ABSTRACT
At the very outset philosophers are faced with serious philosophical objections to their whole enterprise almost, they might say, with a ban or veto. In all this they are concerned only with the ban or veto imposed by an ideal language on the kind of assertions likely to be made in a philosophy of religion. Needless to say, it would be absurd to pretend that the principles likely to be considered in a philosophy of religion will meet with the approval of Logical Positivists, if this term may be used, perhaps rather loosely, for the line of thought we have been examining. It would be ludicrous to deny that linguistic methods have a legitimate place in philosophical thinking: they have already added a new chapter to the history of philosophy. It seems not unreasonable to reject the positivistic ban even on theological statements, or at least to construe it as a road-sign marked Slow rather than Halt.
