No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The response of the theological world to contemporary developments in empirical and language philosophy is beginning to take on a more definite and active form. Books and articles are now appearing which deal with everything from the semantics of the Old Testament1 and the Church Fathers2 to parallels between language analysis and Karl Barth's theology.3 In addition, anthologies in the philosophy of religion are now including a section on ‘The Nature of Religious Language’.4
As the quantity and quality of this response increase there arises a need for a survey and classification of the various approaches of which it is composed. It is the purpose of this article to provide such a survey, and to make some evaluational comments and suggestions. It should be mentioned at the out-set that it is impossible completely to classify approaches; and yet there are similarities and dissimilarities among these approaches which enable one to point out ‘family resemblances’.
Obviously, such a survey cannot come close to being exhaustive, but certain tendencies can be noted. Moreover, an effort will be made to classify the various approaches according to a continuum. Those that are dealt with first tend towards maintaining the autonomy of religious language, while those that are discussed further along in the article would prefer to relate religious language to empirical experience. In between there are those who would advocate something similar to an eclectic view.
page 1 note 1 Barr, James, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Laeuchli, Samauel, The Language of Faith (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962).Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 Ramm, Bernard, ‘Karl Barth and Analytic Philosophy’, The Christian Century, 11th April 1962.Google Scholar
page 1 note 4 McGregor, and Robb, , Readings in Religious Philosophy (Houghton Mifflin Co.), Boston, 1962.Google Scholar
page 3 note 1 Zuurdeeg, Willem F., ‘Implications of Analytical Philosophy for Theology’, The Journal of Bible and Religion, July 1961, p. 206.Google Scholar
page 3 note 2 ibid., p. 206.
page 4 note 1 ibid., p. 208.
page 4 note 2 Zuurdeeg, , An Analytical Philosophy of Religion (Abingdon Press, 1961).Google Scholar
page 4 note 3 Zuurdeeg, op. cit., p. 209.
page 5 note 1 For a more complete exposition of Foster's position see his book Mystery and Philosophy (S.C.M. Press, London, 1957).
page 5 note 2 The Christian Scholar, Fall 1960, p. 194.
page 6 note 1 ibid., p. 197.
page 6 note 2 ibid., p. 196.
page 6 note 3 op. cit., p. 20.
page 7 note 1 ibid., p. 209.
page 9 note 1 See also his article ‘Is Language About God Fraudulent?’ in The Scottish Journal of Theology, December 1959.
page 9 note 2 Ferré, F., Language, Logic, and God (Harper, New York, 1961), p. 146.Google Scholar
page 10 note 1 ibid., p. 153.
page 11 note 1 ibid., p. 161.
page 12 note 1 ibid., p. 165.
page 12 note 2 Ferré, op. cit., p. 354.
page 13 note 1 McIntyre, John, ‘Analogy’, Scottish Journal of Theology, March 1959, p. 20.Google Scholar
page 14 note 1 Ferré, op. cit., p. 159.
page 14 note 2 ibid., p. 160.
page 16 note 1 Ramsey, I. T., ‘Contemporary Empiricism’, The Christian Scholar, Fall 1960, p. 181.Google Scholar
page 16 note 2 For a direct application of Wittgenstein's approach see ‘Wittgenstein and Religious Language’, Theology Today, April 1964.
page 16 note 3 op. cit., p. 181.
page 17 note 1 ibid., p. 183.
page 17 note 2 ibid., p. 183.
page 18 note 1 Hick, John, Faith and Knowledge (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1957). P.21.Google Scholar
page 19 note 1 ibid., chap. 8, ‘Faith and Freedom’.
page 19 note 2 ibid., p. 147.
page 20 note 1 ibid., p. 150.
page 20 note 2 ibid., p. 152.
page 20 note 3 Hick, J., ‘Theology and Verification’, Theology Today, April 1960.
page 21 note 1 See especially his Models and Mystery (Oxford, 1964) which goes a long way to meeting these difficulties.
page 21 note 2 See R. Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability (University of Chicago Press); and E. Nagel, ‘Principles of the Theory of Probability’, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, University of Chicago Press.
page 21 note 3 My own approach to a ‘Christian empiricism’ is outlined in the June 1963 issue of The Scottish Journal of Theology under the title ‘The Possibility of Apologetics’.
page 22 note 1 Ramsey, op. cit., p. 184.