” The Effect of Presuppositions from the Perspective of Philosophy of Science and Hermeneutics on Human Expectation from Religion: A Study of the Views of Contemporary Religion Scholars with the emphasis on Mohammad Amin Ahmadi “

One of the problems of modern theology and philosophy of religion is that human presuppositions and expectations of religion affect the understanding of the religious text. This point has been shown by the thinkers of these two aforementioned epistemological fields; By entering a posteriori epistemology, they have shown, for example, that Muslim scholars and commentators have understood the religious text based on their particular presuppositions and expectations of religion. In addition, thinkers in the two aforementioned epistemological fields argue that, based on theories in the philosophy of science and hermeneutics, presuppositions and expectations of religion are inevitable and coercive. For example, the theory of observations is more valuable than the theory. In the philosophy of science and theory, any understanding is based on prejudice. Nevertheless, theologians and philosophers of religion believe that although presuppositions and expectations of religion are inevitable, they can be corrected.

Hence, based on this approach, they have tried to correct the presuppositions and expectations of religion and thus gain an understanding of religion appropriate to the modern world. Mohammad Amin Ahmadi has followed the same path in his book “Human Expectations from Religion”. Assuming that presuppositions and expectations of religion are inevitable but modifiable, he uses a posteriori epistemology to recognize current and common presuppositions in understanding the religious text, and then in the face of the modern world as an example of three presuppositions / three expectations. Has reformed religion. The present dissertation criticizes this approach of theologians and philosophers of religion, and in particular Ahmadi’s approach, is that one cannot expect religion from presuppositions and prejudices. There is a fundamental difference between the presuppositions of understanding the religious text and the expectations of religion; the first is epistemological in nature and the second is ontological in nature.

Proving that presuppositions are inevitable, it cannot be logically concluded that expectations of religion are also inevitable; proving that theory is the presupposition of understanding the religious text does not logically prove that theory is also part of the expectation of religion. Because the premise of understanding a religious text is to expect from religion; not every presumption of understanding the text of religion is an expectation of religion, but every expectation of religion is a presupposition of understanding a religious text.