The Examination and Criticism of Swinburne’s Theory About Meaningfulness of Theological Propositions

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of Philsophy of Religion, Faculty of Theology, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran

Abstract

The question examined in this article is one of the most important issues in the contemporary philosophy of religion: If the sentences and propositions used in the scriptures of religions and denominations have the same meaning of the common language or entail a specific, novel meaning.  With the advent of positivistic thought in the modern era, a new perception appeared in this regard, which came to be known as the meaninglessness of religion language. Richard Swinburne is a contemporary religion philosopher who believes that the meanings of theological propositions are the same as common language. In addition to criticizing the positivist view, Swinburne bases his view on logical coherence. In this article, we examine and criticize Swinburne’s logical coherence theory. Our results show that the discussion on the meaningfulness/meaninglessness of the religion language – especially from a positivistic view – revolves around understanding/lack of understanding rather than logical coherence. In other words, in the positivistic view, the claim is that we cannot have a true understanding of the content of religious propositions, and without understanding, we cannot discuss coherence. Of course, we do not intend to defend the positivist approach here, but rather we maintain that the meaninglessness theory cannot be responded via the logical coherence theory.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. کونگ، هانس (1389). خدا در اندیشۀ فیلسوفان غرب. ج 1، ترجمۀ حسن قنبری، قم: دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب قم.
  2. Ayer, A.J. (1925) language, Truth and logic. New York: Dover.
  3. D. (1979). An approach to Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Macmillan press LTD.
  4. Konghans (2009). God in the Thought of Western Philosophers. Vol. 1, translated by Hassan Ghanbari, Qom: University of Religions and Religions Qom. (in persian)
  5. M. (2013). Religious language. Palgrave Macmillan.
  6. Swinburne, R. (2005). Faith and Reason. Oxford University Press.
  7. Swinburne, R. (1993). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford University Press.  
  8. wittgenstein, L. (1961).Tractatus logico -philosphicos  trans . D.F. pears and  F. MCGuinness. London
Philosophy of Religion
Volume 19, Issue 4
January 2023
Pages 501-509

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics