PHILOSOPHY (theme 4) religious language

Question 1

what is religious language?

Answer 1

religious language is a way of describing God and talking about religion. each religion has unique ways of communicating beliefs and ideas within the religion.

Question 2

list 8 of the inherent problems (or questions raised) of religious language

Answer 2

1. can you only understand the language if you a part of the religion/group?
2. would everyone interpret religious terms in the same way?
3. are believers willing to be disproven? if not why bother talking about religion with them?
4. if religion cannot be proven, is religious language meaningless?
5. are religious terms symbolic or an expression of myth?
6. are religious believers talking in cognitive or non-cognitive terms?
7. should you describe God or is it disrespectful?
8. can you describe something that is transcendent?

Question 3

what is ‘cognitive’ language?

Answer 3

cognitive language expresses facts and knowledge.

(e.g. a triangle has 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees. this is factual)

Question 4

what is ‘non-cognitive’ language?

Answer 4

non-cognitive language expresses things we could never know and often includes feelings or values.

(e.g. my puppy is the cutest puppy in the park)

Question 5

(inherent problems of religious language) limitations of language for traditional concepts of God

Answer 5

RL often makes assertions about God’s nature. God is said to have numerous qualities (e.g. in Islam, Allah is said to have 99 names). This is an abstract quality being defined, meaning it has no relation to what we can experience in the empirical world. therefore, it’s hard to know its real meaning.

(e.g. God is: finite- we are finite beings and the world is also finite
timeless- everything we experience happens in times)

assertion: a statement of fact/belief
abstract: detached from material world

Question 6

(inherent problems of religious language)
sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible

Answer 6

scripture or religious teachings often seem to make contradictory or paradoxical claims. the problem of evil is a paradox, since theists claim God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and yet acknowledge that we can suffer.

(e.g. John 11:25 ‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.’) contradictory, how can there be life after death?

furthermore, the religious language found in scripture or teaching relates to metaphysical concepts or ideas. if we start discussing whether god exists, if there is life after death, then we are talking about metaphysical things. it becomes difficult to understand what is meant or intended since they do not relate to the empirical world.

Question 7

(inherent problems of religious language) religious language is not a common shared based and experience

Answer 7

the language we use is of the material world and experience of this is common to all. it describes sense experiences and attempts to understand them. in contrast, every religion uses specific terminology that does not relate to the physical world but has more basis in faith and experience.

(e.g. transubstantiation- conversion of christ’s body into bread and blood into wine, holy, grace).

these are ideas that do not translate to anything outside of the religion.

Question 8

difference between cognitive and non-cognitive language

Answer 8

cognitive: expresses propostions that can be known to be objectively true or false.

non-cognitive: does not express objective propositions but rather, attitudes or interpretations.

Question 9

what is logical positivism?

Answer 9

logical positivism is a philosophical movement that established the verification principle. it emerged in the 1920s with a group of philosophers called the Vienna Circle.
they aimed to establish a common criterion for the meaning of language. the group was heavily influenced by philosopher Wittgenstein and in turn, the group influenced many philosophers of religion. these include:
AJ Ayer and the Verificationists
and Antony Flew and the Falsificationists

Question 10

what were the three categories of religious language according to logical positivism?

Answer 10

1) meaningful; analytic statements derived from reason, such as mathematical statements or tautologies.
- tautology: formal logic that says the same thing in different words (e.g. bachelors are single males).

2) meaningful; synthetic statements derived from observation of the material world.

3) meaningless any statement that does not fit into these categories.

Question 11

what gave rise to the verification principle?

Answer 11

• logical positivism
• the three categories of language

Question 12

what is the verification principle

Answer 12

the idea that a proposition can only be meaningful if there is a method by which it can be tested for truth.

Question 13

who was A.J. Ayer in relation to logical positivism?

Answer 13

a british philosopher, who took a logical positivist position. he observed difficulties with the classifications from the Vienna Circle as they made some historical and scientific statements meaningless. to enhance this, Ayer added further categories for the verification principle:

Question 14

what did A.J. Ayer contribute in relation to the verification principle?
(hint: an additional four categories)

Answer 14

(1) verification in practice it is practically impossible to check the truth or falsity of the statement.

(2) verification in principle we know in theory what is required to check, but in practice it is impractical.

(3) strong verification a statement is conclusively verified empirically

(4) weak verification some empirical evidence counts towards a statement, making it probable.

Question 15

summarise the verification principle in relation to ‘RL’ and ‘meaning’

Answer 15

verification principle: religious language as cognitive but meaningless

Question 16

what is strong verification?

Answer 16

the belief that an assertion only has meaning if it can be verified according to empirical information. anything else is meaningless.

Question 17

what is weak verification?

Answer 17

this form of the principle came into prominence much later. it states that for an assertion to be true. one has to simply state what kind of evidence would verify its contents.
(e.g. For example, we know that Hitler invaded
Poland in 1939, but we cannot see it happening and therefore verify it. The weak principle
therefore simply requires that we state what kind of evidence would be enough to make a
statement meaningful (e.g. eye-witness accounts of the residents of Krakow as the tanks rolled in).

Question 18

what is AJ Ayer’s stance on religious language?

Answer 18

‘A statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning.’

Question 19

what is the verificationist stance towards religious language? (overview)

Answer 19

verificationists hold that non
cognitive, metaphysical statements (i.e.
statements about things beyond reality such as
God, heaven, angels) are completely meaningless (as are meaningless statements like ‘square circles are green’), as we have no way of verifying whether or not these statements are meaningful.

Question 20

analytic statements

Answer 20

• true by definition (tautology) and cannot be false
• a priori statements, which are true because the wording of the statement verifies the truth.
  (e.g. the circle is round)

Question 21

mathematical statements

Answer 21

5+5 does add up to 10, if it adds up to 9 then a simple recalculation would solve the issue.
- AJ Ayer suggested such incorrect statements were the product of human error and not an error of the facts.

Question 22

synthetic statements

Answer 22

• a posteriori statements, which can be verifiable/falsifiable through empirical evidence (e.g. it is currently snowing at the South Pole)
• these statements are considered meaningful as they can, in theory, hold verifiable and falsifiable truths.

Question 23

criticisms of verification

Answer 23

(1) the verification principle itself cannot be verified
the verification principle is not a tautology and has no empirical evidence to count towards its claim that meaningful statements are only analytic or synthetic. therefore, the verification principle is meaningless.

(2) the verification principle suggests that historical events cannot be verified
the verification principle makes historical statements meaningless (e.g. henry VII had 6 wives), is a meaningless statement to verificationists because it is not a tautology and we cannot verify this by seeing him. only statements in the present tense are meaningful. this is ridiculous in reality.

(3) universal scientific statements
additionally, universal statements are unverifiable, even scientific statements. to state ‘all metals expand when heated’ is a universal statement. it is impossible to go and test every atom of metal to discover whether this claim is true; this suggests an element of impracticality with the verification principle.

(4) eschatological verification

Question 24

what is falsification?

Answer 24

the philosophical theory that a statement is meaningless if there is no way that it can be disproved.
- Falsifiable statements are meaningful and capable of being true or false
- Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless, and not capable of being true or false.

antony flew was influenced by the work of karl popper. popper considered falsification to be the most scientific approach to propositions, as attempting to prove something is false is quicker and more effective than proving it true.

(e.g. to verify the statement that, ‘all swans are white’ is true, i must find go and find every swan. however, to falsify this i only need to find one black swan)

Question 25

criticisms of falsification

Answer 25

(1) R.M. HARE: BLIKS
According to Hare, religious statements are not things that can just be shown to be true or false. Instead, they are basic fundamental beliefs that are not empirically testable – Hare calls these attitudes ‘bliks’.

To illustrate what bliks are, Hare uses the example of a paranoid student who thinks university lecturers are trying to kill him.

You assure this student that university lecturers are not trying to kill him and provide tons of evidence, yet the student still believes it anyway. Imagine, for example, that you decide to go with him to speak to a university lecturer and the lecturer acts totally normal:

You: See, he’s fine – the university lecturer isn’t trying to kill you!

Paranoid student: But he was just pretending to be normal so as not to reveal his true plan to kill me!

So, no amount of evidence/reassurance will convince the student that his blik is false. In other words, their blik is unfalsifiable.

But despite being unfalsifiable, Hare argues that bliks are still meaningful to the person who holds them. In the case of the university lecturers example, the blik clearly means something to the paranoid person because it has an effect on his behaviour: He won’t go to lectures, and will look over his shoulder to check university lecturers aren’t following him, for example.

Hare argues that religious language is the same: “God exists” may be unfalsifiable to people who have this blik, but it clearly means something to them. For example, people who believe “God exists” might pray or go to Church – it means enough to them that it affects their behaviour.

In other words, a blik is unfalsifiable but still meaningful to the person who holds it.

(2) BASIL MITCHELL: THE PARTISAN AND THE STRANGER
Mitchell argues that religious people do allow evidence to counter against their claims, but they are already committed to a faith position for other reasons. to illustrate this, he tells the parable of the partisan and the stranger, which illustrates the concept of non-propositional faith - a trust in God which may be held even when evidence or experience points to the contrary:
- During the time of a war a Partisan meets a stranger claiming to be the leader of the resistance. The stranger urges the Partisan to have faith in him, even if he is seen to be acting against Partisan interests. The Partisan is committed to a belief in the stranger’s integrity, but his friends think he is a fool to do so. The original encounter with the stranger gives the Partisan sufficient confidence to hold onto his faith in him even when there is evidence to the contrary.

(3) RICHARD SWINBURNE: PARABLE OF TOYS IN THE CUPBOARD
Richard Swinburne argues that there are many unfalsifiable statements like religious claims that have meaning. For example, the toys in a cupboard which to all appearances stay in the cupboard until no-one is watching and come out and dance in the middle of the night leaving no sign or trace of their activities.

Question 26

define tautology

Answer 26

formal logic that says the same thing in different words (e.g. bachelors are single males).

Question 27

evidence for religious language as meaningful (names of scholars)

Answer 27

• hick: eschatological verification
• basil Mitchell: parable of partisan and stranger
• r.m. hare: bliks

Question 28

evidence for religious language as meaningless (names of scholars)

Answer 28

• aj ayer: verification principle
• antony flew: falsification principle

Question 29

what does it mean by religious language as ‘non-cognitive’ and ‘analogical’?

Answer 29

one solution to the problem of religious language is that it is analogical. this claims that statements about God are not to be understood literally, but are comparing God - a transcendant being - with things/beings within the world. such language would be considered meaningless to logical positivists since it does not make cognitive claims.

Question 30

comparison between cognitive and non-cognitive language

Answer 30

cognitive language
- makes claims that can be checkec according to empirical evidence
- states propositions that can be known to be true or false
- objective content

non-cognitive language
- makes statements that cannot be checked according to empirical evidence
- does not state propositions
- interpretative/subjective content

Question 31

define ‘analogy’ in relation to religious language

Answer 31

a comparison made between two things that are not identical but share similarities.

Question 32

who came up with proportion and attribution in relation to religious language?

Answer 32

st. thomas aquinas

Question 33

what are the three ways aquinas recognised that language can be used?

Answer 33

(1) univocal language that can only be understood in one way. it cannot be interpreted differently as it has one meaning. (e.g. humans consist of flesh and bones)
- he believes this is unsuitable for religious language / ‘God-talk’ because language used from the empirical world cannot be used in the same way about a non-empirical being.

(2) equivocal language that has many possible meanings, all of which are equally valid.
(e.g. george is hot, can be understood in two different ways: George’s physical temp or attractiveness)
- aquinas saw this as unsuitable for religious language because it does not convey accurate truth or knowledge. God is not entirely different from us, so language about Him cannot be completely unconnected.

**(3) analogical: attribution / proposition) aquinas arrgued that there is a third possibility (a midpoint between both). this refers to language based on wordly experience but compared to God.

Question 34

what are the two analogies proposed by aquinas?

Answer 34

analogy of attribution: worldly things are compared with God because He is their efficient cause, e.g. ‘God is good’. We know goodness in the world as God caused it. Food is described as healthy as it causes health in a person.

analogy of proportion: worldly things are compared with God, but must be understood according to scale e.g. God’s goodness is in proportion with His greatness, whilst our goodness is lesser in proportion with us.

Question 35

what would logical positivists say about aquinas’ theory of analogical language?

Answer 35

• Logical positivists view analogical language as non-cognitive since it makes no claims that can be known to be objectively true.
• Aquinas would have argued that analogical language is cognitive since it states propositions about God that are accurate if not comprehensive.

Question 36

ian ramsey: qualifier and disclosure

Answer 36

Ian Ramsey claimed religious language allows disclosure of what has been discerned (insight) about God, resulting in commitment.
- He divided analogical language into two areas:
∘ models – familiar qualities seen in the world that are compared with God, e.g. ‘good’ is a model. Alone, models are insufficient for
speaking of God.
∘ qualifiers – an adaption of the model, e.g. ‘God is infinitely good’, ‘infinitely’ is the qualifier that aids understanding of the model and provides disclosure.
* For example, Judge Justice Brown, dressed in impersonal robes, whilst presiding over a court,
hears the defendant use his schoolboy name ‘Sammy’. He recognises his old friend, and the
context is changed and personal.
* Qualifiers bring understanding of the model. The light dawns, the penny drops, and deeper
understanding and disclosure of God is gained

Question 37

challenges to analogies as giving meaningful insights into religious language

Answer 37

there are several problems with relying on analogy to convey information about God and His nature:

• Analogy rests on the assumption that God exists and created us in his image which is not verifiable or falsifiable.
• We have no way of knowing that the analogy being used is a suitable/reasonable/correct one
• God is too different from humanity to be able to make any comparison. We cannot know if the comparisons are reasonable or correct.
• if God is causally related to the world, we cna compare evil in the world analogically to God

Question 38

strengths of analogy as used by aquinas and ramsey to help understand religious teachings

Answer 38

Analogy gives believers clear points of reference that allowing context in which to understand God.
* It allows for the possibility that we can know facts about God, but allows for limitations in human understanding.
* It allows religious language is not to be taken literally, e.g. God resting after creating, God walking in the garden of Eden.
* Ramsey’s qualifiers mean that we can understand how to interpret an analogy. It gives believers the ability to interpret analogy so that God is not reduced to an anthropomorphic personification.

Question 39

religious language as non-cognitive and symbolic

Answer 39

John Randall saw religious language as non-cognitive symbols that represent themselves and provoke a unique, emotional response in the user or hearer.

• Language has different functions so should be treated differently:
  ∘ scientific language has the function of describing facts about the world
  ∘ religious language has the function of representing mythological, religious belief that gives
  insight into the meaning and purpose of life and experience.
• Randall held an anti-realist / coherence theory of truth – the truth of a proposition is in relation to its consistency with other held beliefs.
• Therefore, religious symbols do not need to be verifiable to be meaningful.
• There are four functions of symbols:
  ∘ motivation – to arouse emotion, stirring people to act
  ∘ social – bringing communities together, providing shared identity and
  values
  ∘ communication – expressing emotional aspects of an experience
  ∘ clarification and disclosure – reveal insight and clarification into the divine.

Question 40

randall’s four functions of symbols: motivation

Answer 40

symbols arouse emotions and stir people into action. they summon feelings of those who share the experience and give power to the symbol itself to motivate and inspire people.

Question 41

randall’s four functions of symbols: social

Answer 41

symbols stimulate people to co-operate and bind communities together. the ideas used in worship give people a shared identity and provide a common vision of shared values. this becomes the core of religious identity.

Question 42

randall’s four functions of symbols: communication

Answer 42

symbols communicate aspects of an experience that are otherwise inexpressible. they evoke feelings and transfer power to the symbol itself. these are not the symbols of science that provide factual knowledge about the world; these instead are non-cognitive and emotional.

Question 43

randall’s four functions of symbols: clarification and disclosure

Answer 43

symbols reveal human insight of the divine in the same way that art or poetry reveal understanding of our place in the world. symbols are not verifiable but they clarify our understanding, it is only through symbols that the human can approach the divine and live a religious life.

Question 44

paul tillich’s view on symbols

Answer 44

Paul Tillich argued that humans are interested in more than just physical concerns like food and shelter. They also have spiritual concerns.

• The concerns of humanity lead to their ultimate concern (God, the sacred, for which all else is sacrificed) that can only be expressed symbolically.

Question 45

paul tillich’s differences between signs

Answer 45

like randall, tillich saw a difference between signs and symbols.

a sign
- points beyond itself at something else
- arbitrary and can be replaced
- needs no relationship with the thing that it points towards
(e.g. letters of the alphabet do not have any effect on the way they sound)

a symbol
- points beyond itself at something else
- cannot be replaced with another word or object
- becomes inextricably linked with the thing it points towards
(e.g. a flag becomes part of the power of nation, for which it stands; it affects behaviour)

Question 46

paul tillich’s view on logical positivism

Answer 46

tillich agreed that while logical positivism was right in trying to establish a criterion of meaning, it treats all words as signs. symbols are poetic or liturgical. they have power and cannot be killed by criticism from science.

humans are interested in spiritual concerns, not just physical concerns. the holy is our ‘ultimate school’. humanit’s ultimate concern can only be expressed symbolically.

*liturgical- a structured form of worship
*ultimate concern- that which underlies all other concerns.

Question 47

what are the two elements of God according to tillich?

Answer 47

1. literal: non-symbolic as the ultimate ground of being (God as the source of ALL being, not as a being)
2. symbolic: qualities or actions ascribed to God. these cannot be applied literally as they are simply perfected human qualities.

Question 48

tillich’s six characteristics of symbols

Answer 48

1) They point beyond themselves: the symbol elicits emotional engagement and becomes inextricably linked with the thing to which it points. with religious symbols, this thing is the holy.

2) They participate in that to which they point: the symbol becomes part of the meaning. it is not the holy thing but it participates in the holy.

3) They open up levels of reality: literal language is limited. faith expresses itself through symbols that are otherwise hidden, giving people first-hand experience of the subject of their faith.

4) They unlock dimensions of our soul that are otherwise hidden every symbol is two-edged. a symbol engages with the soul of the believer so that they can access other levels of reality, providing inspiration and deeper, emotional engagement and understanding.

5) They cannot be manufactured: a symbol cannot be invented intentionalyl nor be arbitrarily replaced. symbols emanate from the collective unconscious and meet the needs and concerns of the group.

6) symbols can die if they cease to function effectively to meet the needs of society. New symbols arise out of a changed relationship with the holy.

Question 49

challenges towards symbols as a way of understanding god/religion

Answer 49

• tillich uses RL to explain RL. this approach does not help us to understand the meaning of a symbol (e.g. what does it mean to open up levels of the soul?)
• there is no way to know whether symbols that are used are adequate or appropriate because they are non-cognitive and cannot be verified or falsified.
• Paul Edwards (a critic of Tillich) argues that symbols do not convey literal knowledge. thus, nothing that is said about God is meaningful as nothing that is said about God is meany.
• the meaning of symbols is subjective and may be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
• symbols change over time and so nothing is definitive or knowable about a symbol.

Question 50

strengths of symbols (randall/tillich’s teachings) as a way of understanding religious teachings

Answer 50

• these views appreciate the rich variety of ways that language can be used, instead of limiting it to labelling objects in the world.
• symbols help people understand the context of religious pronouncements rather than dismissing such claims as contrary to scientific knowledge.
• human experience is deeper than expression through scientific language. poetry, art and music all offer insights into the feelings and priorities of other people and RL does this on a spiritual level.