Inherent Problems with RL Flashcards
Concern of RL debate
RL debate unconcerned with Gods existence, or the existence of evil; concerned over RL having meaning or not.
RL debate
RL has meaning: (tradition) believing you can speak about God, as He is a reality.
RL does not have meaning: (Logical Positivists) claim that statements about God have no meaning- don’t relate to anything that is real.
Key role of RL
GOD-TALK
Being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent manner. Problem arises when we consider ‘What can be said about God?’
Key philosophers
John Hick, Sallie McFague
John Hick
- Identified two issues related to the use of RL
1. Relating to the unique way that religious terms are used when they are applied to God.
2. Relating to the basic function of RL eg. do religious statements that have the form of factual assertions refer to a special kind of fact?
Hick’s first problem
Accuracy of statements when applied to God (we can’t experience anything like God, so how can we use accurate statements)
LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS:
“God is good”- could refer to size, value.
Types of language
UNIVOCAL: Universal terms, same meaning.
Statements about God, mean the same when talking about ordinary concepts. This is problematic- doesn’t differentiate God from other concepts.
EQUIVOCAL: Different meanings. When we make statements about God, our words take on a different meaning. Same word in different way.
Problem- no experience of God, we do not know God’s attributes.
Univocal vs equivocal
Taking RL as uv or ev, you are assuming that statements using RL are cognitive (true/false and describing existent being).
Some philosophers believe RL is non-cognitive, but not necessarily meaningless.
Sallie McFague
States RL presents problem to modern religious believers because religion is no longer a common shared base and experience.
Argues RL is no longer based in sacramental universe so we are unsure of our language on a experiential level. We do not experience the divine and our statements are meaningless as we forget the distance between physical and divine reality.
Limitations of language on the concept of…
God as infinite and timeless.
Ordinary language rooted in our finite and limited existence- do not know what an infinite and timeless being means.
Problems of infinite when used univocally and equivocally.
RL is unverifiable from our base of experience that gives language meaning.
Challenge to sacred texts and pronouncements…
… as unintelligible.
Are sacred texts read in univocal or equivocal way?
Pronouncements meant cognitively or non-cognitively?
If true meaning of biblical stories cannot be determined, then do they carry any meaning? (eg. Nativity story as a story or as a historical event)
Are sacred texts intelligible?
RL is not a…
… common shared base and experience (SALLIE MCFAGUE)
Sallie McFague argues RL no longer based in sacramental universe- uncertainty in language on experiential and expressive level.
Lack of experience of the divine on a regular basis- statements as meaningless or idolatrous as we forget distance between divine world and reality.
McFague’s problem with RL.
Life is without any direct reference to God.
Ancestor’s world linked to concepts of the divine- experiential element to religious belief as everything linked to God.
Today God is experienced at a private level and in sporadic ways.
Therefore, RL is a problem as we do not experience God to talk about Him, and idolatrous expression can emerge as literalism ignores divine distance.
