Why Not Davidson: Neopragmatism in Religion and the Coherence of Alternative Conceptual Schemes

Knight, John Allan

doi:10.1086/525563

Cited by 16 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking this approach will change how we study religion (Rorty 1987;Penner 1999a, 1999b;Jensen 1999Jensen , 2011Schilbrack 2002;G. S. Davis 2005;Knight 2008;G. Levy 2012;Neville 2016;Godlove 2016;Gardiner 2016;Frankenberry 2018).…”

Section: Metaphysics Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Heaven and Earth

Laurent¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An approach to understanding religion that draws on both humanities and natural science but rejects approaches that employ simple monisms and radical dualisms. In Beyond Heaven and Earth, Gabriel Levy argues that collective religious narratives and beliefs are part of nature; they are the basis for the formation of the narratives and beliefs of individuals. Religion grows out of the universe, but to make sense of it we have to recognize the paradox that the universe is both mental and material (or neither). We need both humanities and natural science approaches to study religion and religious meaning, Levy contends, but we must also recognize the limits of these approaches. First, we must make the dominant metaphysics that undergird the various disciplines of science and humanities more explicit, and second, we must reject those versions of metaphysics that maintain simple monisms and radical dualisms. Bringing Donald Davidson's philosophy—a form of pragmatism known as anomalous monism—to bear on religion, Levy offers a blueprint for one way that the humanities and natural sciences can have a mutually respectful dialogue. Levy argues that in order to understand religions we have to take their semantic content seriously. We need to rethink such basic concepts as narrative fiction, information, agency, creativity, technology, and intimacy. In the course of his argument, Levy considers the relation between two closely related semantics, fiction and religion, and outlines a new approach to information. He then applies his theory to discrete cases: ancient texts, modern media, and intimacy.

show abstract

Section: Metaphysics Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Heaven and Earth

Laurent¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though I don't have time to argue the point here, the trouble with the Davidsonian programme in semantics is that no truth-conditional theory of meaning has any hope of succeeding (see Knight (2008); Idem (2013), 229–234; see also Soames (1992), 26–29). That in itself should make us suspicious of Davidson's (and Marshall's) claim that the slingshot tells us anything about truth 16 .…”

Section: Bruce Marshall and Davidson's Slingshotmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of truth: defending the correspondence theory after the liberal/postliberal divide

Knight

2019

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article defends the correspondence theory of truth against criticisms of three theologians: Stephen Long, Kevin Hector, and Bruce Marshall. Long's criticisms arise from his metaphysical commitments, Hector's from his anti-metaphysical commitments, and Marshall's from his methodological commitments. I treat Long and Hector briefly, before giving a more extended treatment of Bruce Marshall's attack on the correspondence theory using the slingshot argument of Donald Davidson. I argue that correspondence theories withstand their criticisms. They therefore pose no obstacle to using them in theology.

show abstract

Liberalism versus Postliberalism

Knight

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The divide between liberal and postliberal theology is one of the most important and far-reaching methodological disputes in twentieth-century theology. Their divergence in method brought related differences in their approaches to hermeneutics and religious language. The split between liberals and postliberals in their understanding of religious language is widely acknowledged, but rigorous philosophical analysis and assessment of these divergent understandings is seldom seen. Liberalism vs. Postliberalism provides just such analyses, using remarkable developments in analytic philosophy of language over the past forty years. The book provides an original analysis of the “theology and falsification” debates of the 1950s and 60s, placing them in the context of developments in analytic philosophy of language out of which they arose. These debates then supply the philosophical lens that brings into focus the centrality of the issue of religious language in the methodological dispute between liberal and postliberal theologians in the latter part of the twentieth century. Knight argues that recent developments in analytic philosophy of language reveal serious problems with both positions. In the course of the argument, the author makes important recent work in analytic philosophy accessible to theologians, religious studies scholars and their students. This philosophical work clears the ground for a more inclusive method that takes seriously the aspirations of both liberal and postliberal theologians. The book thus makes an important contribution to contemporary theological method, to the understanding of liberal and postliberal theologies in their similarities and differences, and to our understanding of the role of analytic philosophy in contemporary theology and religious studies.

show abstract

Why Not Davidson: Neopragmatism in Religion and the Coherence of Alternative Conceptual Schemes

Cited by 16 publications

References 6 publications

Beyond Heaven and Earth

Beyond Heaven and Earth

The return of truth: defending the correspondence theory after the liberal/postliberal divide

Liberalism versus Postliberalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About