Ontological Commitment and Its Implication to Semantical Objects of Religious Language


  •   Muhammad Rodinal Khair Khasri

  •   Mohammad Mukhtasar Syamsuddin

  •   Siti Murtiningsih


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


Akhmad, M. (2008). Urgensi Semiotika dalam Memahami Bahasa Agama. LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra, 3(2).

Church, A. (1958). Ontological Commitment. The Journal of Philosophy, 55(23).

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.

Cupitt, D. (1989). Radicals and the Future of the Church. London: SCM Press.

Dennett, D. C. (1998). The Intentional Stance. Massachusetts London: MIT Press Cambridge.

Gellman, J. (1981). Theological realism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 12(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135825.

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.

Greenwald AG, & Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit Social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev, 102(1), 4–27.

Hanifiyah, F. (2020). KONSEP BAHASA AGAMA: Sebuah Kajian Hermeneutik dalam Perspektif Komaruddin Hidayat. At-Turāṡ: Jurnal Studi Keislaman, 7(2).

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.

Haugeland, J. (1990). The Intentionality All-Stars. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 383–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214199

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.

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.

Marion, J.-L. (1994). Metaphysics and Phenomenology: A Relief for Theology. Critical Inquiry, 20.

Menzel, C. (1990). Actualism, ontological commitment, and possible world semantics. Synthese, 85(3).

Miravalle, J.-M. L. (2018). God, Existence, and Fictional Objects: The Case for Meinongian Theism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

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.

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.

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.

Peter Byrne. (2004). Prolegomena to Religious Pluralism: Reference and Realism in Religion. New York: ST. MARTIN’S PRESS, INC.

Plantinga, A. (1968). Induction and other minds II. Review of Metaphysics, 21(3).

Platinga, A. (1968). Ontological Argument (A. Platinga, Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

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.

Rorty, R. (1976). Realism and Reference. The Monist, 59(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19765935.

Scott, M. (2013). Religious Language. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Scott, M. (2017). Religious Language. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-language/.

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

SCOTT, M., & MOORE, A. (1997). CAN THEOLOGICAL REALISM BE REFUTED? Religious Studies, 33(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0034412597004058.

Searle, J. R. (1984). Intentionality and its place in nature. Synthese, 61(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485486.

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

Vainio, O.-P. (2020). Religious Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/9781108668224.

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.


How to Cite
Khasri, M. R. K., Syamsuddin, M. M., & Murtiningsih, S. (2023). Ontological Commitment and Its Implication to Semantical Objects of Religious Language. European Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 3(2), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.24018/theology.2023.3.2.96

Most read articles by the same author(s)