Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tulisan ini berawal dari refleksi oleh penulis atas fenomena sosial akhir-akhir ini, kian hari bentuk dan cara kejahatan selalu berkembang. Penghancuran diri, orang lain dan lingkungan terjadi di berbagai negara. Ketimpana sosial dan dekadensi moral terjadi di mana-mana. Di Indonesia terjadi kontradiksi antara nilai-nilai religius sebagai bangsa yang ber-Tuhan dengan kenyataan yang kita saksikan. Busung lapar 'dirayakan' dengan korupsi. Ibadah dipraktekkan dengan mengadili agama lain, klaim kebenaran kelompok menjadi alat untuk menggilas terhadap pihak yang dianggap berbeda pandangan. Penulis mendekati persoalan di atas dengan berdasarkan pemikiran Profesor Alfred North Whitehead (15 Feb.1861- 30 Des.1947). Filsof Amerika Serikat, kelahiran Ingris yang terkenal sebagai tokoh utama filsafat proses. Filsafatnya diawali dengan mengkritik cara berpikir modernisme yang melihat realitas secara terpisah-pisah. Baginya pemikiran atomisme yang memandang titik berdiri sendiri harus ditingalkan, sebab titik bergantung pada garis dan garis membentuk segitiga yang menempati ruang. Hal ini untuk mengungkapkan bahwa segala sesuttu tak terpisahkan. Menurutnya yang 'ada' adalah 'proses' dan 'proses' itu sendiri adalah 'ada'. Satuan aktual (actual entity) adalah realitas yang terkecil yang terdiri atas satuan-satuan peristiwa. Tiap satuan aktual memiliki peran, memiliki kebebasan untuk menjadi dirinya dan menjadi faktor kebaruan bagi satuan aktual lain. Karena segala sesuatu dipandang sebagai 'proses' maka agama, Tuhan,manusia, juga dilihat sebagai proses, atau dalam penjadian. Agama dalam penjadiannya mengalami tahap perkembangan dari tahap ritus, emosi, kepercayaan dan mencapai tahap rasionalisme sebagai puncak perkembangan agama. Gagasan utama Whitehead tentang agama adalah agama rasionalisme. Penulis merangkum pemikiran Whitehead mengenai tiga prinsip dasar agama, yaitu: peranan pengalaman religius, peranan kesendirian ('solitariness') dan kesetiaan terhadap dunia ('world loyalty'), serta agama dalam menyejarah ('in the making').

Abstrak :
Publisher Synopsis PART I: THE CONCEPT OF GOD. Concepts of God and the Ultimate. Aristotle, Metaphysics 12; Stoics; Epicureans. Thomas V. Morris: The Concept of God. Clark Pinnock: The Openness of God-Systematic Theology. Sallie McFague: God and the World. Paul Tillich: A Christian-Buddhist Conversation. Buber, The Love of God and the Idea of Deity. Classical Theistic Attributes. Stephen T. Davis: Temporal Eternity. Hugh J. McCann: The God Beyond Time. St. Thomas Aquinas: Is God's Power Limited? George Mavrodes: Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence. Harry Frankfurt: The Logic of Omnipotence. St. Augustine: Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. Nelson Pike: God's Foreknowledge and Human Free Will are Incompatible. A. Plantinga: God's Foreknowledge and Human Free Will are Compatible. William Rowe: Can God be Free? Edward Wierenga: The Freedom of God. PART II: TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. St. Anselm: The Ontological Argument. Immanuel Kant: A Critique of the Ontological Argument. The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Thomas Aquinas: The Five Ways. Samuel Clarke: The Argument from Contingency. William Rowe: An Examination of the Cosmological Argument. W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland: The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Paul Draper: A Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God. William Paley: The Watch and the Watchmaker. David Hume: A Critique of the Design Argument. Richard Swinburne: The Argument from Design. Robin Collins: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God. PART III: RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. Selections of Mystical Experiences. William James: Mysticism. William Alston: Perceiving God. Eugene G. D'Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg: The Neurophysiological Basis of Religions, Or Why God Won't Go Away. Jeffrey Jordan: Religious Experience and Naturalistic Explanations. Michael Rea: Divine Hiddenness, Divine Silence. PART IV: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. Historical and Literary Perspectives. David Hume: The Argument from Evil. Gottfried Leibniz: Theodicy: A Defense of Theism. Fyodor Dostoevsky: Rebellion. Contemporary Formulations. J. L. Mackie: Evil and Omnipotence. W. Rowe: The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God. Paul Draper: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Replies. Alvin Plantinga: The Free Will Defense. John Hick: Evil and Soul-Making. Alvin Plantinga: Supralapsarianism or "O Felix Culpa". Eleonore Stump: The Problem of Evil and the Desires of the Heart. Marilyn Adams: Horrendous Evil and the Goodness of God. Laura Waddell Ekstrom: Suffering as Religious Experience. PART V: MIRACLES. David Hume: Against Miracles. Peter van Inwagen: Of 'Of Miracles.' J. L. Mackie: Miracles and Testimony. Richard Swinburne: Evidence for the Resurrection. Hud Hudson: Hyperspace and Christianity. PART VI: DEATH AND IMMORTALITY. Plato: Immortality of the Soul. Bertrand Russell: The Finality of Death. John Hick: Immortality and Resurrection. Jeffrey Olen: Personal Identity and Life After Death. Prasannatma Das: A Hindu Theory of Life, Death, and Reincarnation. PART VII: FAITH AND REASON. Pragmatic Justification of Religious Belief. Blaise Pascal: The Wager. W. K. Clifford: The Ethics of Belief. William James: The Will to Believe. Rationality and Justified Religious Belief. John Hick: Rational Theistic Belief Without Proof. Anthony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism". Michael Bergmann: Rational Religious Belief without Arguments. Louis P. Pojman: Faith, Hope, and Doubt. PART VIII: SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND EVOLUTION. The Relationship Between Science and Religion. Richard Dawkins: Science Versus Religion. Steven Jay Gould: Non-Overlapping Magesteria. Pope John Paul II: Faith and Science. Evolution, Naturalism, and Intelligent Design. William Dembski: Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Detection of Intelligent Design. Michael Murray: Natural Providence (Or Design Trouble). Alvin Plantinga: An Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. Michael Bergmann: Commonsense Naturalism. PART IX: RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. John Hick: Religious Pluralism and Ultimate Reality. Alvin Plantinga: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism. David Basinger: Hick's Religious Pluralism and "Reformed Epistemology". A Middle Ground. Dalai Lama: Buddhism, Christianity, and the Prospects for World Religion. Joseph Runzo: God, Commitment, and Other Faiths: Pluralism Versus Relativism

Abstrak :
One of the great scandals in philosophy from around the beginning of the 20th century has been the perpetuation of the idea that there is a substantial distinction to be made between so-called analytic and continental philosophy— one that goes beyond issues regarding style and sociology. And, even though none of the respective participants in the dispute admits to being able to give the distinction any articulation that does not slip between their fingers, the distinction remains today very real (in the stylistic and sociological sense), wielded by both sides for diverse, abject, anti-philosophical ends (inter alia): the perceived winning of arguments via the appeal to authority; ensuring that one’s arguments will not be subject to wide-ranging critical scrutiny; the maintenance of one’s image and identity as a member of a particular philosophical club at the expense of others’ membership; the perceived entitlement to ignore (and dismiss without reading) vast tranches of literature as some “non-U” other. In short, I think that the belief in the viability of the distinction is ideological in nature (in the pejorative, Marxist sense that I discuss in Chaps. 7 and 8, and which, in a sense, is the guiding theme of this book). One then ought to ask in the present context: why include the word “analytic” in the title of this book? Am I not further securing the credibility of this ideology (used to maintain the positions of power of individual philosophers belonging to each camp) by so doing? Am I not thus indicating my desire to engage with Islamic philosophy (depending on one’s perceived sense of tribal belonging) in terms of the “right” or “wrong” way?