Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T17:41:19.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discernment Situations: Some Philosophical Difficulties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Extract

The concept of a discernment situation has assumed a key J. position in much recent philosophical theology. To take examples: Professor I. T. Ramsey's account of religious language is determined throughout by it; Professor P. van Buren's attempt to state the secular meaning of the Gospel hinges upon the claim that such a situation occurred on Easter; and Dr A. Richardson's oft-repeated asseveration that Christian theology is a matter of the interpretation of history resolves itself into the claim that there have been such situations. The basic argument is that members of our race at certain moments in the past have discerned, and we and our contemporaries at certain moments of present existence may discern, the activity or purpose of God. Connected with this discernment, it is further contended, there is—or ought to be—a response of commitment. Israel, for instance, at the Exodus discerned that they were God's chosen people and responded in the Sinai covenant. The disciples, at the Resurrection, discerned that Christ was, in some sense, victor and committed themselves to him. The important point for philosophical theology is the claim that the occurrence of discernment-commitment situations constitutes an empirical grounding for religious belief and thus provides good reason for an affirmative answer to the troublesome question: how do we know that religious language refers to objective reality? We must look more closely into this.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1966

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

page 434 note 1 Religious Language (1957), Freedom and Immortality (1960), and (editor) Prospect for Metaphysics (1961).

page 434 note 2 The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (1963).

page 434 note 3 History Sacred and Profane (1964).

page 434 note 4 Richardson, op. cit., p. 224.

page 434 note 5 Van Buren, op. cit., p. 132.

page 435 note 1 Cf. Ramsey, , Religious Language, p. 36; Richardson, op. cit., p. 232; van Buren, op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar.

page 436 note 1 e.g. Wilson, J., Philosophy and Religion, p. 84Google Scholar.

page 437 note 1 Job 13.15.

page 437 note 2 Ramsey, op. cit., chapter II.

page 438 note 1 See Ramsey, op. cit., pp. 40–43.

page 440 note 1 Richardson, op. cit., p. 249.

page 440 note 2 op. cit., p. 18.

page 441 note 1 The Logic of Self-Involvcmeiit.

page 441 note 2 Ramsey, op. cit., p. 14.

page 441 note 3 op. cit., p. 132.

page 441 note 4 op. cit., pp. 15–18.

page 441 note 5 op. cit., pp. 131–2.

page 442 note 1 The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 280.

page 442 note 2 Metaphysics.

page 442 note 3 Acts 9.5 and 6.

page 444 note 1 Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 114.

page 444 note 2 Ryle, G., Dilemmas, p. 67Google Scholar.

page 444 note 3 Cf. Flew, A., ‘Theology and Falsification’ in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, edited by Flew, and Maclntyre, Google Scholar.

page 444 note 4 ibid.

page 444 note 5 L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, passim.