Sebastian Gäb

This paper analyzes the concept of ineffability and outlines a theory of the logic and semantics of ineffability claims. I begin by identifying three core problems for any theory of ineffability: (a) the problem of consistency: how is it possible to say that some entity x is ineffable without contradicting oneself? (b) The problem of reference: how is it possible to refer to some ineffable identity x if reference presupposes the ability to identify and thus to describe the entity in question? (c) The problem of meaning: what is the meaning of negative statements about an ineffable entity x if x being ineffable means that nothing can be said about x? I then present and discuss three possible solutions to these problems that have been advanced in the recent literature: the theory of illuminating falsehoods (Lebens 2014), the theory of non-fundamental truths (Jacobs 2015), and the theory of apo-minimalism (van Elswyk forthcoming). I reject all three and instead develop an epistemic capacities-based account of ineffability that relativizes it to types of epistemic systems and their linguistic capabilities.

This paper argues that a naturalistic worldview is not necessarily incompatible with the possibility of life after death. After clarifying key concepts such as naturalism, personhood, and personal identity, it examines two prominent naturalistic models: mind-uploading and postmortem simulation. Both rely on a computational theory of mind and a patternist account of personal identity. The central challenge concerns not the continuity of mental states, but the continuity of the self as subject of experience. The paper concludes that the real obstacle to naturalistic afterlife theories lies in the unresolved problem of how subjectivity arises from physical processes.

This paper analyses Thomas Metzinger’s notion of spirituality as part of his broader concept of a culture of consciousness. I first demonstrate that Metzinger’s spirituality is rooted in certain non-dual, egoless states of consciousness that closely resemble mystical experiences. Then, I discuss Metzinger’s claim that spirituality consists of intellectual honesty, understood as an attitude that recognizes the intrinsic value of rationality. Next, I address two additional questions: First, what exactly is spiritual about Metzinger’s notion of spirituality? Second, are spirituality and religion truly opposites? Regarding the first question, I show, through a comparison with Ronald Dworkin, that spirituality functions as a foundation for epistemic and moral value judgments. Regarding the second question, I argue that Metzinger’s stark opposition between religion and spirituality is untenable when considering an alternative definition of “religion” drawn from William James.

What is religion? Are religious beliefs rational? Do science and religion conflict? Does God exist? Are we immortal? These are just a few of the fundamental questions explored in the philosophy of religion. In this accessible and comprehensive introduction, Sebastian Gäb presents the core problems, debates, and theories central to contemporary philosophy of religion. Structured into 14 concise chapters, the book covers both classical and modern perspectives, providing readers with a balanced understanding of the field. Designed primarily for students of philosophy, theology, and religious studies, this book also appeals broadly to anyone interested in philosophical questions about religion. Additionally, it serves as an ideal textbook for Philosophy of Religion courses at the undergraduate level.

Huayan Buddhism is famous for three doctrines: holism – the view that the whole of reality is contained in every single thing and that all things interpenetrate each other; idealism – the view that reality is mind; and finally, pantheism (or rather, panbuddhism) – the view that all of reality is contained within the one Buddha-Mind. While the doctrine of holism and the idea of an interpenetration of all things have received quite some attention from contemporary philosophers, they have largely ignored Huayan’s idealist side. In this paper, however, I will argue that these doctrines cannot be understood separately. According to Huayan’s holistic concept of emptiness, all things are empty insofar as their nature depends on the nature of other things, and vice versa. It has been claimed that this position collapses into either of two undesirable alternatives: metaphysical nihilism or relativism. Against this, I will argue that the only way to make sense of Huayan’s apparently paradoxical holism is an idealist metaphysics, which regards phenomenal things as mental objects and claims that reality is identical with the one absolute Buddha-Mind.

This paper discusses the project of a globalised philosophy of religion as proposed recently by Yujin Nagasawa, Victoria Harrison, and others. While this project is a laudable attempt to overcome the strict focus on theistic forms of religion in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, it is argued that current proposals for a globalised philosophy of religion have ignored the important role of theism for giving the discipline its structure. Therefore, any viable global approach to philosophy of religion needs to delineate a concept of religion that doesn’t draw on the concept of a theistic god. The paper argues that the best choice for this is a cluster concept of religion so that, even if the phenomena covered by the term ‘religion’ have no common core, the term isn’t meaningless, and philosophy of religion can still be a meaningful academic project.

Das Themenfeld "Religion und Pluralismus" hat sich in den letzten Jahren bedeutend weiterentwickelt. Der Band führt deutschsprachige LeserInnen in die bislang vorwiegend auf Englisch geführte Debatte ein und entwickelt grundlegende Fragen und Impulse für die weitere Forschung. Internationale ForscherInnen beleuchten zentrale Fragestellungen der Debatte über Pluralismus und Religion: z.B. die epistemischen Herausforderungen des peer-disagreement, neurotheologische und religionspsychologische Argumente für einen kulturübergreifenden Kern religiöser Erfahrung, oder das Potenzial des religiösen Fiktionalismus als Antwort auf die Unvereinbarkeit religiöser Wahrheitsansprüche und um die Anforderungen der Toleranz angesichts der realen Pluralität von Religionen.

This paper analyzes the concept of a spirituality without religion. I argue that spirituality is best understood as a specific attitude that a subject has towards the totality of existence, characterized by a certain emotional, evaluative and noetic quality. The spiritual attitude typically involves a shift in the way a subject interprets their relation to themselves and to the whole of reality. Understood this way, religious and non-religious spiritualities are varieties of the same core phenomenon. Religious beliefs are compatible with, but not necessary for spiritual attitudes.

An introduction to the Buddha's thought in the language of contemporary philosophy. 'The Philosophy of the Buddha' is an intro to Buddhist thinking which doesn't assuming any prior knowledge. This book introduces key concepts of Buddhist philosophy such as suffering, karma, or nirvana, and explains the fundamentals of Buddhist thought using these concepts. It demonstrates that the central ideas of Buddha are understandable in the present day and can be discussed and understood as a philosophy, independent of religious affiliations. Real-life examples and questions for further discussion and reflection provide opportunities for deeper engagement with the text.

This paper discusses the nonconceptual theory of mystical ineffability which claims that mystical experiences can’t be expressed linguistically because they can’t be conceptualized. I discuss and refute two objections against it: (a) that unconceptualized experiences are impossible, and (b) that the theory is ad hoc because it provides no reason for why mystical experiences should be unconceptualizable. I argue against (a) that distinguishing different meanings of ‘object of experience’ leaves open the possibility of non-empty but objectless nonconceptual experiences. I show that (b) is a valid objection but can be countered by a new theory of mystical non-conceptuality: mystical experiences are not conceptual because the specific mode of mystical consciousness prevents conceptualization. The dissolution of the subjectivity of consciousness during mystical experiences undermines the very foundation of the possibility of conceptual thought and thus renders them ineffable.

Most philosophers of religion subscribe to some variety of religious realism: they believe that religious statements aim at capturing a mind-independent reality and are true precisely if they successfully do so. Curiously, most religious realists also believe that at least some of our religious beliefs are rationally justified. In this paper, I argue that these positions are actually at odds with each other. Religious realists should rather be religious skeptics. I first argue that realism always implies the possibility of our beliefs being false. Then, I develop a Copernican argument to show that we have no reason to believe that we are in an epistemically privileged position where we could be confident that our particular belief is justified while all competing beliefs are not. This seems impossible for two reasons: (a) From a probabilistic point of view (adopting a principle of mediocrity), it is highly unlikely that current humans have the maximum of epistemic capacities possible. Rather, our ability to understand reality is limited, so we should expect at least some parts of religious reality to remain unknown to us. (b) From a deep-time perspective, humanity has not pondered religious questions for long. We are probably still in the early stages of our cognitive evolution, and so we should treat our religious beliefs as provisional and open to revision.

Der Glaube an Unsterblichkeit ist Bestandteil praktisch aller Religionen und seit ihren Anfängen ein zentrales Thema der Philosophie. Dieser Sammelband bietet einen Überblick zum aktuellen Stand klassischer Debatten über Unsterblichkeit (Unsterblichkeit der Seele, Wiedergeburt, Auferstehung), bringt aber auch neue und bisher vernachlässigte Aspekte mit in die Diskussion (z.B. digitale Unsterblichkeit, Unsterblichkeit und Gender, Unsterblichkeit der Tiere). Die Beiträge skizzieren den Stand der philosophischen Forschung und entwickeln eigene Positionen der Autorinnen und Autoren. Der Band richtet sich an Forschende und Studierende in den Bereichen Religionsphilosophie, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft und eignet sich nicht nur als Grundlage für Lehrveranstaltungen, sondern auch für eine wissenschaftliche Einarbeitung in das Thema.

This chapter argues that both Berkeley and Vasubandhu accept a kind of metaphysical idealism: while Berkeley’s theistic idealism claims that all of reality exists only in the mind of God, Vasubandhu teaches that external objects have no intrinsic existence and exist only as objects of perception; mind is the ultimate reality. This chapter explores the possibility of reading both these doctrines as a kind of idealist panentheism. Specifically, it will address two questions: (1) in what sense are Berkeley’s and Vasubandhu’s theories idealist philosophies? (2) Is it justified to interpret them as panentheists? More precisely, the second question has two parts: (2a) Should Berkeley’s idealism be regarded as a kind of panentheism? (2b) Can the theism-part of panentheism justly be applied to Vasubandhu’s notion of mind as ultimate reality? The answer will be mostly negative: Berkeley is not a panentheist, and labeling Vasubandhu as a panentheist stretches the concept of God beyond the limits of reasonable application. Finally, though, it is argued that a Yogācārin reading of Berkeley’s idealism opens an interesting possibility for idealist panentheism.

This article explores the concept of non-personal immortality. Non-personal theories of immortality claim that even though there is no personal or individual survival of death, it is still possible to continue to exist in a non-personal state. The most important challenge for non-personal conceptions of immortality is solving the apparent contradiction between on the one hand accepting that individual existence ends with death and on the other hand maintaining that death nevertheless is not equal to total annihilation. I present two theories of non-personal immortality found in Schopenhauer and William James and derive a set of systematic core theses from them. Finally, I discuss whether the notion of non-personal immortality is consistent, and whether a non-personal afterlife could be desirable.

What is religion? Is it rational to have religious beliefs? Do science and religion contradict each other? Is there a god? Are we immortal? Questions like these are discussed in the philosophy of religion. This book provides provides an accesible and comprehensive introduction to philosophy of religion. In 14 chapters, it describes and discusses classical and modern approaches to core issues in philosophy of religion. This book is primarily intended as a textbook for students of philosophy, theology and religious studies, but will also appeal to general readers interested in philosophy and religion, and can be used as a textbook in an introductory course on philosophy of religion.

It has often been claimed, e.g. by William James or Aldous Huxley, that mystical experiences across times and cultures exhibit a striking similarity. Even though the words and images we use to describe them are different, underneath the surface we find a common experiential core. Others have rejected this claim and argued that all experiences are intrinsically shaped by the mystics’ pre-existing religious concepts. Against these constructivist objections, I defend the idea of a common core by arguing that even if all experience is interpreted through concepts, there could still be a common core. Those who reject the common core thesis usually argue that no distinction between experience and interpretation can be made since all experience is per se already interpreted. The notion of an uninterpreted experience is self-defeating. Drawing on current research on nonconceptual mental content, I argue that experiences can have nonconceptual content; that interpretation must be understood as conceptualization and that conceptualization presupposes a raw mental content that is not conceptualized. This raw content is not experienced as nonconceptual. Rather, the nonconceptual, uninterpreted common core is an abstraction which shows itself only through reflection. Thus, the existence of a common core is compatible with the fact that all experiences are interpreted.

When we were on the subway back from his lecture, I said to Robin: “I’m not sure there actually are any religious fictionalists.” We keep talking about them in papers and lectures, acting as if fictionalism in religion is a real possibility, but to be honest, I haven’t been able to spot one in the wild so far. The only potential candidate who comes to mind is Don Cupitt, who wrote things like: “I still pray and love God, even though I fully acknowledge that no God actually exists.”[1] Perhaps this is as fictionalist as it gets. But then again, Cupitt never explicitly declared himself a fictionalist. Moreover, on other occasions he sounds more like an expressivist than a fictionalist, e.g. when he says: “The Christian doctrine of God just is Christian spirituality in coded form.”[2] So, if there are any actual fictionalists out there, please step forward.[1] Don Cupitt, After God: The Future of Religion, 85.[2] Don Cupitt, Taking leave of God, 14.

In this paper, I analyze the concept of ineffability: what does it mean to say that something cannot be said? I begin by distinguishing ineffability from paradox: if something cannot be said truly or without contradiction, this is not an instance of ineffability. Next, I distinguish two different meanings of ‘saying something’ which result from a fundamental ambiguity in the term ‘language’, viz. language as a system of symbols and language as a medium of communication. Accordingly, ‘ineffability’ is ambiguous, too, and we should make a distinction between weak and strong ineffability. Weak ineffability is rooted in the deficiencies of a particular language while strong ineffability stems from the structure of a particular cognitive system and its capacities for conceptual mental representation. Mental contents are only sayable if we are able to conceptualize them and then create signs to represent them in communication.

This paper argues against Davidson’s claim that there is no distinction between conceptual schemes and their content and derives the implications for the debate on realism and antirealism. Starting from a semantic conception of realism, I discuss Davidson’s argument against conceptual schemes and untranslatable languages. I argue that the idea of an untranslatable language is consistent since language attribution is essentially normative. Untranslatable languages are metaphysically possible, but epistemically unrecognizable. This leads to a Berkeleyan argument against antirealism: if antirealism is conceived of as dependence from a total language (instead of merely some actual language), the distinction between realism and antirealism vanishes: antirealism is realism.

This paper explains the Buddhist concept of suffering and its relation to the Christian problem of evil. Although there is no problem of evil in Buddhism, the Buddhist understanding of the origin and causes of suffering will help us to find new approaches to the problem of evil. More specifically, I argue that the concept of evil can be interpreted in terms of dukkha; that the existence of suffering or dukkha is necessarily inevitable for finite beings, given the metaphysical structure of the world and ourselves; and that this reasoning can be interpreted as a defense against the problem of evil

In this paper, I argue that there are indispensable and irreducible metaphors in religious language and that this does not threaten a realist interpretation of religion. I first sketch a realist theory of religious language and argue that we cannot avoid addressing the problems metaphor poses to semantics. I then give a brief account of what it means for a metaphorical sentence to be true and how metaphors can refer to something even if what they mean is not expressible in literal terms. Finally, I discuss how this realist theory of metaphor influences our understanding of negative theology and gives a new perspective on religious pluralism.

Saying that x is ineffable seems to be paradoxical – either I cannot say anything about x, not even that it is ineffable – or I can say that it is ineffable, but then I can say something and it is not ineffable. In this article, I discuss Alston’s version of the paradox and a solution proposed by Hick which employs the concept of formal and substantial predicates. I reject Hick’s proposal and develop a different account based on some passages from Pseudo-Dionysius’ Mystica Theologia. ‘God is ineffable’ is a metalinguistic statement concerning propositions about God: not all propositions about God are expressible in a human language.

Two theses are defended: First, that realism is a semantic thesis; second, that religious language ought to be interpreted realistically. The first part from chapter 1 to 4 is concerned with the first thesis, the second part from chapter 5 to 6 with the second. I first give an overview on the subject of realism and antirealism explaining the core problem of the debate that any satisfying interpretation of realism should be able to solve. Then I develop a solution based on Dummetts theory of semantic realism, so that metaphysical problems can be translated into semantic ones. Subsequently I discuss several arguments against this theory and develop my own, improved theory of semantic realism, which is able to resist the critique. Finally, I present and refute two arguments by Dummett intended to show that the semantic interpretation of realism already shows realism to be inconsistent. Having developed these semantic tools, I show how debates in philosophy of religion may be described and classified and how semantic criteria may be used to determine which theory is antirealist and which is not. Finally, I analyse and discuss the arguments in the current debate on religious antirealism and present a few new arguments based on the semantic interpretation of realism, to show the inconsistency of religious antirealism.