چکیده:
Strog reading of the religious theory of natural law is a view that makes it possible to explain and discover the moral advice of religion without referring to the scriptures. This reading is based on the following two principles: (1) the application of natural law as an explanatory framework for the moral advice of religion; And (2) emphasis on the ability of natural reason to fully understand natural law. One of the most controversial aspects of this theory is its epistemological background and the role of natural reason in understanding natural law. The claim that all of God's moral advice can be understood in the light of natural reason faces challenges that we will examine in this article. The four essential components of this reading to solve epistemological challenges are: (1) the theological validity of natural law; (2) religious significance independent of the sacred text; (3) comprehensiveness and inclusion in the field of normative ethics and practical ethics; And (4) the precedence of its rank and position over the sacred text. In this article, we discuss the epistemological challenges that the strong reading of natural law faces and along with the explanation of the four mentioned components, try to show a framework within which natural wisdom can know all the moral advice of God.
خلاصه ماشینی:
1271 [Received date: 19/07/1398 Accepted date: 06/12/1398] Abstract A maximalist reading of the religious theory of natural law is a perspective that considers the explanation and discovery of the moral recommendations of religion possible without referring to sacred texts.
In this writing, we address the epistemological challenges faced by the maximalist reading of natural law and attempt to show, by explaining the aforementioned four components, a framework within which natural reason can achieve the recognition of all of God's moral recommendations.
A maximalist reading of this theory considers the discovery of all moral principles of religion/natural law possible through the light of natural reason and without referring to sacred texts.
In any case, the view we defend in response to the epistemological challenges belongs to the second category (simple formulation/purely philosophical) and has two advantages over other maximalist readings: (1) By considering natural reason as a source, it determines all the content of religious ethics a priori (before referring to the sacred text).
2. The maximalist reading of natural law and the representation of God's will in religious ethics Proponents of the cosmological argument (including proponents of the natural law theory and the theory of the divine command) consider God, insofar as He is the creator of the universe, to possess a creative (existential) will.
" "Dissolution of conflict" does not mean that there is no conflict between "our understanding of the sacred text" and the "rational implications of the maximalist reading," but rather it means that with our proposed framework regarding a priori knowledge, investigating the issue of conflict in the view of both thinkers, the process of recognizing the correct moral choice in the realm of practical ethics is rooted in human nature.
(
, 
, 
)
