Ontological Commitment and Its Implication to Semantical Objects of Religious Language



Abstract Views
136

Downloads
93

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jan 29, 2023
Published Mar 13, 2023
10.24018/theology.2023.3.2.96

Abstract viewed = 136 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This research is aimed at explaining and analyzing the ontological status of semantical objects of religious language. This ontological status concern how every term in religious language refers to an object and how we interpret those terms, whether it represents the object itself or merely its sensual or constructive properties. This finding lies in the disputation between religious realism and non-realism. The results of this research are (1) every believer is exactly a realist because he or she has the ontological commitment to the object of the utterance, but (2) God exists independently from human thought and consciousness, (3) it is possible to put God as the object of intentional and semantic but only represents sensible qualities of the real object, and (4) the meaning of religious language depends on believer's ontological commitment on God's existence.
Keywords: Existence Ontological Commitment Ontological Status Religious Language Semantic

References

  1. Akhmad, M. (2008). Urgensi Semiotika dalam Memahami Bahasa Agama. LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra, 3(2).
     Google Scholar
  2. Church, A. (1958). Ontological Commitment. The Journal of Philosophy, 55(23).
     Google Scholar
  3. Cicourel, A. v. (1987). On John R. Searle’s intentionality. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(5), 641–660. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90184-6.
     Google Scholar
  4. Cupitt, D. (1989). Radicals and the Future of the Church. London: SCM Press.
     Google Scholar
  5. Dennett, D. C. (1998). The Intentional Stance. Massachusetts London: MIT Press Cambridge.
     Google Scholar
  6. Gellman, J. (1981). Theological realism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 12(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135825.
     Google Scholar
  7. Gericke, J. (2006). Realism and non-realism in Old Testament theology: a formal-logical and religious-philosophical assessment. Old Testament Essays, 19(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC85770.
     Google Scholar
  8. Greenwald AG, & Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit Social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev, 102(1), 4–27.
     Google Scholar
  9. Hanifiyah, F. (2020). KONSEP BAHASA AGAMA: Sebuah Kajian Hermeneutik dalam Perspektif Komaruddin Hidayat. At-Turāṡ: Jurnal Studi Keislaman, 7(2).
     Google Scholar
  10. Hanna, P., & Harrison, B. (2004). Referential Realism. In B. Harrison & P. Hanna (Eds.), Word and World: Practice and the Foundations of Language (pp. 26–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616549.004.
     Google Scholar
  11. Haugeland, J. (1990). The Intentionality All-Stars. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 383–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214199
     Google Scholar
  12. Jacques, D. (1989). How to Avoid Speaking: Denials. In S. Budick & W. Iser (Eds.), Languages of the Unsayable (pp. 3–70). New York: Columbia University Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Jacquette, D. (1989). INTENTIONAL SEMANTICS AND THE LOGIC OF FICTION. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 29(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/29.2.168.
     Google Scholar
  14. Marion, J.-L. (1994). Metaphysics and Phenomenology: A Relief for Theology. Critical Inquiry, 20.
     Google Scholar
  15. Menzel, C. (1990). Actualism, ontological commitment, and possible world semantics. Synthese, 85(3).
     Google Scholar
  16. Miravalle, J.-M. L. (2018). God, Existence, and Fictional Objects: The Case for Meinongian Theism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  17. Mirolli, M., & Dennett, D. (2002). A naturalistic perspective on intentionality. Interview with Daniel Dennett. Mind & Society, 3(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02513145.
     Google Scholar
  18. Moore, A. (2000). Theological Realism and the Observability of God. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1463-1652.00028.
     Google Scholar
  19. PANCHUK, M. (2021). The simplicity of divine ideas: theistic conceptual realism and the doctrine of divine simplicity. Religious Studies, 57(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0034412519000301.
     Google Scholar
  20. Peter Byrne. (2004). Prolegomena to Religious Pluralism: Reference and Realism in Religion. New York: ST. MARTIN’S PRESS, INC.
     Google Scholar
  21. Plantinga, A. (1968). Induction and other minds II. Review of Metaphysics, 21(3).
     Google Scholar
  22. Platinga, A. (1968). Ontological Argument (A. Platinga, Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
     Google Scholar
  23. Ringen, J. D. (1980). Linguistic Facts: A Study of the Empirical Scientific Status of Transformational Generative Grammars (T. A. Perry, Ed.). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110848854-007.
     Google Scholar
  24. Rorty, R. (1976). Realism and Reference. The Monist, 59(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19765935.
     Google Scholar
  25. Scott, M. (2013). Religious Language. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
     Google Scholar
  26. Scott, M. (2017). Religious Language. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-language/.
     Google Scholar
  27. Scott, M., & Citron, G. (2016). What is Apophaticism? Ways of Talking About an Ineffable God. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 8(4 SE-Research Articles), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v8i4.1716
     Google Scholar
  28. SCOTT, M., & MOORE, A. (1997). CAN THEOLOGICAL REALISM BE REFUTED? Religious Studies, 33(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0034412597004058.
     Google Scholar
  29. Searle, J. R. (1984). Intentionality and its place in nature. Synthese, 61(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485486.
     Google Scholar
  30. Spatola, N., & Urbanska, K. (2020). God-like robots: the semantic overlap between representation of divine and artificial entities. AI & SOCIETY, 35(2), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00902-1
     Google Scholar
  31. Vainio, O.-P. (2020). Religious Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/9781108668224.
     Google Scholar
  32. White, R. M. (2010). Talking about God: The Concept of Analogy and the Problem of Religious Language (Transcending boundaries in philosophy and theology). Aldershot: Ashgate.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)