Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:11:01.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical thomism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

SIMON HEWITT Open the ORCID record for SIMON HEWITT [Opens in a new window]
SIMON HEWITT*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Religion, and the History of Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT, UK
*
e-mail: s.hewitt@leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Centred on figures like Herbert McCabe, David Burrell, and Brian Davies the loose tradition known as grammatical thomism is undervalued within analytic philosophy of religion. This is particularly unfortunate, since a grammatical thomist approach offers the prospect of both a reorientation towards a more apophatic conception of God, consonant with the theology and practice of many religious traditions, and of moving beyond certain debates in the philosophy of religion. In this article, a grammatical thomist approach to the word ‘God’ is laid out: the conditions for introducing the word constrain its grammar, such that it cannot be understood as designating anything within our world. Accordingly inferential moves which we might otherwise find tempting are blocked. The result is an apophatic theology grounded in linguistic considerations. Objections against linguistic approaches to philosophy and theology, owing to Williamson and Murphy respectively, are considered and counter-arguments presented. The potential for therapeutic approaches to both the problem of evil and questions around theology and politics is then flagged.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 30 - 48
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Adams, Marilyn McCord (1999) Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Burley, Mikel (2012) Contemplating Religious Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and D. Z. Phillips (London: Continuum).Google Scholar
Burrell, David (2010) ‘Distinguishing God from the world’, in Davies, Brian (ed.) Language, Meaning, and God: Essays in Honour of Herbert McCabe with a New Introduction (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock), 75–91.Google Scholar
Clack, Beverley (2018) ‘Philosophy of living religion’, in Scrutton, & Hewitt, (2018), 355–369.Google Scholar
Clack, Brian (2009) An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Religion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
Cottingham, John (2014) Philosophy of Religion: Towards a more Humane Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Brian (1992) The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar
Davies, Brian (2000) ‘A modern defence of divine simplicity’, in Davies, Brian (ed.) Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 549–564. [Originally published as ‘Classical theism and the doctrine of divine simplicity’ in Brian Davies (ed.) Language Meaning and God (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1987), 51–74.]Google Scholar
Davies, Brian (2006) The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil (London: Continuum).Google Scholar
Davies, Brian (2011) Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, Michael (1975) ‘What is a theory of meaning?’, in Guttenplan, Samuel (ed.) Mind and Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 97–138.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael (1991) The Logical Basis of Metaphysics (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael (2014) Origins of Analytical Philosophy (London: Bloomsbury).Google Scholar
Ellis, Fiona (ed.) (2017) New Models of Religious Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. (2010) ‘Meaning and use’, Whiting, Daniel (ed.) The Later Wittgenstein on Language (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 26–44.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Simon (2018) ‘Not crying “peace”: the theological politics of Herbert McCabe’, New Blackfriars, 99, 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1982) The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Magidor, Ofra (2013) Category Mistakes (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich (1972) Marx and Engels on Religion (London: Progress Publishers).Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (1969) ‘Categories’, in Kenny, Anthony (ed.) Aquinas: Modern Studies in Philosophy (London: Palgrave), 54–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2002a) ‘Christ and politics’, in McCabe (2002b), 79–91.Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2002b) God Still Matters (London and New York: Continuum).Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2002c) ‘The logic of mysticism’, in McCabe (2002b), 13–28.Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2002d) ‘Praying as we ought’, in McCabe (2002b), 215–218.Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2004) Law, Love and Language (London: Bloomsbury).Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2005a) ‘The class struggle and Christian love’, in McCabe (2005c), 182–198.Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2005b) ‘Creation’, in McCabe (2005c), 2–9. [First published in New Blackfriars. October 1980.]Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2005c) God Matters (London and New York: Continuum).Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2005d) The Good Life (London: Bloomsbury).Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2005e) ‘The involvement of God’, in McCabe (2005c), 39–52.Google Scholar
McCabe, Herbert (2010) God and Evil in the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas (London: Continuum).Google Scholar
Mulhall, Stephen (2015) The Great Riddle: Wittgenstein and Nonsense, Theology and Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Francesca Aran (2007) God Is Not a Story: Realism Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Craig, & Pugh, Matthew (2006) Analytical Thomism: Traditions in Dialogue (Aldershot: Ashgate).Google Scholar
Phillips, D. Z. (2004) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God (London: SCM Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1974) God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Price, Huw, Blackburn, Simon, Brandom, Robert, Horwich, Paul, & Williams, Michael (2013) Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Rupert, & Lavery, Matthew A. (2011) Beyond the Tractatus Wars: The New Wittgenstein Debate (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Rumfitt, Ian (2000) ‘“Yes” and “no” ’, Mind, 109, 781– 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1957) ‘A debate on the argument from contingency’, in Why I am not a Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
Scrutton, Anastasia, & Hewitt, Simon (2018) The Philosophy of Lived Religion. Special issue of the International Journal of Philosophy and Theology.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (1997) The Philosophy of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (2018) Speculative Philosophy. 2016 Royal Institution of Philosophy lecture. Forthcoming in Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ogden, C. K. (tr.) (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1970) Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief, compiled from notes taken by Smythies, Yorick, Rhees, Rush, & Taylor, James (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1980) Culture and Value, Winch, Peter (tr.) (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2009) Philosophical Investigations, Anscombe, G. E. M., Hacker, P. M. S., & Schulte, Joachim (trs) (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).Google Scholar
Wynn, Mark (2005) Emotional Experience and Religious Understanding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, Stephen (2014) Aboutness (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar