Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T07:52:54.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conjecture and Criticism in Religious Belief

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Shivesh C. Thakur
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy, University of Surrey

Extract

Accounts of religion, like almost all influential academic and intellectual exercises, as indeed much else, in the last two or three centuries, have generally been the work of Western scholars and intellectuals, often less familiar with, but sometimes simply disinclined to take seriously, non-Western religious traditions. Consequently most of these accounts have tended to be parochial, failing to apply to, say, Eastern religions, not to mention so-called ‘primitive’ religions; and have often given to what should only have been ‘local squabbles’ the appearance of universal religious concern. As a result, even philosophers of religion have largely explicated what might be called the ‘prescriptive grammar’ of religion. With a view to rectifying the situation, I intend to outline what I hope will be a ‘descriptive’ account, i.e. one which will be true of at least the major living religions of the world, e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and their main schools or sects. Inevitably, such a general account will fail to incorporate the unique features of any one religion; but it should have the advantage of restoring the proper perspective in debates concerning religion and religious issues, including those relating to the semantic and/or logical features of religious belief and so-called ‘religious language’.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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 71 note 1 Findlay, J. N., ‘Can God's Existence Be Disproved?’, in New Essays In Philosophical Theology, Flew, Anthony (ed.) (London, 1963).Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 Ziff, Paul, ‘About God’, in Religious Experience and Truth, Hook, Sydney (ed.) (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

page 73 note 1 Searle, John R., Speech Acts (Cambridge, 1970), ch. I, especially pp. 412.Google Scholar

page 74 note 1 Hare, R. M., ‘Theology and Falsification’, in New Essays in Philosophical Theology.Google Scholar

page 75 note 1 I am already of the opinion that the commitment should be analysed into three components: (I) ‘belief’-commitments, (2) ‘attitude’-commitments and (3) ‘action’-commitments. But in this paper I am leaving the analysis as it first appeared. Comments on this version will, I hope, allow me to present a more comprehensive analysis in the proposed book.

page 76 note 1 Austin, J. L., How To Do Things With Words (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

page 76 note 2 Searle, , op. cit.Google Scholar

page 76 note 3 I owe this concept to Fotion, N., ‘Master Speech Acts’, in Philosophical Quarterly, XXI (1971), 232–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 77 note 1 See Strawson, P. F., ‘Truth’, Analysis, ix, no. 6 (1949)Google Scholar; and ‘Truth’, P.A.S. suppl. vol. XXIV (1950).Google Scholar

page 78 note 1 See Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (London, 1975).Google Scholar

page 78 note 2 See Popper, K. R., Conjectures and Refutations (London, 1963).Google Scholar