Titlebook: Religious Language; Michael Scott Book 2013 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2013 discourse.language.philoso

祝贺

Michael Scott959, p .... ). Some of the manuscripts were written over a period of days, with sequential paging, with the actual dates indicated. Full citations are given in the bibliography. I am grateful to the Harvard University Archives for permission to quote from these materials, and to Bridgman‘s daughter,

Oversee

魅力

critique

intrude

Against Expressivismxpressivism has answers for some of the objections raised against it, it encounters some very serious problems that render it an unacceptable theory; moderate attitude theory, in contrast, escapes relatively unscathed. In each section of this chapter I look at a different objection.

摆动

hermitage

Introductionaving the ‘semantic’ or ‘propositional’ content — ., and in stating it a speaker conventionally expresses the belief that God is omnipotent. More generally, according to face value theory, the interpretation of religious language does not diverge from our interpretation of other descriptive areas of

就职

Apophaticsility of God. Sometimes called ‘mystical’ or ‘apophatic’ theology, in contrast with the dominant ‘cataphatic’ approach, this tradition — or at least one influential strand of it — motivates an account of religious language that diverges from the face value theory. Apophatic theology, or ‘apophatics’

Somber

considerable

Braithwaite and Verificationismous language. However, his theory proceeds from a largely uncritical acceptance of the verificationist theory of meaning endorsed by the logical positivists. This theory, popularised by A. J. Ayer in . (1936; 2nd edition 1946), was argued by him to show that religious . — his term for indicative sen