Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:54:59.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statements of Religious Belief

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

A. O'hear
A. O'hear
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Surrey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A well-trodden approach to statements of religious belief takes the following course:

Religious believers call upon God as their loving Father. Clearly God, being a spirit, is not a Father in the straightforward biological sense. What is claimed is that he is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that he has moreover a special father-like care for his human creatures. But this claim does not seem to be subject to any modification in the face of apparent lack of parental care on the part of God to his children. In fact believers are unwilling or unable to specify any actual or potential state of affairs that counts or would count towards deciding the truth value of their belief. In the light of this, it is hard to see the belief as having any meaning at all. The conclusion is that however much we may want to accept religious statements on faith, we cannot, because we are unable to discover what it is we are being asked to believe.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 361 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 362 note 1 Newman, J. H., A Grammar of Assent (New York, 1955), p. 114.Google Scholar

page 362 note 2 Ibid. p. 127.

page 363 note 1 Frege, G., ‘Sense and Reference’ in Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, translated by Geach, P. and Black, M. (Oxford, 1960), p. 57.Google Scholar

page 363 note 2 Point due to Dummett, M. in ‘What is a Theory of Meaning?’ in Mind and Language, edited by Guttenplan, S. (Oxford, 1975), p. 125.Google Scholar My account of Frege, especially of Frege's notion of tone, derives principally from Dummett's Frege (London, 1973), especially ch. 5.Google Scholar

page 364 note 1 Quoted from the account of Lévy-Bruhl's 1949 Carnets given by Needham, R. in Belief, Language and Experience (Oxford, 1972), pp. 164Google Scholar;

page 365 note 1 Durkheim, , The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated by Swain, J. W. (London, 1964), p. 225.Google Scholar

page 367 note 1 Wittgenstein, L., ‘Bemerkungen über Frazer's The Golden Bough’, Synthese, XVII (1967), 233–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 368 note 1 Cf. Frazer, J. G., The Golden Bough (London, 1970), chs. 3 and 4.Google Scholar

page 368 note 2 Wittgenstein, , op. cit. p. 237.Google Scholar

page 368 note 3 Ibid. p. 245.

page 368 note 4 Ibid. p. 244.

page 369 note 1 Sperber, D., Rethinking Symbolism, translated by Morton, A. L. (Cambridge, 1975).Google Scholar

page 370 note 1 Ibid. p. 33.

page 370 note 2 Ibid. p. 101.

page 371 note 1 Ibid. p. 145.

page 371 note 2 Cf. Palmer, H., Analogy (London, 1973), p. 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 371 note 3 Sperber, , op. cit. p. 137.Google Scholar