Religious Language

• what are some of the general issues with religious language

  - the limitations of language mean it can be difficult to express the infinite/ultimate realities/ideas of God, e.g. in RE use of words such as 'numinous', 'ineffable', 'other than', enlightenment, life after death, karma

  - language about God often succumbs to 'anthropomorphism' (projecting human qualities onto God), which limits him, e.g. often depicted in images as old man with white beard

  - there is ambiguity in what religious statements may mean, e.g. use of word 'Imam' in Sunni and Shi'a Islam, in Judaism people are encouraged to debate meaning of passages

  - can be based on subjective experiences and testimony, e.g. Buddhism based on experience of Buddha

  - poetic expression, allegory, symbol, myth, analogies and parables are used, e.g. Avogosha's poetical expression of life of Buddha

  - faith claims cannot be empirically tested, e.g. angels, God

  - very emotive and uses specialist language

  - religious texts considered to be divine and having unchanging authority, but there are many translations and meanings are adapted and lost
• what is cognitive language


  expresses facts about the world which can be proved to be either true or false (empirically provable) or contain meaningful factual content
• what is non-cognitive language

  statements based on opinions, emotions, beliefs, faith claims, which can manifest themselves in symbols, metaphors etc.

  e.g. how we feel about a piece of music, the cross etc.

  most religious language is non-cognitive (which is recognised by liberalists but not literalists
• who were the logical positivists and what were they interested in

  - a group of linguistic philosophers during the 1920's and 30's also known as the 'vienna circle'

  - AJ Ayer was a significant British member

  - concerned with what makes a statement meaningful
• what categories did the logical positivists divide statements into

  1. analytic statements; statements which are true by definition (premise fully supports conclusion), e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men. MEANINGFUL

  2. synthetic statements; statements which can be proved true or false through empirical testing, e.g. it's raining outside, aliens exist (also includes theories) MEANINGFUL

  3. meaningless statements; statements that cannot be empirically verified and are based on opinion, emotion or beliefs

  analytic and synthetic statements are meaningful as they can be verified
• explain the idea of a meaningless statement for the logical positivists

  non-cognitive and do not communicate any facts about the world (although they still have value and are worth discussing), ie:

  - the arts/humanities

  - metaphysical claims

  - religious faith claims

  - ethical statements

  for example, 'God exists' and 'God doesn't exist
• what is the verification principle

  measure of identifying whether a statement was meaningful or not

  'we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false
• what are some critcisms of verification

  - verification principle is unverifiable and therefore meaningless, as it's based on opinion (as well as the categories of meaningful and meaningless)

  - opinions can become facts through history, and beliefs/ethics can become laws

  - scientific theories are based on hypotheses that cannot be verified yet

  - history cannot be empirically tested either

  - too limiting a view of language, no one derives meaning from the ability to empirically test something (e.g. emotions etc)

  - logical positivists changed their minds
• how did AJ Ayer modify the verification principle

  distinguished between strong and weak verification

  strong verification = there is no doubt that the statement is true or false and a statement can be verified using sense experience and observation at the time, e.g. the carpet is blue

  weak verification = statements which can be rendered as probably true or false based on evidence of past/future, ie. science and history
• who was Anthony Flew and what is the falsification principle


  presented in his 1950s article 'Theology and Falsification' and was in support of, and part of logical positivism

  - Flew stated that for statements to be meaningful, they should be able to be falsified, we should know what counts against them to identify whether a statement is true or false, e.g. carpet is blue as we know it's not red or green etc.

  - uses John Wisdom's parable of the gardener

  - focuses on 'assertions' (statements of convinction)
• what does Flew argue about religious statements

  - religious statements/assertions die the 'death of a thousand qualifications'

  - this is because a believer will defend their assertions until there is no real qualification and nothing tangible left of the original assertion. final defence is usually 'God works in mysterious ways'

  - what would have to occur for a believer to refute their statment

  - religious statements are meaningless because nothing can count against them, and therefore you cannot deny the opposite of the assertion

  - e.g. 'God loves us like a father loves his children'.

  - e.g. logical problem of evil; believers still defend God's characteristics even in the face of evil
• what was RM Hare's criticism of Flew

  - agreed that believers don't let anything count against their statements but argues these statements are still meaningful as they have an impact on the individuals life

  - used the term blik = a strong conviction or belief that no evidence can count against, and which has a strong impact on their life

  - bliks do not need empirical verification as religion is based on personal convictions

  - bliks can be compared to phobias; the only way to change someone's mind is if they decide to change it, not from empirical evidence (e.g. being scared of flying)

  - uses parable of the Mad Don
• what was Basil Mitchell's criticism of Flew

  - argues believers fo accept that there are issues with their faith and that things can count against their beliefs (e.g. problem of evil)

  - but religious believers don't let these issues DECISIVELY count against their faith, as their faith is not verifiable and this is the nature of faith

  - faith is part of everyday life and is meaningful

  - uses parable of Partisan and Stranger to show that believers are aware they're making a commitment of faith and that sometimes it appears verifiable (e.g. feeling God near) but other times not (e.g. wondering where God is)
• what is John Hick's argument against logical positivism

  - emphasises eschatological verification; the only time we'll get verification about beliefs is when we die. if afterlife exists, we'll get verification, and if it doesn't, there's nothing to verify

  - the life of the atheist and theist is different due to interpretation of the same experiences, their beliefs are both equally meaningful and both unverifiable due to God's nature

  - uses parable of celestial city
• how does Swinburne defend religious language

  - if we understand the concept of something then it's meaningful to talk about it; we do not need empirical testing

  - uses parable of toys in the cupboard; as long as we can understand the concept of toys moving when we're not there then it's meaningful to talk about (same applies to religious belief)

  - e.g. unknown foreign language is non-understandable and so meaningless
• who was language games developed by

  - Wittgenstein, who was influential on the Vienna circle

  - initially agreed with logicial positivists but changed his ideas as he realised that language is too complex to be placed into these narrow categories, so presents a criticism
• explain Wittgenstein's idea of language games

  - only aspects of reality that can be conceptualised should be spoken of and are meaningful

  - language is dynamic and evolving so you cannot have fixed rules

  - language is not about empirical testing, but about understanding the context/rules of the language within its language game; this is when meaningful participation can occur/language is meaningful

  - we enter into many different forms of life and play different language games every day - the speaking of language is part of an activity

  - each area has some unique language, but also shared language that means different things dependent on context (e.g. pitch in football and pitch in music)

  - the primary purpose of language isn't to make factual statements as most language within games is non-cognitive
• how can language games be applied to religious statements

  - religion is a language game and a form of life with it's own criteria for understanding (ie each religion and domination enters into their own language game)

  - faith claims are part of the religious life and cannot be empirically tested; they express commitments to ways of life within a belief system

  - each religion will have its own ways of determining what's true or false

  - religious language is more meaningful to the believer but can be understood by all with context, however it doesn't need to be justified (is meaningful overall)

  - e.g. 'God exists' is not a factual statement but shares how the believer perceives the world and their lifestyle; believers know God cannot be proven as they know this isn't possible
• what are the strengths and weaknesses of language games

  + - all encompassing, moves away from rigid view of logical positivists

  - - doesn't allow for believers claims to be empirically tested

  - can be excluding if you don't know the rules of the game

  - religion isn't a thing that exists on its own, it's engrained into history, culture and society. it's too diverse and doesn't have barriers or limits

  - there's too many language games within religion

  - no clarity with terms like 'God', 'life after death', even within the same denominations

  - problems of translation in religious texts

  - attitudes towards religious texts differ
• explain Maimonides concept of via negativa and evaluate it

  via negativa = speaking in negatives

  - argued human language is too limiting to express God's nature and we limit God by using human language, as it's inadequate (anthropomorphism); humans can't even comprehend God (a strength that it recognises this) which is where his power comes from

  - the only way to talk about God is to talk about what he is not. we can know that God is but not what God is

  - Buddhism; in the questions of King Milinda, Nagasena highlights how Nirvana follows the same principle

  - however, believers want to speak positively about God and get closer to knowing what God is

  - also, when we say what God isn't we're still making presumptions about what he is and limiting him
• explain Aquinas' doctrine of analogy

  - human language is a tool we have for expressing God's nature (which is God-given), yet it's still inadequate

  - therefore when humans use language that we comprehend, e.g. good, wise loving, we are speaking analogically

  - analogy - using a similarity/resemblance between 2 things to illustrate a point (2 things have both similarities and differences)

  - there are similarities in these terms when applying them to humans and God, and we use them as we have relational understanding of them, but the difference is that God is infinitely wise/good/loving which goes beyond human comprehension, and which is why we use analogies
• explain Aquinas' definition of univocal and equivocal terms


  univocal - one meaning, e.g. London is the capital of England. unsuitable for God as it's too literal and this would mean our goodness and God's goodness is the same

  
  

  equivocal - more than one meaning. these terms are too ambiguous and so unsuitable for God, as we wouldn't have any understanding of God's goodness

  
  

  Aquinas argued we needed something in the middle = analogy
• what is analogy of attribution


  when there is a causal link between the attributes of two things

  - the love and goodness of humanity can be causally linked to God as God created humanity

  - our attributes reflect God's attributes to a lesser extent, as God created us in his image
• what is analogy of proportion

  idea that beings possess qualities in proportion to their nature

  - e.g. being faithful; a dog can be faithful and a human can be faithful, however the human has a deeper understanding of the term faithful, whereas the dog has a limited understanding but is as faithful as it can be in proportion to being a dog. God, however is infinitely faithful compared to humans (proportionately)
• what is a myth and some examples

  a symbolic, approximate expression of truth. a way of understanding and remembering difficult concepts/messages (e.g. morals) or teachings/views about the world. binds communities together

  - myths express what a particular culture believe to be a vague truth. myths aren't lies but an expression of truth

  - e.g. birth stories (Buddha, Jesus), 4 Sights, ploughing festival, parting of the Red Sea, plagues and Great Flood
• what are the 3 ways myth can be applied to religion

  1. myth can be a story/fable that isn't true but has some other value (e.g. motivational or moral). e.g. Genesis, life of Buddh

  2. a literary device that enables us to talk about the ineffable (things beyond expression of language). e.g. attainment of Nirvana

  3. method of interpreting ultimate reality, opens up new dimensions
• what messages does Genesis convey

  - how the world was created

  - how we, and things within the world are created

  - why evil exists

  - why we're mortal

  - why we obey God

  - why we work

  - order of nature
• what are the advantages of myth

  - can provide explanations for difficult questions, e.g. Genesis, which is an aetiological myth

  - makes messages easier to understand and more memorable

  - if accepted, myths don't conflict with science
• what are the disadvantages of myth

  - can cause differences of opinion, e.g. book of Jonah. in Christians, it's seen to represent resurrection and salvation from death, whereas in Judaism, it's a message of forgiveness and repentance

  - myths if taken literally can conflict with science

  - meaning of myth can be lost if taken literally; get more from accepting the myth, and there's no evidence that writers wanted them to be perceived a truths

  - myths are culturally relative and outdated

  - some myths lost in translation

  - Dawkins; Biblical myths are weird distortions and stories that are outdated, e.g. Book of Jonah is weird myth in which Jonah repents and God forgives a sinful city
• what was Bultmann's view on myths


  - the Bible needs to be demythologised to extract the true meaning (what the myth teaches), e.g. in stories of the NT such as virgin birth, miracles and (controversially as it's not common), the resurrection

  - we cannot take myths literally in the scientific era

  - if you focus on the myth too much you miss the key messages, e.g. equality etc.
• explain John Hick's view of myths

  - suggested the idea of God becoming man was also part of a mythological framework used throughout the ancient world (ideas of incarnation and resurrection weren't uncommon)

  - they understood this as myth in ancient world until it developed into a literal doctrine
• what was Paul Tillich's view on sign and symbol and how it relates to religion


  sign - signifies to that which it points by arbitrary convention, either know it directly, (e.g. stop sign), or learn it by arbitrary convention (e.g. no entry sign)

  symbol - participates in that to which it points, not arbitary and well-thought out through a collective conscience, although they can change in meaning, e.g. Swastika and peace sign (CND)

  - all religious language points beyond itself (all words are symbolic of a deeper meaning) and participates in that to which it points, as faith cannot express itself adequately in any other way

  - e.g. all Buddhist texts are symbolic of how to attain enlightenment and all of NT is symbolic of eschaton (coming of end times)

  - symbols open up new levels of reality which otherwise are closed to us

  - the language of faith is the language of symbols
• what does JH Randall argue about symbol

  religious symbols serve 4 functions:

  1. motivational; religious symbols fire up emotion and inspire people into action, e.g. life of Buddha for Therevada Buddhists and cross for Christians (symbol of sacrifice, eschaton etc)

  2. social; people have common understanding of religious symbols, binds people together, e.g. story of Jonah

  3. communication; symbolic language adequately expresses religion through its non-cognitive nature, e.g. myth/poetry

  4. clarifies our experience of the divine