عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Perhaps the most important issue regarding the language of religion is the issue of the “significance, reference, and the epistemological importance” of the religious propositions; that is to say, are the religious propositions, and in particular, the propositions concerning Allah and his attributes, significant, referring, and indicating of real issues or not, and that is the language of religion edifying or non-edifying? To answer this question, it can be said that a general categorization would reveal that the philosophers of religion have two views in this regard: based on the first view, which is derived from the view of the early Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, religious propositions are nonsense and meaningless. The second view, which considers the language of religion as meaningful, is divided into two sub-groups: the first group considers the language of religion to be edifying and the second considers it non-edifying. One of the most significant theories of the second group is the one that considers the language of religion to be “symbolic” which has been proposed by Paul Tillich. In this paper, following the explanation of this theory and the presentation of the most important critiques leveled against it, a number of verses in the Quran will be interpreted which are considered, by six Quranic exegetes whose views are being discussed in this paper, i.e. Tabarsi, Zamakhshari, Fakhr Razi, Ghashiri, Meybodi and Tabatabaii, to be among the instances in the Quran in which symbolic language has been used. The results indicate that, despite all the critiques leveled at the assumption of the language of religion being symbolic, we have but, at the least, to assume that some of the phrases and terminologies used in the Quran have symbolic meanings, and are not realistic indications of the world.