Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 5, Issue 3 (2025)
Geo Res 2025, 5(3): 279-295 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2025/04/15 | Accepted: 2025/06/5 | Published: 2025/06/18
Received: 2025/04/15 | Accepted: 2025/06/5 | Published: 2025/06/18
How to cite this article
Ghadiri H. The Distinction between Minimal Concept and Robust Concept in Religious Language. Geo Res 2025; 5 (3) :279-295
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-6-80366-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-6-80366-en.html
Department of Philosophy of Religion, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
Abstract (1451 Views)
The semantics of religious language faces the question of how to understand the application of terms to God in a way that avoids both anthropomorphism and impossibility of knowing the divine. This article draws on Michael Lynch’s distinction between minimal and robust concepts and offers two possible solutions to this problem: (1) linguistic usage in the human context is based on minimal concepts, while usage in the divine context is based on robust concepts; (2) in both contexts, usage is grounded in robust concepts, but the divine usage is characterized by a higher degree of robustness. The article proceeds to critically assess these solutions and argues that, although the distinction between minimal and robust concepts helps to explain the difference between human and divine usage of language, it still encounters fundamental difficulties in specifying the metaphysical implications of the concepts ascribed to God.
Keywords: