Sophia最新文献

Dwayne Moore’s "A Naturalistic Theodicy for Sterba’s Problem of Natural Evil," (Moore, 2024) provides a detailed critique of my logical argument from evil against the existence of the God of traditional theism. While there have been many critiques of my logical argument against the existence of the God of traditional theism from moral evil to which I have replied (2020b, 2020c, 2021, 2023), there has been only one previous critique that was directed at my logical argument from natural evil (see Jordan, 2023). Accordingly, I welcome this opportunity to show how my logical argument from natural evil works against Moore’s critique.

There are various permutations of theism: henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, a/theism, and nontheistic divinity. There is debate whether the idea of OmniGod was ever achieved in India. R. C. Zaehner argued that an evolutionary transition from pratenaturalism of the Vedas to Upaniṣad’s monism, culminated in monotheism with Purāṇas and the Bhagavad Gītā. I argue differently, beginning with ancient ritualistic polytheism, followed by unifying One Brahman, toward monistic panentheism and later non-dualism of advaita Vedānta. Under the influence of Asaṅga, Buddhism elevated the Buddha as the Great Divine Replacement. As a response or reaction, Brāhmaṇism forged Īśvara as God with the World as his Body. By 13th century, theistic dualism separated Īśvara from his creatio. Even Nyāya rational philosophy was persuaded by monotheism as demonstrated in their teleo-cosmological argument for the existence of Īśvara. I attribute all this to sectarian and doctrinal shifts rather than to any evolutionary teleology and/or predestined historicist movement.

In this paper I will argue that Christian theology is rooted in liturgical practices, being theology the theoretical reflection on the ritual practices of the Church. I will show that Christian Personal Theism stems from a liturgical practice by which we praise God as Father Almighty. Taking into account Eleonor Stump’s idea of Franciscan knowledge, and Nicholas Wolterstorff’s and Terence Cuneo’s works on liturgy and theology, I argue that God is deemed in our religious practices as a person to whom we honor and praise. I will, then, focus on the title of God in our Credo as Father Almighty to show the political meaning of Páter Pantokrátor. Attending to this political dimension, I will examine Thomas Aquinas’ definition of religion as a special part of the virtue of justice that is connected to piety and the honor we owe to God as our Father and Lord. Third, I will take Basil of Caesarea’s argument on the holiness of the Holy Spirit to show how the configuration of God as Father Almighty entails as well the configuration of all His creatures as His servants and children. The objective of this paper is to consider the essential role that liturgy plays in the epistemology of theology and the need to complete an analytic perspective with Political Theology and hermeneutics.

This study focuses on al-Taftāzānī’s discussion of the ontological status of divine attributes in his Sharḥ al-ʿAqāid and aims to demonstrate that al-Rāzī’s (d. 606/1210) reluctantly and ambiguously proposed formula that divine attributes are possible by themselves and necessary by God, which itself is an adaptation of Avicennian formula about the ontological status of the divine intellects, received much more recognition after a more sophisticated and advanced version of it was introduced to Sunnī kalām tradition by al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390). His improvements generated a considerable amount of intellectual interest within the subsequent commentary and super-commentary tradition and were then refined by the later commentators, a crucial development which has been almost entirely neglected in the modern scholarship. This study further argues that the orientation of post-classical kalām extends to the point where it embraces a specific formula promoted by the Falāsifa to refine Sunnī theory about the ontological status of the divine attributes. Consequently, Sunnī theology deliberately adapted a previously rejected theory to one of its most exclusive and core subjects, that is the discussion of the divine attributes. This study will also show that dramatic transformations in the approach and the structure indicate that Sunnī kalām, especially in Sharḥ al-ʿAqāid commentaries and super-commentaries, was significantly influenced by philosophical theories and was required to adopt both the vocabulary and the framework fashioned in philosophical debates on a greater scale after its first transformation due to al-Rāzī’s influence. Because of the voluminous commentaries and super-commentaries on Sharḥ al-ʿAqāid and their extended coverage of a variety of subjects, the current study limits itself to al-Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāid and its super-commentaries by Musa Khayālī (d. 862/1457) and Ramazan Efendi al-Ḥanafī (d. 1025/1616?).

Giorgio Agamben’s philosophy has been influenced by Michel Foucault’s thoughts in various aspects. This influence can be seen especially in methodology and political philosophy to a certain extent. Agamben’s political project, Homo Sacer, culminates in the publication of The Use of Bodies, where he proposes ‘form-of-life’ as a way to overcome the contemporary biopolitics. While the concept of form-of-life has often been considered in connection with the issue of sovereignty and law, this article argues that it (and Agamben’s coming politics) can also be understood as a response to Foucault’s biopower. This is possible by considering several conceptual oppositions raised by Agamben against Foucault’s ideas, concepts such as “intimacy”, “community”, and “zoe/bios”. And this is, finally, an effort to re-appropriate human freedom.

In this paper, I draw attention to various doctrines common to different Vedāntic traditions. In particular, I pay close attention to the doctrine of beginningless karman. I also note that this doctrine seems to stand in tension with Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments (LCAs) and Kalām Cosmological Arguments (KCAs). This tension arises because defenders of these arguments argue that an infinite causal regress or an actual infinite cannot be physically instantiated and because the doctrine of beginningless karman seems to imply that such a regress or actual infinite can be physically instantiated. I address this tension by showing that not all interpretations of beginningless karman involve an infinite causal regress or an actual infinite. I close this paper by highlighting a few features that Vedāntic traditions have that make them more resistant to some objections to LCAs and KCAs.

This paper reconsiders explanations of ‘popular’ Buddhism in Thailand initiated in mid-twentieth century anthropological definitions of vernacular articulations of religiosity in village settings. Buddhist localism, in its various manifestations, is seen to contrast with a doctrinal or literate ‘great’ monastic tradition. In this persisting ethnographic argument, an actor may draw randomly on various syncretic elements of their religiosity according to circumstances (an historical complexity which is sourced in a mix of Sinhalese-sourced Buddhism, animism including magic, and folk Brahmanism). It is therefore not wholly or consistently one, but substantively divided into several strands. This long-standing position is problematic as the paper shows. There are multiple coextensive Buddhism/s (plural) within the Greater Theravada tradition, which emerge from an identification of the actors themselves with the one, not the many, as one-unitary-Buddhists. I theorise using a general framework of Meillassoux’s discussion on contingency and, by way of contrast, taking Deleuzian ideas on multiplicity. It is grounded on an understanding of popular or organic lived religion sourced in the early counter-enlightenment or radical enlightenment thinking of Giambattista Vico. Here, it is argued that in Thailand villagers would identify cosmologically as the one, not as the many (in a sense as in the assemblages or varieties of religious practices detached from the totality of the cosmological unitary one). Understanding the creative processes behind cosmological multiplicities is a starting point, with the notion that within specific cultural forms we are faced with a multiplicity of definitions and things to observe, as in an understanding of the varieties of lived Buddhism. The essay is based on an ethnographic assessment from over three decades of field research among ethnic Thai Buddhists at various modalities and settings, and in framing these vernacular religious practices and their ontologies. My gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. The essay does not deal directly with specific ethnographic case studies; instead, it is intended as retheorising representations of ‘Popular Buddhism’ in Thailand as based on early scholarship since the 1960s (where Buddhism is constituted as three or more distinctive but intertwined religious strands).

Veiling is one of the sources of seclusion of women from and within society. Ghūnghat (avagunṭhana, purdāh) or veiling is primarily associated with covering one’s face which performs various functions. The rationale for veiling could be that it becomes a source of refuge to women from the gaze of others, sometimes providing them with a place of their own, without any interference from others, maintains their respectability and mān or izzat (honour), and becomes a sign of their modesty in society. On the other hand, on analysis, it turns out to be a source of concealment of one’s identity, suppression of one’s sexuality, and a life without any agency. This paper, in the context of the dominant caste of the North Indian Hindu community, will bring out the cultural, social, and gendered aspects of the practice of veiling to show how the acceptance and deference to this practice is the byproduct of women’s conditioning in a patriarchal society. By bringing in the physical and symbolic aspects of veiling, this paper attempts to show how this discussion is significant for the attainment of a ‘good quality of life’ as mentioned by Martha Nussbaum and to come out of the state of an internalised sense of oppression.

I argue that Jīva Gosvāmin’s (c. 1517–1608 ad) concept of acintya and Thomas Aquinas’s (1225–1274 ad) concept of mystery are similar. To make this case, I examine how each of them characterizes the nature of unity and plurality within the being of God, which is the issue of relations within a single object. I examine contemporary translations of acintya as it is used by Jīva, and I argue that mystery is a best translation because it addresses the ontological and epistemological senses of the word. I examine contemporary accounts of mystery as it is used by Aquinas, arguing that they reflect Jīva’s use of the word acintya. This comparative study makes the case for similar approaches in Hindu and Christian scholasticism in regard to the use of reason to address the relational problem of simultaneous oneness and difference.