Reviews for Metaphor and Religious Language

The average rating for Metaphor and Religious Language based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-04-26 00:00:00 Paul Niermann This work argues that metaphor is not a simple 'pretty' way of saying something that could be communicated with straightforward words, but it its own legitimate and necessary way of explanation. Metaphoric statements, at their best, say things that cannot be said in other ways. They also create opportunities for new learning, reflection, and avenues of enquiry. Extending this, Soskice argues that both science and theology are - fittingly and necessarily - fields in which metaphor plays a major part. Her argument concludes that a realist position is entirely consistent with use of metaphor, in both science and theology. It's fine, and actually productive, to speak of electrical 'current' or of the divine gift of 'living water.' This is not a naive realism, but critical realism (I don't think Soskice used this actual term, but I believe its current use agrees with her argument). In this, the users of metaphor - and use is always of within a community - are able to 'really refer' to something, even without knowing all there is about that topic. Even transcendent realities can be, in part and approximately, apprehended (be they electrons, or God). One matter not possible to be raised in this work, but I think related, is the possibility of historical knowledge. Looking at the science-theology parallels is wonderfully important. Soskice frequently mentions matters of religious experience as a part-parallel to scientific experiment. In this line of thought, metaphor and theory is always open to revision, at least in theory. That's fair, to an extent, but opens up theology to too simple a comparison with science, and suggests to me that theological doctrines are as likely to change as scientific ones. Think, for example, of the disposal of the idea of phlogiston after Priestly's discovery of oxygen: the old theory was dumped. I think a difference between science and (Christian) theology is the historical givenness of events, especially the ministry of Jesus Christ. Knowledge of this history has everything to add to the knowledge claims of Christianity. This is not to say Soskise should have covered this topic! She has done an amazing job in her survey of metaphor theory, as well as philosophies of metaphor use in science and theology. And all in fewer than 200 pages! What I do mean to say is that philosophies of historical knowledge will affect some of Soskice's conclusions about the tentativeness and modifiability of religious statements. If Jesus is alive, then some religious models and metaphors are more solid and unchangeable than any scientific model.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-10-23 00:00:00 Rene Soto soskice uses metaphor as a linguistic lemma to conjecture a post-lockean commandment, "thou shall not take religion so seriously." about the first 2/3rds of the book are dedicated to michael myers[1]. surgically, she dissects tropes and operates on the mother[2]. after a successful surgery, dr soskice becomes an ethnographer and studies how her patient operates in different contexts[3]. the main thrust of her book comes wrapped in the causal theory of references (ctr). she contrasts ctr with the classical theory of reference (clas), a common and colloquial way of understanding words and phrases. for example, whereas family has a biological understanding (clas), there is also an associative and affective definition approximated as those whom one feels a fuzzy affection for (ctr). (in a way, ctr reminds me of an open-ended operational definition) more generally, take this passage from albert hastorf and hadley cantril's rashomon-like, "they saw a game:" it is inaccurate and misleading to say that different people have different "attitudes" concerning the same "thing." for the "thing" simply is not the same for different people whether the "thing" is a football game, a presidential candidate, communism, or spinach. this highlights the ctr vs clas distinction quite well, imo. ask yourself, what is the quoted thing? both ctr and clas have their pros and cons. one con for ctr is that it is hard to reconcile reference changes. take witch, it used to mean supernatural and wicked, now it's more-or-less an unpleasant woman. one con for clas is it's limiting and often devolves into unproductive word-thinking. word-thinking is slow poison that has infected the west since enlightenment. today, it's most visible in politics. without going down the rabbit hole: what is collusion? quid pro quo? impeachable? and so on. (i understand some terms above are well-defined legal terms. my point being, if these strict definitions are being argued by bright lawyers, a fortiori, non-legal terms that are being shot around like their diamond bullets are really just rubber chickens.) all politics is: is clas pundits playin marbles[4]; having singular orb-al definitions aimed at their opponent's solid glass balls, tryna shoot them over an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. i can go on, but i've already rambled on about the major themes, associated ideas, and how i've related to it in the world. all in all, if you're interested in language at all, this is one of the best books i've read. enjoy ;) [1] slice and dice [2] metaphors, duhh [3] specifically, how metaphors are used in science and religious [4] up for metaphorical interpretation as illustrated and illuminated by soskice