Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Religious Language and the Problem of Truth in the Context of Ordinary Language Philosophy

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 4, 1571 - 1584, 29.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.971476

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to analyse the influence of the principle of verification on religious language and the solutions produced for the problem of verification. What makes this subject important is the fact that, especially in logical positivism, religious assertions are claimed to have no meaning as they cannot be verified. However, ordinary language philosophy has shown that languages have many uses, and verification is not the necessary condition for an utterance to have a meaning. Therefore, the focus of this paper is on ordinary language philosophy, along with the nature of religious language. Besides, the principle of falsification is included so as to ensure a comprehensive evaluation on the subject matter. The problems of reference, meaning and truth in religious assertions are covered and the possibility of a semantic theory for religious language is discussed. Additionally, the applicability of some approaches, such as speech acts, conventionality and language games, in ordinary language philosophy to religious language is examined. Finally, objections to the approaches mentioned are evaluated, and having underlined the difficulties in establishing an efficient religious language, some proposals are put forward.

References

  • Alston, William P.. “Religious Language”. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. ed. William J. Wainwright. 220-244. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • Altınörs, Atakan. Anlam, Doğrulama ve Edimsellik: Austin Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2001.
  • Aristoteles. Metafizik. çev. Ahmet Arslan. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar, 2010.
  • Aristoteles. Nicomachean Ethics. trans. F. H. Peters. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & CO., 1906.
  • Austin, J. L.. Söylemek ve Yapmak. çev. R. Levent Aysever. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2017.
  • Austin, J. L.. “Performative Utterances”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 120-129. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Aydın, Mehmet S.. Din Felsefesi. İzmir: İzmir İlahiyat Fakültesi, 2012.
  • Aydın, Mehmet. “Tanrı Hakkında Konuşmak: Felsefî Bir Tahlîl”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1 (1983), 25-44.
  • Ayer, Alfred Jules. Dil, Doğruluk ve Mantık. çev. Vehbi Hacıkadiroğlu. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 1998.
  • Blackstone, William T.. “The Status of God-Talk”. Religious Language and Knowledge. ed. Robert H. Ayers - William T. Blackstone. 1-17. North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Bor, İbrahim. Analitik Dil Felsefesinde Dil, Düşünce ve Anlam. Ankara: Elis Yayınları, 2014.
  • Braithwaite, R. B.. “An Empiricist’s View on the Nature of Religious Belief”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 72-91. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Broiles, R. David, “Linguistic Analysis of Religious Language: A Profusion of Confusion”, Religious Language and Knowledge, ed. Robert H. Ayers - William T.
  • Blackstone. 135-146. North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Chatterjee, Margaret. “Does the Analysis of Religious Language Rest on a Mistake?”. Religious Studies 10/4 (December 1974), 469-478.
  • Church, Alonzo. “Intensional Semantics”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 53-60. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
  • Davidson, Donald. “Truth and Meaning”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 92-103. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Donnellan, Keith. “Reference and Definite Descriptions”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 231-243. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Dwivedi, D. N., “The Grammar of Religious Language”. Religious Language and Other Papers. ed. N. S. S. Raman – Kedar Nath Mishra. 28-42. Varanasi: Narain Press, 1979.
  • Evans, J. L.. “On Meaning and Verification”. Mind 62/245 (January 1953), 1-19.
  • Ewing, A. C.. “Religious Assertions in the Light of Contemporary Philosophy”. Philosophy 32/122 (July 1957), 206-218.
  • Ferré, Frédérick, Din Dilinin Anlamı (Modern Mantık ve İman). çev. Zeki Özcan. İstanbul: Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, 1999.
  • Flew, Antony. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Grice, H. P.. “Meaning”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 85-91. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Hare, R. M.. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Harrison, Victoria S.. “Metaphor, Religious Language, and Religious Experience”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 46/2 (2007), 127-145.
  • Hick, John H.. Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973.
  • Koç, Turan. Din Dili. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2012.
  • Martinich, A. P.. “Introduction”. A Companion to Analytic Philosophy. ed. A. P. Martinich – David Sosa. 1-5. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
  • Mitchell, Basil. “The Justification of Religious Belief”. New Essays on Religious Language. ed. Dallas M. High. 178-197. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
  • Mitchell, Basil. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Nielsen, Kai. “Religion and Commitment”. Religious Language and Knowledge. ed. Robert H. Ayers – William T. Blackstone. 18-43 North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Nielsen, Kai. “Wittgensteinian Fideism”. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 62/161 (July 1967), 191-209.
  • Osman, Fikret. Tanrı Üzerine Konuşmanın Anlamı: Din Dilinin Mantıksallığı Problemi. Bursa: Asa Kitabevi, 2011.
  • Özcan, Zeki. Dil Felsefesi II (Gündelik Dil Paradigması). İstanbul: Sentez Yayıncılık, 2016.
  • Putnam, Hilary. “Meaning and Reference”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 284-291. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Quine, W. V.. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 39-52. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Scott, Michael. “Religious Language”. Philosophy Compass 5/6 (June 2010), 505-515.
  • Searle, John R.. Söz Edimleri. çev. R. Levent Aysever. Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi, 2000.
  • Smith, Robert V.. “Analytical Philosophy and Religious/Theological Language”. Journal of Bible and Religion 30/2 (April 1962), 101-108.
  • Strawson, P. F.. “Meaning and Truth”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 104-114. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996a.
  • Strawson, P. F.. “On Referring”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 215-230. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996b.
  • Utku, Ali. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Erken Döneminde Dilin Sınırları ve Felsefe. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları, 2014.
  • Wisdom, John. “Gods”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 45 (1944 -1945), 185-206.
  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Felsefi Soruşturmalar. çev. Deniz Kanıt. İstanbul: Totem Yayıncılık, 2006b.
  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. çev. Oruç Aruoba. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2006a.

Gündelik Dil Felsefesi Bağlamında Din Dili ve Doğruluk Problemi

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 4, 1571 - 1584, 29.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.971476

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, doğrulama ilkesinin din dili üzerindeki etkisini ve doğrulama sorununa yönelik üretilen çözümleri incelemektir. Bu konuyu önemli kılan, özellikle mantıksal pozitivizmde, dini önermelerin doğrulanamaması sebebiyle hiçbir anlam taşımadığı iddiasıdır. Ancak gündelik dil felsefesi, dillerin pek çok kullanım alanı olduğunu ve bir ifadenin anlam kazanması için doğrulamanın zorunlu koşul olmadığını göstermiştir. Bu yüzden bu makalenin odak noktası, din dilinin doğası ile birlikte gündelik dil felsefesidir. Ayrıca konuyla ilgili kapsamlı bir değerlendirme yapılabilmesi için yanlışlama ilkesine yer verilmiştir. Dini iddialarda referans, anlam ve doğruluk sorunları ele alınmakta ve din dili için bir semantik teorisinin imkânı tartışılmaktadır. Öte yandan, gündelik dil felsefesinde söz edimleri, uzlaşım ve dil oyunları gibi bazı yaklaşımların din diline uygulanabilirliği irdelenmiştir. Son olarak bahsi geçen yaklaşımlara yönelik itirazlar değerlendirilmiş ve etkin bir din dili oluşturmanın zorluklarının altı çizilerek bazı öneriler sunulmuştur.

References

  • Alston, William P.. “Religious Language”. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. ed. William J. Wainwright. 220-244. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • Altınörs, Atakan. Anlam, Doğrulama ve Edimsellik: Austin Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2001.
  • Aristoteles. Metafizik. çev. Ahmet Arslan. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar, 2010.
  • Aristoteles. Nicomachean Ethics. trans. F. H. Peters. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & CO., 1906.
  • Austin, J. L.. Söylemek ve Yapmak. çev. R. Levent Aysever. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2017.
  • Austin, J. L.. “Performative Utterances”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 120-129. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Aydın, Mehmet S.. Din Felsefesi. İzmir: İzmir İlahiyat Fakültesi, 2012.
  • Aydın, Mehmet. “Tanrı Hakkında Konuşmak: Felsefî Bir Tahlîl”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1 (1983), 25-44.
  • Ayer, Alfred Jules. Dil, Doğruluk ve Mantık. çev. Vehbi Hacıkadiroğlu. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 1998.
  • Blackstone, William T.. “The Status of God-Talk”. Religious Language and Knowledge. ed. Robert H. Ayers - William T. Blackstone. 1-17. North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Bor, İbrahim. Analitik Dil Felsefesinde Dil, Düşünce ve Anlam. Ankara: Elis Yayınları, 2014.
  • Braithwaite, R. B.. “An Empiricist’s View on the Nature of Religious Belief”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 72-91. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Broiles, R. David, “Linguistic Analysis of Religious Language: A Profusion of Confusion”, Religious Language and Knowledge, ed. Robert H. Ayers - William T.
  • Blackstone. 135-146. North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Chatterjee, Margaret. “Does the Analysis of Religious Language Rest on a Mistake?”. Religious Studies 10/4 (December 1974), 469-478.
  • Church, Alonzo. “Intensional Semantics”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 53-60. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
  • Davidson, Donald. “Truth and Meaning”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 92-103. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Donnellan, Keith. “Reference and Definite Descriptions”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 231-243. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Dwivedi, D. N., “The Grammar of Religious Language”. Religious Language and Other Papers. ed. N. S. S. Raman – Kedar Nath Mishra. 28-42. Varanasi: Narain Press, 1979.
  • Evans, J. L.. “On Meaning and Verification”. Mind 62/245 (January 1953), 1-19.
  • Ewing, A. C.. “Religious Assertions in the Light of Contemporary Philosophy”. Philosophy 32/122 (July 1957), 206-218.
  • Ferré, Frédérick, Din Dilinin Anlamı (Modern Mantık ve İman). çev. Zeki Özcan. İstanbul: Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, 1999.
  • Flew, Antony. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Grice, H. P.. “Meaning”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 85-91. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Hare, R. M.. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Harrison, Victoria S.. “Metaphor, Religious Language, and Religious Experience”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 46/2 (2007), 127-145.
  • Hick, John H.. Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973.
  • Koç, Turan. Din Dili. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2012.
  • Martinich, A. P.. “Introduction”. A Companion to Analytic Philosophy. ed. A. P. Martinich – David Sosa. 1-5. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
  • Mitchell, Basil. “The Justification of Religious Belief”. New Essays on Religious Language. ed. Dallas M. High. 178-197. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
  • Mitchell, Basil. “Theology and Falsification: A Symposium”. The Philosophy of Religion. ed. Basil Mitchell. 13-22. Suffolk: Oxford University Press, 1978.
  • Nielsen, Kai. “Religion and Commitment”. Religious Language and Knowledge. ed. Robert H. Ayers – William T. Blackstone. 18-43 North Carolina: The University of Georgia Press, 1972.
  • Nielsen, Kai. “Wittgensteinian Fideism”. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 62/161 (July 1967), 191-209.
  • Osman, Fikret. Tanrı Üzerine Konuşmanın Anlamı: Din Dilinin Mantıksallığı Problemi. Bursa: Asa Kitabevi, 2011.
  • Özcan, Zeki. Dil Felsefesi II (Gündelik Dil Paradigması). İstanbul: Sentez Yayıncılık, 2016.
  • Putnam, Hilary. “Meaning and Reference”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 284-291. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Quine, W. V.. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 39-52. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Scott, Michael. “Religious Language”. Philosophy Compass 5/6 (June 2010), 505-515.
  • Searle, John R.. Söz Edimleri. çev. R. Levent Aysever. Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi, 2000.
  • Smith, Robert V.. “Analytical Philosophy and Religious/Theological Language”. Journal of Bible and Religion 30/2 (April 1962), 101-108.
  • Strawson, P. F.. “Meaning and Truth”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 104-114. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996a.
  • Strawson, P. F.. “On Referring”. The Philosophy of Language. ed. A. P. Martinich. 215-230. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996b.
  • Utku, Ali. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Erken Döneminde Dilin Sınırları ve Felsefe. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları, 2014.
  • Wisdom, John. “Gods”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 45 (1944 -1945), 185-206.
  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Felsefi Soruşturmalar. çev. Deniz Kanıt. İstanbul: Totem Yayıncılık, 2006b.
  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. çev. Oruç Aruoba. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2006a.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Philosophy, Religious Studies
Journal Section Theology
Authors

Okan Bağcı 0000-0002-0809-3761

Publication Date October 29, 2021
Submission Date July 14, 2021
Acceptance Date September 3, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 20 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Bağcı, O. (2021). Gündelik Dil Felsefesi Bağlamında Din Dili ve Doğruluk Problemi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 1571-1584. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.971476