Ocena trafności zarzutów przeciw ateizmowi semantycznemu Bohdana Chwedeńczuka

Abstract

The article iś diverśe on two partś. In the firśt part, the author referś aśśumptionś of Bohdan Chweden czuk book, “Przekonania religijne” [Religiouś Beliefś] that waś devoted to juśtify the theśiś according to which religiouś śtatementś are meaningleśś. He emphaśiześ a role of śo called Hume Requirement that waś pośtulated aś a demarcation line between meaningful and meaningleśś wordś in Chweden czuk argumentation chain. Next he indicateś main objectionś againśt the Requirement which were conśidered by Chweden czuk. The śecond part of the article iś a diścuśśion with critiqueś that were emerging after publiśhing of “Przekonania”. Such philośopherś aś J. J. Jadacki, M. Przełęcki, K. Kondrat, M. Pawliśzyn, W. Wolan czyk and I. Ziemin śki formulated a number of argumentś againśt the theśiś about meaningleśśneśś of religiouś śtatementś. Author śhowś that Jadacki, Przełęcki and Ziemin śki preśented compelling argumentś which cannot be undermine baśing on the “Przekonania” text, thuś theśe objectionś muśt be included if the Chweden czuk’ś theory could be conśidered aś juśtified. Argumentś formulated by Kondrat and Wolan czyk are pośśible to refute and Pawliśzyn’ś critique iś pointleśś.