The Problem of Religious Language

Abstract

With the rise of analytic philosophy in the early part of the twentieth century and its emphasis upon linguistic analysis, it should not be surprising that a significant crisis developed by midcentury among both philosophers and theologians concerning religious language. That there was such a crisis is evidenced both by the explicit recognition of the challenge in the writings of several leading figures in both the philosophy of religion and in theology and by the plethora of books and articles that appeared in print in the period from approximately midcentury until ten years or so afterward.1 There was much disagreement among different analytic philosophers; however, the one underlying, common tenet upon which nearly all of them would have agreed is that language is the one continuous thread from which the entire fabric of religion and religious belief is woven. Some of the problems with religious language are illustrated by the more extreme positions, for example, A. J. Ayer’s claim that the language of theology is meaningless and nonsense and Paul van Buren’s claim that “the word ‘God’ is dead.”2 Other concerns were prompted by the repercussions of attention to language by the more moderate analytic philosophers and the elevation of the importance of the analysis of language for philosophical or theological pursuits.KeywordsReligious BeliefReligious ExperienceAnalytic PhilosophyCausal TheoryLinguistic CommunityThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.