宗教言語に対する実在論的理解と非実在論的理解のあいだの論争は,現代の宗教哲学における最も根本的な問題のうちの一つである.これまでの宗教の自己理解は,一般に実際論的であった.ところが現代では,キリスト教にも仏教にも,確たる非実在論的解釈があらわれ,その解釈が現代の科学志向の,脱-超自然主義的な一般社会に広くアッピールしている.思うに,宗教における実在論と非実在論の論争は,哲学的な議論によっては決着がつけられないであろうが,しかしその問題点の明確化は,哲学的な分析によっておこなわれうる.そこで,以下の論述は,暫らくその点に集中し,そのあとで,主題をめぐる議論の展開となるであろう.
The debate between realist and non-realist understanding of religious language is one of the most fundamental issues in the contemporary philosophy of religion today. Religious self-un-derstanding has been generally realist. But today there are confident non-realist interpretations of buddhism and Christianity, and they make a wide appeal within our contemporary scienceoriented and de-supernaturalized societies. In my view, philosophical discussion cannot settle the debate between religious realists and non-realists. But the issue can be made clear by the philosophical analysis. therefore I shall focus my attention for the first part on the philosophical analysis of what the issue is, and then proceed to ask further questions on Hick's critical religious realism which is distinct from the naive religious realism.
|
