Abstract

Earl R. MacCormick provides his readers with a survey of recent studies in the languages of science and religion arguing that both science and religion employ metaphors and that the one is as vulnerable as the other to attacks of meaninglessness on the grounds of verifiability and falsifiability criteria of meaning. While acknowledging that the contents and intentions of metaphors in science and religion differ, MacCormick argues that science and religion use metaphors for similar purposes and that both create myths when they falsely attribute reality to what are in fact tentative explanations. His conclusion is that one cannot legitimately reject religious language as meaningless on the grounds that its language is metaphorical without recognizing that the language of science is subject to the same criticism.