Abstract

This article is a critical examination of two distinct linguistic approaches to religion. the first employs the principle that peripheral uses of words are parasitic on their central uses to exclude religious language on grounds of a-typicality. this is criticized on grounds that meaning of words is not simply given in language but tied to understanding or explanatory framework. hence a-typicality objections lose force. the second, represented by d z phillips, immunizes religious language against outside criticism by claiming its criteria of intelligibility to be internal. this claim is argued against by means of contradiction between phillips' content and performance; claim to philosophical neutrality is also questioned