Religious Language

Question 1

Why might people claim that the statement “God loves me” is meaningful?

Answer 1

• It is an assertion of faith
• Love corresponds to a human experience
• Gramatically coherent
• God’s love is different than human love

Question 2

Why might people claim that the statement “God loves me” is meaningless?

Answer 2

• It doesn’t correspond to a specific image/concept
• It needs to be empirically verifiable (how does religious language maintain meaning unless it’s verifiable?

Question 3

What is religious language?

Answer 3

Words we use to communicate ideas about God, faith, belief, and religious practices (but people may question how can something hold meaning if it doesn’t correspond with reality)

Question 4

What are two options to choose from regarding the statement “God loves me”?

Answer 4

• Option A: God’s love is the same as our love and relatable through human experiences [univocal language]
• Option B: God’s love is different to ours but the word “love” is the closest thing we have to describe God’s benevolence [equivocal language]

Question 5

What are the issues arising from option A?

Answer 5

• Anthropomorphising God (limiting him)
• Changes definition of God (negates God’s transcendence/omnibenevolence

Question 6

What are the issues arising from option B?

Answer 6

• it is an assumption about God, we don’t actually know his nature
• Not verifiable to human understanding (we can no longer find meaning)
• Difficult to know what God’s love atually is (potentially does not correspond to reality)

Question 7

What are general implications for religious language?

Answer 7

• “God” is a metaphysical term referring to a transcendent being which cannot therefore have any literal significance
• Agnostic statements (anything that includes the term “God” is meaningless)
• Rejects atheism ~ engages with idea of God

Question 8

What is Ayer’s verification principle?

Answer 8

For statements to be meaningful, they should be factually true (therefore he claims that any truth claims are meaningless if they are neither analytic or synthetic)

Question 9

What is the difference between strong verification principle and weak verification principle?

Answer 9

• Strong: statements that can be verified strongly by looking physically and measuring them (empirical) (“There are human beings on Earth”)
• Weak: a statement could be considered meaningful even though it may not be practically verifiable (“Yesterday was Monday”)

Question 10

What is difference between cognitive and non cognitive?

Answer 10

• Cognitive: describe some features of the world.
• Non-cognitive: if some statements cannot be true or false and if one cannot know if it is true o false (knowledge is impossible)

Question 11

What is the difference between a synthetic statement and an analytic statement?

Answer 11

• Synthetic: truth value can only be determined by relying on observation and experience
• Analytic: such statement cannot be confirmed or refuted by observation or experience (true by definition)

Question 12

Provide some strengths on Ayer’s verification principle.

Answer 12

• considers the importance of empirical evidence to prove things as true or false
• consistent with Locke and Hume’s ideas regarding truth and knowledge as part of our senses
• forms a basis on an attack on religious language

Question 13

Provide some weaknesses on Ayer’s verification principle.

Answer 13

• arrogant ~ tells people their beliefs are meaningless
• if weak verification principle allows historical statements to be meaningful, this means religious statements can also be meaningful
• the verification principle cannot be verified. so it is unknown whether this theory is valid

Question 14

What is Flew’s falsification principle?

Answer 14

We should not prove things as true but are willing to prove things as false (Popper’s theory). Flew claimed that religious language cannot be falsifiable as the statements are used are meaningless as they are updated and changed.

Question 15

Define these key terms:
- Myths
- Aetiological Myths
- Metaphors

Answer 15

• Myths: stories designed to resolve philosophical problems/dilemmas
• Aetiological Myths: aetiology is the study of how things came about or are caused. They seek to explain the origin of the universe and its components (e.g. creation myths)
• Metaphors: figure of speech. A word or phrase used to denote or describe something entirely different from an object or idea

Question 16

What is an analogy?

Answer 16

Likening something to something else in order to bring out the meaning of the original

Question 17

Briefly explain Aquinas’ theory of predication.

Answer 17

Since God created the universe, there must be some link between human attributes or predicates (loving, powerful) and God’s (all-loving, all-powerful). In other words, attributes are being used as analogies.

Question 18

What is analogy of attribution?

Answer 18

Example: “the baker is good” and “the baker’s bread is good”
If we constitute what “good” means for human being, we can understand something of what “good” means in relation to the creator of human beings. God has whatever it takes to produce human goodness.

Question 19

What is analogy of proportion?

Answer 19

Example: a dog can love. Although it is an inferior kind of love to the best human love.
A “downward” analogy can be made. Since we do not exactly know what it is for a dog to love, we also can equally think about this for God’s love (as an “upwards” analogy)

Question 20

Provide some criticisms of analogy.

Answer 20

• Analogy of attribution can be used to prove God as bad
• If we don’t accept God as creator, we don’t have to accept the idea that we can work out what God is like by examining a creation that is not his
• Analogy picks out some qualities but not others (i.e., God’s evil qualities)
• Analogy can tell us nothing new about God, these things already are in existence

Question 21

Explain Swinburne’s views on analogy.

Answer 21

• Analogy of wave/particle comparison to light can be used, as light displays both these characteristics
• Both words of particles and waves also remain in contact to their original meanings
• In the same way, we can also stretch meaning of words like “person” and “knows” when applied to God

Question 22

What are symbols?

Answer 22

They help us to signify ideas and qualities of an object/word, different from their literal meaning
(i.e., helps us to understand deeper meaning behind novels, stories, and films)

Question 23

Briefly explain Tillich’s claims on symbols.

Answer 23

There are different levels of reality beyond the empirical, that can partly be understood through symbolic language

Question 24

What is the difference between signs and symbols?

Answer 24

• Signs: arbitrary representations of something, associated with the thing they represent (e.g., blue flashing light for police cars)
• Symbol: participates in reality to which it points (e.g., national flag in power of monarch represents passion and love)

Question 25

What are symbols as keys to deeper levels of reality?

Answer 25

Symbols open up to levels of reality that would otherwise be closed to us. They can also open up dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality.

Question 26

What is the idea of the holy? (Tillich inspired by Otto)

Answer 26

• Otto’s original idea: numinous feelings are outside of the self
• Tillich’s claims: God can be understood as non-symbolically as “Being-Itself” and symbolically as a person

Question 27

What criticisms can be made against Tillich’s claims?

Answer 27

• Religious language being symbolic means that religious statements are not literally true
• Randall’s four main functions of religious symbols: motivational, social, communicational, indicative
• Randall: ‘God’ seems to have no cognitive content, he is reduced to a symbol for human value instead

Question 28

Explain Wittgenstein’s view on religious language used as a “game”.

Answer 28

• Truth/reality is defined by language
• The religious terms only make sense for people who follow the religion
• Can link to “chess” and how people only understand the terms if they play the game

Question 29

Therefore, how can religion be linked with language of games?

Answer 29

• Meaning is all about convention - just like in a game. There’s a right and wrong way to do things
• So with religion - there might be conventional and unconventional ways to talk about God.
• “I believe in God” and “I don’t believe in God” are not contradictory statements - these are simple perspectives that people may choose to take

Question 30

What are D.Z Phillips’ additional claims to language games and religion?

Answer 30

• Religious language is a language game because it is not grounded or criticised in reason: it is a system of its own
• Statements (“God exists”) are no grounded in belief, but are expressions of belief instead

Question 31

Provide some strengths on language games.

Answer 31

• Connection made with “coherence theory of truth” means statements can be true if they fit with other statements
• ‘Game’ of language cannot be criticised as it is internally coherent/intelligible

Question 32

Provide some weaknesses on language games.

Answer 32

• Too relativistic (allowing any claims as equally valid)
• Difficult to challenge truth claims easily
• Not clear whether Wittengenstein thought of religion as a “language game”, as he wrote little about religion