Phililps as a wittgenstienian analitic philosopher in philosophy of religion consieders the language of religion as an unreal and uncognitive language . so he just counts the single way for understanding the meaning of theological items, to attention to the grammer of religious language. According to ...
Read More
Phililps as a wittgenstienian analitic philosopher in philosophy of religion consieders the language of religion as an unreal and uncognitive language . so he just counts the single way for understanding the meaning of theological items, to attention to the grammer of religious language. According to his positivist view points, he cant respect any meaning for religious terms( like the existence of Gool ). Without the usage ot those in the failhefull life and their faithfull context . he beliefs that we can just understand the meaning of " worshipping of Gool " , " transcdence of God ", " Grace of God " , " love of God " and " love to God " by considering the context that these terms have used in that. And by attention to the usage of them in the life style of religious persons. But some of the other analitic philosophers in philosophy of religion have critieized his view point:1 ) they exhibit the paradox between absoluteness of beliving to existence of God and having the instrumental attitude to this belief.2 ) belief in Author denys the God that has been created by the style life of belivers.3) from their points of views,Phillips has mixed between belief and act.4) they belief that the absoluteness of objectivity of God denys its dependence to the mind.5) they reject the identity of meaning and usage about the religious terms.
