Talk:Problem of religious language/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Via negativa: Should via negativa be italicized, since it is a foreign word?
Problem of religious language: I'm not sure I understand why, once God is conceived as incorporeal, timeless, etc, it follows that ordinary language cannot apply to God. Could you elaborate?
Maimonides: Maimonides did not believe that God's attributes are unimpaired. I am not sure what this means.
Prose: In the twentieth century, Ian Ramsey developed the theory of analogy, a development later cited by Alister McGrath in numerous works. Does "numerous works" refer to those of Ramsey or McGrath?
Wittgenstein?: In the discussion of the Vienna Circle, is it worth mentioning Wittgenstein's Proposition 7, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent? It seems to convey a similar sentiment. Also, is it really true as you write in the lead that, "The meaning of religious language was first challenged by the logical positivist movement"? It seems to me that David Hume and some of the English empiricists anticipated much of the positivist critique of religious discourse.

Aside from these trivial concerns, I must say that I am very impressed with this article. It is a thorough and comprehensive (though not excessively detailed) treatment of the topic, and considering the state of the article when you began working on it, the transformation is incredible. Great job here, and I am happy to pass this as a GA. I wish I could give some more feedback, but I am unable to find anything else wrong with the article. Keep up the good work :) --Cerebellum (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review; I shall make those changes now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

There are at least two other meanings of "Religious language" that this article doesn't seem to cover. 1. "a language used in worship in a particular religion (e.g. sanskrit, latin, classical arabic etc.)" 2. A speech register of any that is reserved for use in religious functions. This article treats one particular definition of "religious language" found in analytical philosophy as if it were the only meaning of the phrase. I don't even think it is the most common one - at least not within linguistics where the two other ones are the only one's used. I know of several books that use "religious language" in one of the previously mentioned senses. I think that if this article wants to treat only the topic that it currently treats it should be moved to Religious language problem or something like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]