One of the main ideas of the analytic schools of philosophy (logical atomism, ordinary language philosophy,...) is that many philosophical problems can be dissolved - as opposed to resolved - upon analysis of the language used to describe the problem, it is realized that there was never a problem to start with, just a complication or misuse created by the way the problem was stated.
It struck me that this might be the case in the believers vs atheists debates. Two examples:
- Religious people regularly try to prove God's existence. However the whole point of religion is to have faith in God, i.e. to believe and trust in God without having any positive proof of his existence or actions. Their attempts to prove his existence or his miracles are useless, since that defeats the whole purpose (to believe without proof) of religion in the first place.
- Conversely, atheists regularly state that they reject religion because they don't believe in the super-natural. But how is the super-natural any different from the unseen or yet-to-be-discovered natural? A purely logical and empirical person from the ancient era or the middle ages would find electricity and the existence of other galaxies just as hard to swallow as angels and heavens. To say that I don't believe in the supernatural is to say that I don't believe in anything whose existence hasn't been proven yet, a view that even most scientists would find untenable.
So my question is: Has anyone of note attempted to dissolve the problems of philosophy of religion using analytic methods?
I don't believe in anything whose existence hasn't been proven yetI don't see how that is a problem? It just means that "I don't know what all there is and I won't believe it until it is proven", it is just being open minded rather than having a belief without any proof. The difference is between "There could be" and "There is definitely "