Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T07:49:51.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wittgensteinian Fideism and Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Thomas B. Ommen
Thomas B. Ommen*
Affiliation:
Villanova University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An important critique of a “public” model of theological discourse has appeared in the work of a group of thinkers in the analytic tradition sometimes called “Wittgensteinian Fideists.” This paper explores the model of theology representative of the Wittgensteinian Fideists, particularly that found in the work of D. Z. Phillips and Paul Holmer. Three themes are examined: the relationship between theology and ordinary language, the role of faith in theology, and the justification of theological claims. Each theme is then summarized and critically assessed in an effort to show the limitations in the Wittgensteinian model of theology and some of the ways in which an understanding of theological method can be carried beyond the point where the Wittgensteinian Fideists leave it.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 1980 , pp. 183 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1980

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

1 Ogden, Schubert, “What is Theology?” The Journal of Religion 52(1972), p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Kaufman, Gordon, An Essay on Theological Method (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), p. x.Google Scholar

3 Congar, Yves, The History of Theology (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), pp. 74ff., 119ff.Google Scholar

4 For a discussion of the key figures in and principles of Wittgensteinian fideism see Nielsen, Kai, “Wittgensteinian Fideism,” Philosophy 42 (1967), pp. 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See, e.g., Ayer, , Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover, 1952), pp. 33-45, 115–120.Google Scholar

6 See the important documents of the falsification debate in The Logic of God: Theology and Verification (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975).Google Scholar

7 High, Dallas, Language, Persons and Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 56.Google Scholar

8 Phillips, D. Z., Faith and Philosophical Inquiry (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970), p. 6.Google Scholar

9 Holmer, Paul, The Grammar of Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), p. ix.Google Scholar

10 Holmer, , “Language and Theology: Some Critical Notes,” Harvard Theological Review 58 (1965), pp. 126ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, p. 49.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., p. 47. There is a clear connection between this position and the Reformers' notion of claritas scripturae. For Luther's view of the “clarity” of Scripture see Beisser, F., Claritas Scripturae bei Martin Luther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, pp. 159–178.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 133.

15 Ibid., pp. 13ff.

16 Ibid., p. 29.

17 Ibid., pp. 140ff.

18 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, p. 9.Google Scholar

19 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, p. 25.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., pp. 67-68.

21 Ibid., p. 9.

22 Ibid., p. 200.

23 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, p. 132.Google Scholar

24 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, p. 64.Google Scholar

25 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, p. 90.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., p. 1.

27 Phillips, , Religion Without Explanation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), pp. 176ff.Google Scholar

28 Phillips, , The Concept of Prayer (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), p. 19.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., pp. 59-60.

30 For Winch's views see, in particular, The Idea of a Social Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958)Google Scholar and “On Understanding a Primitive Society,” in Rationality, edited by Wilson, Bryan (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), pp. 78–111.Google Scholar

31 Winch, , The Idea of a Social Science, p. 100.Google Scholar

32 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, p. 4.Google Scholar Cf. Religion Without Explanation, pp. 5ff.

33 Ibid., p. 165.

34 Phillips, , The Concept of Prayer, pp. 14ff.Google Scholar

35 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, pp. 81–110.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., pp. 179ff.

37 Ibid., p. 184.

38 Holmer, , “The Nature of Religious Propositions,” in Religious Language and the Problem of Religious Knowledge, edited by Santoni, Ronald E. (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1968), p. 246.Google Scholar

39 Phillips, , The Concept of Prayer, pp. 81ff.Google Scholar; cf. Phillips, , Religion Without Explanation, pp. 148–149.Google Scholar

40 Holmer, , The Grammar of Faith, p. 11.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., pp. 32-35.

42 Ibid., p. 11.

43 Ibid.

44 For Gilkey's analysis of the crisis of religious language see Naming the Whirlwind (Indianapolis: Bobbs and Merrill, 1969).Google Scholar

45 Sherry, Patrick, Religion, Truth and Language Games (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1977), pp. 33–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf., Apel, Karl-Otto, Transformation der Philosophie, vol. 1 (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1973), p. 376.Google Scholar

46 Apel, , Transformation der Philosophie, vol. 1, pp. 367–369Google Scholar; cf. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Theology and the Philosophy of Science (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 182.Google Scholar

47 “Verification in Theology: A Tension in Revisionist Method,” The Thomist 43 (1979), pp. 381–384.Google Scholar

48 Dupré, Louis, The Other Dimension (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), p. 27.Google Scholar

49 For Lonergan's analysis of this “functional speciality” in theology see Method in Theology (New York: Herder, 1972), pp. 355–368.Google Scholar

50 For a full discussion of this task of theology see Peukert, H., Wissenschaftstheorie-Handlungtheorie-Fundamental Theologie (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1976).Google Scholar

51 Apel makes this observation in Analytic Philosophy of Language and the Geisteswissenschaften (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1967), p. 56.Google Scholar

52 For a much fuller discussion see my “The Preunderstanding of the Theologian,” in Theology and Discovery: Essays in Honor of Karl Rahner, edited by Kelly, William S.J., (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

53 For example, see the reservations expressed by Congar, Yves, The History of Theology, p. 269Google Scholar and Schillebeeckx, Edward, Revelation and Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), pp. 101–102.Google Scholar

54 Connelly, John makes this observation in “The Task of Theology,” Proceedings for the Catholic Theological Society of America, 1974, p. 64.Google Scholar

55 Ogden, , “Theology and Religious Studies,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 46 (1978), p. 14Google Scholar; cf. Ogden, , “Response” to John Connelly, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 1974, p. 64.Google Scholar

56 Sherry, , Religion, Truth and Language-Games, p. 40.Google Scholar See also Trigg, Roger, Reason and Commitment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 29Google Scholar and Gellner, Ernst, Legitimation of Belief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), p. 142.Google Scholar

57 Sherry, , Religion, Truth and Language-Games, p. 39.Google Scholar

58 Apel, , Analytic Philosophy of Language and the Geisteswissenschaften, pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

59 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, pp. 94ff.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., p. 126.

61 Ibid., p. 78.

62 Kaufman, , An Essay on Theological Method, p. 26.Google Scholar

63 Pannenberg, , Theology and the Philosophy of Science, p. 314.Google Scholar

64 Phillips, , Faith and Philosophical Inquiry, pp. 94ff.Google Scholar

65 See footnote 44.

66 Ibid., pp. 236ff.

67 Sherry, , Religion, Truth and Language-Games, esp. pp. 117–143.Google Scholar

68 Gill, Jerry, “Saying and Showing: Radical Themes in Wittgenstein's ‘On Certainty,’” Religious Studies 10 (1974), p. 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Richmond, James, Theology and Metaphysics (London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 92.Google Scholar

70 Tracy, , Blessed Rage for Order, pp. 150–153.Google Scholar

71 See especially Apel, Karl-Otto, Transformation der Philosophie, vols. 1 and 2Google Scholar and Analytic Philosophy of Language and the Geisteswissenschaften. For Habermas' view of truth see in particular “What is Universal Pragmatics?” in Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979), pp. 1–68Google Scholar and “Wahrheitstheorien,” in Festschrift für Walter Schultz (Pfullingen: Neske, 1973), pp. 211–265.Google Scholar See also McCarthy, Thomas, The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1978), esp. pp. 274ff.Google Scholar

72 Apel, , Transformation der Philosophie, vol. 1, pp. 59ff.Google Scholar