examination of the statement and ideas of religion while in another respect it is linked to the formation of religious cognition. For this reason, here there is a point of intersection between logic of examination of religion and the philosophy of religious cognition that necessitates clarification of the differences between these two proposed knowledge (philosophy of religious cognition and logic of examination of religion). This is because this system which is proposed as a basis of logic of examination of religion and grasping religious texts in some ways also forms the foundation pillars of philosophy of religious cognition. It means that both the knowledge are explained in the context of the pentagonal principles of “communicative model” of religion ( communicator of message, content of the message, recipient of message, instruments of message, owner of the message). However, it differs in terms of the origin of the message meaning that in the logic of examining religion, for creating an understanding of religion (acquiring comprehension of religious texts and examining the religious statements and doctrines) we move from a specific point of departure that in general we call them ‘principles of examining and understanding religion’ which as mentioned earlier, are five groups. In the philosophy of religious cognition and especially with regard to its main issue meaning formation of religious cognition the same principles are scrutinized so that we discover how religious cognition comes into being. this is because in any case formation of religious cognition takes shape under the influence of the same pentagonal principles. Thus the transformation that takes place in religious knowledge will also naturally be under the influence of the same pentagonal principles although the logic of understanding religious texts and examining the statements and doctrines of religion is the product of reinforcement of the effect of those pentagonal principles in the understanding and examination of religion. This means that when those pentagonal principles are reinforced and we extract norms and criteria from them, the logic of understanding religion is created. Therefore both knowledge are completely involved with the question of principles of creation of understanding and formation of religious cognition. In fact, it is for this reason that if it asked that how cognition of religion is created, we reply that it is by means of alignment and reinforcement of the framework of those principles. When we also discuss religious knowledge (not knowledge of religion) we want to say to what extent religious knowledge is influenced by those principles and what effect those principles have on religious knowledge. Thus both knowledge – but with a difference in respect and difference in the aspect of communication – are totally related with these five groups of principles.

Distinctions of logic of examination of religion and philosophy of religious cognition
There are dissimilarities between comprehension of texts and examination of the religious statements and ideas with philosophy of religious cognition. This dissimilarity of the two cognitions can be explained in the stereotype of those same traditional and conventional methods. Normally, in drawing comparisons between cognitions, their differences and similarities are scrutinized in terms of their nature, methodology, subject, domain and objectives, sources and …here we do not undertake to do so and leave it for another time. For the time being, we shall explain the differences between the two cognitions in some instances as below:
1. The philosophy of religious cognition speaks of the principles and mechanisms of formation of religious cognition in the aforementioned manner. This knowledge describes the process and factors involved in shaping religious cognition whereas logic of examining the statements and ideas of religion; the factors rightfully and justly involved in examining the religious statements and ideas are harmonized and recommended by scrutiny.
The job of philosophy of religious cognition is description of the “realized condition” because this knowledge discusses the subject of ‘the status quo of religious cognition’. Thus philosophy of religious cognition speaks of ‘is’ whereas the job of logic of examining statements and doctrines of religion is harmonization and recommendation of ‘desired condition’. It is possible that the logic of examination undertake a critical appraisal of the existing methodology. Thus the logic of examining speaks of ‘the musts’. It is for this reason that we regard that as a philosophy and this as logic. Therefore, a philosophical look at those pentagonal principles gives form to religious cognition but a logical approach to these principles organizes the logic of examining / understanding the statements and doctrines. This difference is an important difference between these two cognitions.
2. the philosophy of religious cognition is in position of explaining the process and factors that ‘rightfully’ (in truth or illegitimately) are involved in the shaping and formation of that which is in the general context called religious knowledge. Thus its subject matter is formation and engendering of religious cognition and its sphere is indeterminate factors involved including in truth or illegitimate ones whereas in logic of examining religion and comprehension of religious texts only the ‘in truth’ factors are mentioned. If different methodologies and logic are present – and there is – every possessor of logic and designer of every mode by his own imagination would like to determine and coordinate ‘rightful’ and ‘solely in truth’ factors involved.
3. The determinant of application of logic of examination (meaning religious cognition) forms the subject matter of philosophy of religious cognition. This means that we must have arrived at a specific method for grasping religion and have applied it so that a knowledge is produced about which we are not able to enter into a discussion on the philosophy of religious cognition. Thus philosophy of religious cognition is posterior to the absolute of logic of understanding religion (not from the logic of understanding of our proposed religion) because we benefit from the achievements of philosophy of religious cognition for completion and reconstruction of logic of examining our proposed religion.
4. There is also a difference between philosophy of religious cognition and the method of examining / comprehending religion. The philosophy of religious cognition discusses about its subject with a insightful intellectual style and for this reason (due to the intellectual style) it is called a philosophy. However logic of examination of religion is not necessarily insightful in relation to its subject; and more important is that it does not make use of a single style and a single source. We interpret this style or source as “blended mixture” because we use the cognitive documents and proofs in a mixture form although in philosophy of religious cognition we can be content with the rational perspective.
Of course we do not believe that rationalism is at odds with reliance on texts and subjective documents; rather, the intellect in addition to the role of creating knowledge, also intervenes in some of the categories and employs the mind to design topics dealing with the philosophy of religious cognition. For instance, it rejects erroneous statements due to their incompatibility by evaluating them against confirmed and categorical statements and on the basis of hypothesis of the need for subjective uniformity of decrees of religion. Here the intellect relies on subjective religious interpretation and this reliance at the same time enjoys the support of the process of intellectual reasoning in this way that the intellect says that you attribute this statement to religion although religion itself does not accept this statement and it is not rational that we attribute a statement to a source that itself rejects it. This means that here the intellect makes an intellectual reasoning while at the same time one end of the issue pertains to the subject of religion and the intellect in its reasoning bases its evidence on religious texts.
In logic, there is a type of transaction that occurs between proofs in the sense that the intellect provides certain services to statement. Reciprocally, the statement provides certain services to the mind and this is how they make provisions for one another so that knowledge comes into being. in this manner, one of the features of the proposed model is its aspect of being a “blended mixture”.

5. The bound and subject of philosophy of religious cognition is “religious cognition” but the bound and subject of logic of understanding religion is “cognition of religion”. This means that in the logic of understanding religion we wish to speak of cognition of religion and that how we lay our hands on knowledge of religion. Here cognition is used as a combination in the infinitive sense and in the role of correlation; but in philosophy of religious cognition we speak about the religious cognition. Here religious cognition is used as an object and the compound is also of the attributive type. In the logic of understanding religion from cognition of religion, meaning that we discuss understanding of religion while in the philosophy of religious cognition we speak of religious understanding or religious cognition. Therefore, the subject of the two of them is dissimilar.
6. The philosophy of religious cognition, is a second class cognition but it is likely that we consider the logic of examination of religion to be a first class cognition.
Religious cognition can be impure and as a result in philosophy of religious cognition we can talk of the religious cognitions and of various demonstrations and the logical product of various kinds of logic. We can say that this demonstration is correct and that demonstration is wrong; that this method gives us this result and that method gives us that result. In the philosophy of religious cognition, apparently we have accepted a kind of pluralism because we describe the real situation and thus even if we do not accept a demonstration and method we must resort to a discussion of it. However, the logic of examination of religion is based on the integrity of the understanding and discovery of the facts whereas in philosophy of religious cognition we cannot limit the subject and say we must only discuss the attainments of the methods and also religious cognition that are correct and pure.
Summary and conclusion of the article
Establishing new Islamic cognitions taking into consideration the aforesaid explanations, is definite in order to respond to the questions and contemporary challenges (including the below mentioned knowledge).
A- Philosophy of religion: Knowledge of farsighted intellectual study on the major categories of subject matter of religion.
|
|
(Attainment: analyses of the major categories of principles of comprehension of religion)

B- Logic of comprehension of religion: A procedural apparatus of examination of the resultant willpower (existential) and anticipated Divine (prescriptive) providence through proving the methodologies of the principles and factors ‘rightfully and legitimately effective (sharing and participation) in formation of comprehension of religion and (also the ‘in truth’ variables involved in) and transformation of religious cognition as well as forestalling the effect of the ‘illegitimate’ factors involved in formation and transformation.
(Attainment: proving formation of religious cognition)
C- Specialized procedural methods: orders of methodology of interpretation of sacred texts, or organization of religious documents, or inference and arrangement of cognitive fields of religion. |
|
(Attainment: making the formation and harmonization of religion possible)
D- Philosophy of religious cognition: awareness of farsighted “rational – inductive” study of basic issues of religious cognition and occult knowledge|
(Attainment: description of the intrinsic nature and attributes and evaluation of religious cognition and presentation of theory of transformation.)
Recollection: attached we describe some of the interpretations and key words.
Attachment (terminology: elucidations and key words)
Recollections:
1) In order to enter the field of discussion, it is necessary to take note of the literature and terminologies that have appeared from the dawn of a religion, a theory or science. For this reason, in order to attain rational and oral harmony with the audience, herewith we give a brief portrayal of some of the explanations and key words. Of course, the list of terminologies that are used in the compilation of logic of examining religion and philosophy of religious cognition is far more than the instances mentioned here. We restrict ourselves to the explanations and words that have the most application.
2) About those words that contain definitions we have either included the same usual definition or mentioned a distinct or proposed definition. About the words and explanations that were devoid of definition but have conventional connotation, we have attempted to give a self-evident explanation that has been adapted with the current definition.
3) Words and phrases that lack definition as well as having recognized and accepted meanings, we have mentioned – in lieu of their definitions in the manner that we ourselves voluntarily apply in the logic of examining religion – phrases for them.
4) Although sufficient attention has been paid in structuring a phrase for explanation of each of the words and terminologies that lack definition, however, most of them have a greater resemblance to an explanation rather than definition. Thus we do not insist on their acceptance as definition; rather, we humbly seek the assistance of meticulous and enthusiastic individuals for their alteration and completion.
The list of the key words and explanations are as follows:
1: Religion: cognitive apparatus – a sustenance that is inspired and communicated by the Origin of Life and Existence to man in order to secure human perfection and happiness. Alternatively, religion includes Divine communication of realized (existential) and expected (prescriptive) providence
2: Individual judgment which in the general context means intellectual effort for intrinsic and prudent understanding of religious texts in a specified time-location (=human) frame. In specific term and meaning it is defined as “acquiring ultimate specialization of the religious decrees based on real authority.”
3: Effort to understand religion in a non-methodical form or on the basis of principles and sources or non-reliable methods.
4: Examining religion: Grasping the pure religious statements and doctrines
5: Understanding religion: Correct interpretation of sacred texts of religion
6: Religious cognition: Resultant product of valid exploration for examining the religious statements and doctrines
7: Documents (proofs) of religion: Subjective and objective proofs of reception and understanding of Divine existential and prescriptive providence.
8: objective documents: Objective proofs of existence of audience of religion such as prophetic revelations, theology of Islam and the Islamic deeds of the Infallible Household of the prophet of Islam.
9: Subjective Proofs: proofs ingrained inside a person such as intellect and intrinsic nature
10: Religious texts (scriptures) : texts that have descended from the Origin or issued by immaculate persons and communicated to us
11. tradition: a statement and action that have been issued with the intent of guidance by the Infallible Household of the Prophet of Islam (…….)
12: Revealed statement or action (decreed)
13: Controlled statement or action (rational): Non-revelatory statements and actions issued by the Immaculate Household of the Prophet of Islam (AS).
14: Intrinsic nature: Specific characteristic of a person that is the source of some of the cognitions, pre-practice and pre-exercise electives.
15: Intellect: the cognitive, causative and measuring power of a human being.
16: Knowledge creation: Discovery being the source of production of awareness
17: spiritual realism: interpretational performance of one document in relation to another document
18: verifying the truth: scrutinizing and measuring the accuracy of the reasons of the proofs
19: explicable prototypes: principle of a subject that elucidates the possibility of understanding religion and defining the religious texts
20: Basic principles / departure principles: “rightful” and ‘in truth’ factors and variables having a share and having a role in formation of religious cognition
21: Norms: units that establish the methods
22: Criteria: terms and conditions of utility and application of methods and norms
23: Benchmarks: tools of evaluation and measurement of religious cognition and explanation of religious texts
24: Pathology of religious cognition: recognition of the causes of occurrence of error in religious cognition
25: Cognitive Evaluation: epistemological evaluation of an issue or cognitive apparatus from the point of view of integrity and veracity
26: Approach (itjah): perspective of the commentator in the position of examining for comprehension of religion such as intellectualism or adherence to textual wording
27: practical demonstration: when an approach (or several approaches jointly) of a procedural apparatus assumed to be absolute is used in acquiring understanding of religion.
28: Method (style): organization that has been established from a uniform group of norms and criteria
29: Formation of religious cognition: taking shape of valid understanding of religion
30: chain-linked interaction: Dialectic – dynamical / alternative – reciprocal meaningful, virtual and measured give and take of the proofs.
31: intra-origin / intra-document / intra-field interaction: internal chain-linked give and take of branches and components of a source or a document or a field with one another
32: interaction of visual source / visual document / visual field: chain-linked objective give and take of each one of the sources with the other or each of the documents with the other or each of the cognitive fields with the other
33: Visual-principled interaction: alternative give and take of each of the three pillars (sources, documents and fields) with the other principle
34: Intrinsic nature of religious cognition: structure and intrinsic attributes of “actualizing of valid examination for understanding religion”
35: Transformation of religious cognition: any kind of evolutionary raising or lowering in religious cognition
36: raising transformation: evolutionary transformation of religious cognition
37: lowering transformation: evolutionary decline or alteration of cognition from religion
38: theory of change: rational system of explaining and vindication of “evolution of religious cognition”.
39: readability: extraction of text, different rather indifferent interpretations in the manner that can be made available from a single text of multiple cognitions mechanisms.
40: comprehensibility: possibility of objective and exploratory interpretation from the connotation of the texts
41: intuitive rational study: proficient research of a cognition or major category with joint application of the intellect and induction as is the case
42: religious new-thinking and theorization: any kind of valid scientific innovation in the field of “consensus”, “definitions” “communication” and “actualization” of religion.
43: principles of new thinking and religious theorization: a principle that explains and justifies the possibility, authorization or necessity of profundity, expansion and methodical as well as updated expansion and analyses of “logic”, “substance” and “form” of fields of cognition of religion
44: systemization: deduction and macro coordination of system of application for actualization of the entire religion or a specific field of it.
45: methodology: study of facts and dispositions of understanding religion
46: Philosophy of religion: knowledge of intuitive-rational studies about the major categories of issues and claims of religion
47: religious philosophy: knowledge of existentiality adapted from documents of religion or congruent with religion.
48: logic of examination of religion: procedural apparatus of comprehension and grasp of the statements and ideas of religion.
49: philosophy of logic of examining religion: knowledge of study of universal procedures of principles and sources of examination of religion
50: specialized procedures: methodological systems of interpretation of each of the religious texts; or utility of each of the documents in comprehension of religion; or deduction and harmonization of the cognitive fields and disciplines of religion; or measurement and pathology of religious cognition
51: religious epistemology: based on the conventional wisdom of the day: epistemological study of religious cognition / according to its correct meaning, considering that it is a compound attribute: theory of cognition derived from or ascribed to religion.
52: Philosophy of religious cognition: science of idealist study of rational- intuitive religious cognition
53: investigation of religion: any kind of research and investigation in religion and about religion as well as orthodoxy and the orthodox
54: cognitive domains: two main spheres of religious cognition (theoretical wisdom of religion / practical wisdom of religion
55: subjects of the domain of religion: the pentagonal cognitive-providential orders of religion (perspective, method, action, knowledge and training)
56: sections of the cognitive field: tertiary branches of each cognitive subject of religion such as each one of the major categories of beliefs in the perspective field of religion (such as theology)
57: religious statements: traditionalist religious issues (metaphysical and non-metaphysical)
58: religious doctrines: existentialist religious issues (categorical and ambiguous)
59: religious subject: on the basis of the conventional modern wisdom: cognition or issue of adoption from the scriptures / narrated but based on correct premise: whatever is attained from reliable documents and proofs – including narrative and non-narrative.
60: religious object: on the basis of conventional wisdom whatever is grasped from excepting the sacred text

Sources and Origins
1- Alnaby, F. C., History of philosophy of religion (1875 – 1980) Hamid Reza Ayatollahi, Islamic Culture and Thought Research Center Publishers, Tehran, 2003, page 22.
2- Rashad, Ali Akbar, Philosophy of Religion, Publications Organization of Islamic Culture and Thought Research Center, Tehran, 2004, Chapter one
3- Soroush, Abdul Karim, Theoretic Contraction and Expansion of Islamic Legislation, Tehran, Siraat Cultural Institute, fifth edition, 1996
4- Shabestari, Mohammad, Hermeneutic Book and Tradition, Tehran, Tarh-e-Now, 1996
5- Hick, John; Philosophy of Religion, Bahram Rad, Al-Mahdi International Publishers, 1993, Tehran
6- Hick, John, Arguments of Religious Pluralism, Abdul Rahim Gavahi, Tebyan Cultural Institute Publishers, Tehran, 1999, Introduction by the author