Advertisement

Some Attempted Conclusions

  • Michael Durrant
Part of the New Studies in the Philosophy of Religion book series (NSPR)

Abstract

In the light of my discussion in the last chapter I conclude that:
  1. (1)

    Sentences of the form I have been considering cannot be regarded as either (a) expressing pictures or (b) being pictures or (c) presenting pictures which play a certain role in the life of the believer, and that attempts to develop a ‘picture’ theory of such sentences, in addition to being based initially on false assumptions present in certain cited writings of the later Wittgenstein, are either internally inconsistent, lacking in decision procedure and open to crucial objections from the standpoint of traditional belief (in the case of Professor Phillip’s account) or are open to the charge of introducing a vacuous notion of ‘logical connection’ on the basis of an unintelligible use of the notion of ‘entailment’ and to a charge of incompleteness (in the case of Dr Hudson’s account); and

     
  2. (2)

    that such sentences cannot, without, at the very least, disastrous consequences, be regarded as remarks of ‘grammar’ in Wittgenstein’s sense.

     
In the light of the inadequacies of the above discussed accounts and the necessity of having at least some propositional uses of sentences of the form: ‘God is F’in order that (a) we can introduce parables and parabolic discourse into the discourse of Christianity (or account for the introduction of such dis-course already present); (b) we can introduce myth and metaphor (or sensibly account for its introduction) into such discourse; (c) we can introduce the language of rites and ceremonies (or rationally account for its introduction), it is necessary to turn again to the question of the logical form of the propositions putatively expressed by such sentences.

Keywords

Single Status Logical Status Abstract Term Christian Belief Present Essay 
These 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Dr Kenny, ‘God and Necessity’, Williams and Montefiore (eds.), British Analytical Philosophy (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966) pp. 131–51; cf. especially pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Durrant 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Durrant
    • 1
  1. 1.University CollegeCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations