Religious Language and Knowledge [Book Review]

Review of Metaphysics 26 (4):746-747 (1973)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The eight essays assembled under this title were originally presented at the 1965 Great Thinkers Forum sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Georgia. These essays are now being published in the conviction that they all make "valuable contributions toward the understanding and resolution of the contemporary challenge to theology and religion." The challenge in question is the one that comes from neopositivism and linguistic analysis. By the time the reader comes to the end of his own effort he finds himself wondering in what sense the 1965 papers are to count as valuable contributions. No doubt they are valuable in the sense that it is worthwhile watching a single-minded philosopher pouring his soul out in an attempt at showing how the "disguised nonsense" of religious language is "patent nonsense," or how the "putatively factual assertions" of religious language are "bogus, pseudo-factual statements, devoid of the kind of intelligibility that believers rightly demand of them." Along the way one may collect pearls of rare beauty, such as the statement that "There is no convention in English or logical rule which makes ‘there is no God’ a contradiction," or questions such as "Who has observed him under controlled conditions?" Another contribution of the same general usefulness may well be that the thoughtful reader is being initiated to the exertions of that transformational hermeneutics by which pseudo-assertive religious statements are being rescued from wholesale meaninglessness, and accorded the innocuous meaningfulness of emotive or convictional language, or of disguised moral discourse. Professor Frank H. Harrison III makes an interesting attempt at injecting into the landscape, linguistically and epistemologically so bleak, what he calls "knowledge by acquaintance," which is in his vocabulary the equivalent of what mysticism calls amor Dei, and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry describes as a seeing with the heart. The discussion of myth by Professor Robert H. Ayers ignores what happens to be the heart of the matter in mythic thinking, namely the absence of the distinction between object and subject, but does provide a good introduction to the "profusion of confusion" that flourishes around myth, "one of the most traveled hobos in our times."

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What We Know When We Know a Language.Barry C. Smith - 2006 - In Ernest Lepore & Barry C. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 941.
Religious language.Michael Scott - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):505-515.
Religious language as poetry: Heidegger's challenge.Anna Strhan - 2011 - Heythrop Journal 52 (6):926-938.
Practical knowledge of language.Cheng-Hung Tsai - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (2):331-341.
Knowledge, language and learning.Rama Kant Agnihotri & Hriday Kant Dewan (eds.) - 2010 - Delhi: Macmillan Publishers India.
What Remains of Our Knowledge of Language?: Reply to Collins.Barry C. Smith - 2008 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (22):557-75.
D. Z. Phillips on God and evil.John Hick - 2007 - Religious Studies 43 (4):433-441.
Swimming and speaking spanish.Patricia Hanna - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (3):267-285.
Lewis on Experience, Reason, and Religious Belief.Eugene Thomas Long - 1981 - Review of Metaphysics 35 (1):87 - 109.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-03-18

Downloads
26 (#607,004)

6 months
6 (#508,040)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references