You are on page 1of 9

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE Religious language is the communication of ideas about God, faith, belief and practice.

Some philosophers assert that religious language is cognitive and therefore something about God may never be known. The use of language such as he, him and said is said to anthropomorphise or objectify God. Using words in this way appears to limit Gods power. One group of people who considered religious language as meaningless were the logical positivists. The Logical Positivists The logical positivists developed from the work of a group of philosophers known as the Vienna circle this included Moritz Schlick, Rudolph Carnap, Hans Reichenback, Friedrich Waissmann and others. The fundamental principle of Logical Positivism was that only sentences which can be verified empirically (or logically in the case of analytical statements) have meaning. The logical positivists only accepted two forms of verifiable language: 1. Analytic Propositions (a priori) by which knowledge is gained through logical reasoning. These are propositions that are true by definition, for example all bachelors are unmarried men. We know this proposition is true because bachelor means an unmarried man. It would be a contradiction to deny and analytical truth. It is true by definition. 2. Synthetic Propositions (a posteriori) by which knowledge could be proved true or false (verified) by some form of sense experience or experiment. For example, the statement John is a bachelor could be verified by discovering whether or not John is a male and unmarried. The Verification Principle The principle is stating that we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false. If it is not possible to know how to prove the statements true or false, using either knowledge gained through logical reasoning or verified through empirical evidence, then the logical positivists regard it as meaningless. For example, the statement the moon is made of green cheese is false. It would be meaningful to the logical positivists as it is known how to prove the statement false: by going to the moon and taking rock samples. Logical Positivists argued that it was pointless to talk about God, ethics, art and metaphysics as such propositions could not be verified using the senses or scientific experiment. It was not possible to know the conditions under which such propositions could be proved true or false and therefor such talk must be meaningless. The logical positivists therefore claimed that religious language has no meaning at all because it talks about things which cannot be proved using empirical evidence. It is used to consider things beyond human experience which leads to problems in understanding the meaning of any assertions made.

Problems in religious language arise because: 1. Any discussion relating to God and belief cannot be based on common ground. 2. Religious language isnt univocal and therefore the meaning of an assertion may be unclear. 3. Religious language is equivocal language because it is talking about the realm of infinite existence. 4. The result is different interpretations and understandings of the words used. Univocal: Language that is straightforward and clear, for example, Paris and Rome are cities. There is no doubting the statement because the concept of a city is unambiguous. Equivocal: Language that is unclear and ambiguous. The statement John is on the right is equivocal. The meaning is unclear because right could refer to Johns political views or the position in which he is standing. Development of the principle by A. J. Ayer Empirical methods have to be used to assess whether a proposition is in principle verifiable and therefore meaningful. It is the steps taken to verify a proposition that makes it meaningful. A proposition needs to be analysed to find out what is meaningful and what is not. A proposition is meaningful if it is known how to prove it true or false in either principle or practice. If it is not known how it might be proven true or false, then a proposition is meaningless. Therefore, according to the logical positivists, as religious propositions cannot be analysed using empirical methods, they are meaningless.

Strong and weak verification Ayer realised that we accept some scientific and historical propositions that have not been verified with certainty, so he introduced two forms of the verification principle: strong and weak verification. Strong verification occurs when there is no doubt that a statement is true, as we verify it using sense experience, that is, an observation. For example Mary has red hair; this could be proven true or false by seeing Mary.

Friedrich Waissman sums this version up in the following manner: Anyone uttering a sentence must know in which conditions he calls the statement true or false; if he is unable to state this, then he does not know what he has said. A statement which cannot be verified conclusively is not verifiable at all: it is just devoid of meaning.

Weak verification occurs where there are some observations that are relevant to proving a proposition true or false, but not enough to prove it conclusively. For example, Columbus discovered America is accepted as verifiable because people affirmed the even at the time. This addresses the apparent flaws of the strong verification principle by making two modifications: o It isnt always possible in practice to gather all the evidence required for conclusive proof therefore a statement is still meaningful if we know how such a statement could be verified. o Statements which attempt to say something about the world are factually meaningful if experience and observation can establish these statements are probable. Keith Ward suggested that this form of the verification principle allowed too many sentences to be defined as meaningful. He suggests even the existence of God could be verifiable in principle since If I were God I would be able to check the truth of my existence.

Ayer accepted analytic propositions because to reject such statements would be illogical. The Falsification Principle Statements which attempt to say something about the world are only meaningful if it is possible to say what would make the statement false. The philosopher Karl Popper was the inspiration behind the principle and he pointed out that if meaning depended upon verification then the whole of science would be wiped out because none of the general laws of science are actually verifiable. Many philosophers regard the falsification principle as a more serious challenge to the meaningfulness of religious language. Anthony Flew developed the principle. Flew argued that religious statements are meaningless because there is nothing which can count against religious statements. They can neither be proved true nor false because religious believers do not accept any evidence to count against their beliefs. For Flew, there is no difference between non-falsifiability and meaningfulness. Parable of the Gardner The believer gives reasons as to why God remains good, and Flew stated that these constant qualifications render religious statements meaningless because they die the death by a thousand qualifications. The parable tells the story of two people who discover a garden on a deserted island; one believes it is tended to by a gardener, the other believes that it formed naturally, without the existence of a gardener. The two watch out for the gardener but never find him; the non-believer maintains that there is no gardener, whereas the believer suggests that the gardener is invisible and cannot be detected. According to Flew, the claim that there is a gardener is a completely meaningless statement because the explorer making this claim will not accept any kind of evidence that would count against this assertion. Flews point is that the claim there is a God is equally as meaningless because religious people making this claim will also not accept any kind of evidence that could count against this.

He argued that in a similar fashion, religious beliefs suffer a "death by a thousand qualifications" because religious beliefs are qualified and modified so much that they end up asserting nothing meaningful. Challenges to the Verification Principle The principle itself is not meaningful because it cannot be verified using the verification principle. The weak form of verification would support some religious statements. For example God is the creator could be supported by the evidence of possible design in the world. A weakness of the verification principle is that it does not allow for the fact that the limitations of verifying an experience may result from limitations of the person attempting to verify it. It could therefore be claimed that statements about God cannot be verified by a person who does not have faith, but are meaningful to those who have a shared experience of God. Karl Popper pointed out that Logical Positivism claims to be a scientific view of the world and yet actually wipes out the whole of science.

Religious language as a blik R.M.Hare proposed that a believers statements were Bliks, ways of regarding the world that may not be based on reason or fact and are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. A blik dictates how all evidence is interpreted; it cannot be verified or falsified, but it is either true or not. He felt that religious beliefs are Bliks because of the impact that they have on the way in which people look at the world and their lives. Hare illustrated this point in the Parable of the Lunatic: A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, You see, he doesnt really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now? But the lunatic replies, Yes, but that was only is diabolical cunning; hes really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it, I tell you. However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same. Hare said that people either have the right or wrong Blik. The lunatic above has the wrong Blik about dons, whereas his friends have the right Blik Believers do allow things to count against their beliefs Basil Mitchell wanted to show that religious statements are meaningful even if they are not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable. He was trying to take a place between Flew and Hare. He argued that Flew was wrong in supposing believers never allow anything to count against their beliefs. He claimed that Flew missed the point that believers have a prior commitment to trust in God based on faith, and for this reason do not allow evidence to undermine their faith.

Mitchell agrees that bliks exist, but he holds that a believer will allow a gradual accumulation of evidence to overturn or remove a blik. Mitchell used the example of the parable of the freedom fighter:

A stranger meets a resistance worker, who is on his side. He asks the stranger to trust him even though he might see him doing things that appear to be going against the cause they are both working for. True that he does see him do odd things but he still has faith in the resistance worker. He therefore claimed that Flew missed the point that like the resistance worker, believers have a commitment to trust God based on faith. Mitchell also claims that believer do not allow anything to conclusively falsify their belief in God, but this does not mean it is meaningless because they do show that there is a real problem of which they must be aware. Mitchells point is that religious belief is based upon facts, but that belief cannot be verified/falsified. All the peculiar and problematic parts of religious belief will be revealed at the end of time according to religious belief. This is similar to John Hicks theory of eschatological verification. Flews response to Mitchell was that you cannot compare God to a human being. God has no limitations so why cannot God always be on our side? Religious responses to the verification principle A major criticism of the verification principle is that it is developed by non-believers, who in seeking to demonstrate why religious language is meaningless have failed to grasp the meaning and purpose of religious language for the believer. Often the believer is trying to convey revelations which are ineffable and therefore are aware that the meaning is not conveyed using verifiable meaning. St John of the Cross it is possible to talk about God by not saying what He is, but what He isnt. This is known as via negativa. The mystics resort to saying what God is not; for example, by saying that god is not evil and not human. This teaches us something about God. Different views of religious language Aquinas analogical view He argued that we only have our day to day language to talk about God. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas stated that, We cannot know what God is, but rather what he is not. We understand that a word when applied to God has a different meaning from its everyday use because we understand that God is perfect. We are therefore using analogies. Some philosophers reject the use of analogies because they argue that an analogy has to have some shared understanding, a basis for comparison. This is not possible when speaking

about God because God is beyond human understanding the use of analogies is therefore meaningless. Aquinas disagreed he argued that there is a relationship between the world and God. God created the world and sustains it, so there is a point of comparison. Developed two forms of analogy: o Analogy of Proportion- Occurs when a word is employed to refer to a quality that a thing possesses in proportion to the kind of reality it possesses. For example, if a dog is loyal in the way in which dogs are loyal, and humans are loyal in proportion to the loyalty of being a human. Similarly, one can understand God as all-powerful as we have the human idea of power. God is proportionally more powerful than humans, so although we cannot completely understand the idea of Gods omnipotence, we can have an insight into Gods power because of our human experience of power. o Analogy of Attribution applies when a term, originally used for one thing, is applied to a second thing because the one causes the other. For example, we may speak of someone having a sickly look because his or her appearance is the result of sickness. Aquinas saw human wisdom as a reflection of Gods wisdom. God is the source of love and life, and therefore it is possible to speak of the Living God or God loves us. Ramsays models and qualifiers A model is an analogy to help us express something about God. For example, if we speak of God as good, the model is the word good. We have human understanding of good, and when applied to God it is a model for understanding Gods goodness. If it does not help us to understand Gods goodness we need to adapt the model, to qualify it, so that we realise that it is not literally what God is like. To the statement God is good we need to add the qualifier God is infinitely good. This will give us a better insight into Gods goodness making us respond with awe and wonder. Religious language is metaphorical and symbolic This supports that religious language is meaningful- through metaphors and symbols we are helped towards and understanding of God. Paul Tillich believed that through metaphors and symbols, religious language communicates religious experiences. Tillich believed that religious language is symbolic because it opens up new levels of reality. Symbols go beyond the external world to what he described as their internal reality Religious symbols open up levels of reality which otherwise were closed to us. For example, when the Bible speaks of the kingdom of God, the symbol of a kingdom is concerned with the reality of Gods power and rule. We understand a kingdom on earth, and by thinking about an earthly

kingdom, we can go beyond to understand the ultimate reality of the power in the universe that is God. Tillich believed that a symbol unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul. Arguments opposing religious language as symbolic Paul Edwards did not believe that symbols conveyed any factual knowledge and thought that they were therefore meaningless. Tillich commented that symbols can lose their value over time and so some philosophers would argue that this means that the symbols original meaning may be lost and the meaning conveyed has changes from what was originally intended. There is no way of knowing if symbols give the right or wrong insights about the ultimate reality. Symbols are about the real world. It is therefore not possible for religious symbols to successfully point the way to that which is beyond experience. Arguments supporting religious language as symbolic J.R. Randall, similarly to Tillich, sees religious language as a human activity which makes a special contribution to human culture. Religious language has a unique function. It is able to stir strong emotion and to bind communities together through a common response to their faith. Jung argues that several basic archetypes emerge as we delve into the unconscious. He seeks to show that particular symbols have appeared time and time again throughout history, indicating that we are never far from our basic animal psyche. He believes that the archetypes of human unconscious reveal themselves in the universal symbols of art and religion. Religious language as myths Myths are stories that use symbols, metaphor and allegory to convey a religious truth. Metaphors are often used within the myth to help convey the meaning behind the story, as can be seen in the creation myths that seek to explain the origin of the universe as created by God. Aetiological myths Aetiological myths are myths that convey understanding of how things came about. They provide foundation ideas for religious approaches. Most belief systems include creation myths to explain the origin of the universe and its components. There are some common themes to be found in creation myths. Any one creation myth will have several thematic features to a greater or lesser degree. The themes found in creation myths include: The existence of a chaotic formless state prior to the creation of the universe, often describes as a body of water, or nothing at all (ex nihilo).

A God who exists in a void performs some action which results in the universe coming into being.

Views of the use of religious language as a myth Rudolph Bultman argued that the language and imagery of the Gospel accounts were outdated and it is only by rejecting this mythological language that the true meaning of the New Testament can be found. Scholars have gone as far as suggesting that Jesus as God incarnate is a myth. It is because people no longer understand that these accounts are myth and not historical, literal events that has led to the decline in Christianity within a scientific age. o Other scholars have criticised this view as they believe that to reject mythological language would be to reject much of the religious belief underlying it. Langdon Gilkey argued for the continuing reality in relevance of the meaning behind the symbolic language and myths. It is through the language of myth that we understand not only how our thinking has evolved, but also how our future will develop. Wittgensteins language games Originally supported logical positivists, but came to reject the verification principle. He decided that the meaning of words is in their use, the function they perform as agreed by the particular group r society using them. He used the example of a tool box containing hammers, screw drivers, glue, nails etc. The items in the toolbox are all tools, but without knowing the different functions of the tools, understanding is only superficial. Wittgenstein regarded this use of language rather like a game with its own set of rules. People not in the game will be unable to understand the use of the language, such as without knowing the purpose of the tools we cannot be the builder. If people do not understand the language, to them it will be meaningless. Religious belief has its own language. A non-believer will find religious language meaningless because they are not in the religious language game. Private language Ren Descartes believed that he had proved his own existence because of his private thought, I think, therefore I am. Wittgenstein argued that individuals could not create a private language. How would individuals know that they were using the words correctly? Criticisms of Wittgenstein If people in different faiths are playing their own language game, how is it possible for there to be discussion between the different faith traditions about Gods existence? Religious believers are involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. This means there will be common ground between religious language and

other language games. This common ground means non-believers are able to understand religious language and decide whether it has meaning for them. Non-believers may be able to understand religious language better than believers. This is because non-believers have an objective view of the use of religious language. Is it possible to talk meaningfully about God? Supporters of the verification and falsification principle generally argue that it is not possible to talk meaningfully about God because such statements cannot be verified or falsified. Exceptions to this could include Hick who suggests religious statements can be verified eschatologically. Many have tried to prove that religious language has purpose because it has the function of conveying ideas examples of this approach include those who consider that religious language has meaning as analogy, symbol or myth.

You might also like