چکیده:
This article seeks to demonstrate how theological theoretical systems—which form around all historical religions and thus must be fundamentally distinguished from the original spiritual essence of those religions—interpret history, personalities, and historical events within their own belief frameworks, speaking of history 'as it ought to be' rather than 'as it is.' This very thing, namely loyalty to the theological systems accepted by a nation or a group, causes believers in a theological system—just like followers of ideological systems in the modern era—to have an instrumental encounter with history and its events; they utilize history not as an important epistemological source, but as a tool to extract specific historical corroborations to prove their religious beliefs, thereby ignoring all instances that contradict their convictions. Therefore, due to the nature of theological thinking and its characteristics—such as being dialectical, remote, systemic, hyperbolic, arbitrary, dualistic, etc.—the one-sided interpretations of believers in theological systems should be regarded more as a type of 'historiography' or even a type of 'holy lie' rather than a report of history. It must be noted that terms like 'historiography' or 'holy lie' should by no means be understood as completely conscious or in a moral sense, but rather as unconscious phenomena and as epistemological errors. Consequently, in theological systems, history is removed from the reach of the believers as a fundamental epistemological source.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Reflections on Theological Myth-making Bijan Abdolkarimi1 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Islamic Azad University Date Received: 2009/07/23 Date Approved: 2009/11/13 Abstract This article aims to demonstrate how theological theoretical systems—which are formed around all historical religions and thus a fundamental distinction must be made between these theoretical systems and the original and spiritual essence of religions—interpret history, characters, and historical events within their own belief framework, and speak of history 'as it ought to be' rather than 'as it is.
' This very matter, meaning loyalty to the theological systems accepted by a nation or a group, causes believers in a 'correct' theological system—much like followers of ideological systems in the modern era—to have an instrumental encounter with history and its events, utilizing history not as an important epistemological source, but as a tool to extract certain historical corroborations for the purpose of proving their religious beliefs, and therefore ignoring all instances that contradict their beliefs.
One can agree with all defenders of theological systems, based on a hermeneutic principle, that no report or interpretation—it is better to say no understanding—of phenomena and events is possible without prior assumptions, but this statement does not mean at all that all interpretations possess value and validity.
However, this statement that "any report and interpretation of historical incidents and events that can be accepted by diverse social groups with various and even conflicting and contradictory assumptions and tendencies possesses more truth," means that such a report and interpretation, which is compatible with various assumptions and tendencies, possesses less theological and ideological description compared to reports and interpretations that are merely compatible with specific preconditions and tendencies, thereby providing more possibility for the "self-disclosure of phenomena.
(
, 
, 
)
