Skip Navigation

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 1977 XLV(3):357; doi:10.1093/jaarel/XLV.3.357
© 1977 by American Academy of Religion
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tilley, T. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Abstracts of Articles

Ian Ramsey and Empirical Fit

Terrence W. Tilley

Terrence W. Tilley (Ph.D., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley) is Assistant Professor of Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. This article is partly drawn from his dissertation which focused on Ramsey's thought

This article analyzes and extends the criteria developed by Ian T. Ramsey for the justificaton of talk of God or the ultimate. Using published and unpublished sources, it shows that Ramsey had developed and used both formal and material criteria. The formal criterion, a metaphysical justificatory criterion, shows that the more consistent, simple, comprehensive and coherent an ultimate claim, family of religious discourse, or metaphysical system is, the more reliable it is. The material criterion, Ramsey's famous "empirical fit," is analyzed into its components: the criteria for the initial evaluation of a claim are differentiated from the criteria for the evaluation of a claim's continued adequacy. Two aspects enter into each stage of evaluation: that of adequacy to the facts (initially presented and later discovered), and that of fidelity to the character of the speaker (initially formed and constantly developing). This analysis shows that Ramsey did offer a theory of the justification of religious language in terms of its cognitive content.

The article goes on to elaborate a pragmatic criterion for evaluating ultimate claims. This criterion, implicit in Ramsey's work, supplements the previous two criteria. Simply put, it shows how the life of a person offers a guide to the aceptabihty of the fundamental claim that that life exhibits. This criterion is composed of two aspects: an authenticity aspect and a truth aspect. If a claim is authentically held as ultimate, it can then be tested for truth in the manner described in the paper, using Ramseyan criteria.

In summary, this essay shows that the claim that Ramsey had no theory for the justification of religious language is wrong, and acknowledges that the truth of ultimate claims is not easy to find, not simple to utter, not comfortable to live; but that the theories used by and developed from Ian Ramsey's work outline a complete theory of the justification of talk of God or the ultimate as true.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.