Document Type : Original Article
Author
Assistant Professor, Theology Department, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Many Christian philosophers, theologians, and thinkers have considered the story of Noah's flood and the creation of man and other historical stories in the sacred texts not to be a report of a historical event, but rather a symbolic way of presenting religious points. However, Paul Tillich, who is a complete hermeneuticist, interprets all religious statements, including the story of creation, in the form of symbolic language (non-realistic cognitive linguistics) in the interpretation of religious texts. For this reason, he believes that there. is no conflict between science and religion In contrast, Murtaza Mutahhari interprets only the story of the creation of Adam, in which a realistic interpretation is not possible, based on symbolic and symbolic language, and has generally not said anything about negation or affirmation about other Quranic stories Mutahhari, by relying on symbolic language in the story of Adam, distinguishes it from the descriptive language of science because what is not permissible in scientific language is permissible in symbolic language, and what is essential to observe in scientific language is negligible in symbolic language. Although Mutahhari emphasizes the symbolic nature of the language of the Quran in the story of the creation of Adam, because he has a propositional approach to revelation, he does not consider the language of religion to be a non-realist cognitive linguist like Tillich. Basically, in his view, the material in the story of Adam is all real, but the language of revelation in the description of creation is symbolic.
Keywords
Main Subjects