The last lecture of the course was about Fideism, in particular about the Islamic branch. It is known as a small significant current in Iran and Iraq that came to challenge the philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai. Fideism can be defined as an doctrine that relies upon faith alone, accompanied with a marginal role for reason and it can be utilised in the pursuit of the philosophical. It has become associated with anti-intellectualism, however, in reality this is not the case. Several philsophers in the medieval and modern times were adhering to Fideism: Kant, Pascal, James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga and Bishop.
Pascal makes the point that it makes no sense to adhere to proofs or justifications, it is a human construct. Words are not the primary mode of conviction or to arrive to commitment to religion or truth. Kierkegaard states that we only arrive at the approximation of truth after investigation, not the complete truth. If you want to capture the metaphysical truth of religion, science and history are not sufficient. Your interpretation is what is more important. Anyone who wants to demonstrate the existence of god end up demonstrating something else.
I see a parallel with modern believers and the doctrine of fideism. When discussing about the existince of God or what the starting point of life has been, many believers use the argument that we are intellectually not capable to understand/proof or falsify these questions.
Mohammad's blog 