An Investigation into the Meaningfulness of Religious Language

In recent work on the philosophy of religion, there has been a great deal of concentration on what John provincial, in his Philosophy of Religion calls the peculiarity of religious language. Hick is referring to the particular that when language is used either to describe God, or to make any kind of religious statement, it is used in ways that quickly reveal difficulties of meaning. These problems have to do with the fact that while religious statements seem to have all the federal agency of factual statements, it is quite clearly not possible to determine them as actually being equivalently authoritative.

Examples:

1. Jesus loves Kyle and Jim. Kyle loves Jim.

2. God has uniform me to do this

3. My father has ordered me to stay in tonight

In the gaucherie of statement 1, it would be straightforward to discover evidence for or against the truth of the statement that Kyle loves Jim. If one could listen to their private conversations in class, for example, it would not be difficult to interpret the affection of Kyle for Jim. allow us suggest that if Kyle were ill or upset, Jims conduct towards him would certify his love.

We could go on with this list and lengthen it considerably.



It would surely be rather more difficult to provide similar confirmation of the statement that Jesus loves Kyle and Jim, for, in attempting to do so, one would accept to address such intractable questions as these:

Examples:

- How would we go rough demonstrating either the truth or the falsity of this statement?

- If Kyle verbalize that he did not believe it was true and Jim said that he did, who would be speaking the truth?

- If the roof were blown tally their house in a terrible storm, would this indicate...

If you want to part a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper