Religious Language

Question 1

What is language?

Answer 1

The method of human communication either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured commonly agreed way.

Question 2

How does language develop?

Answer 2

Animals have found a way of communicating for example birds sing.

Language helps groups to survive in its environment as language helps groups work together more effectively i.e to hunt, farm, and defend themselves successfully.

Being able to communicate using language gave human species had a better survival advantage.

Question 3

Problems for religious language

Answer 3

Our language is based upon the physical thing we experience, our language is therefore limited in its ability to discuss things beyond this, (metaphysical).

Religious language is metaphysical, for example the religious concepts of god, heaven,hell. All concepts that can be described as metaphorical. I.e beyond what we experience in our everyday physical lives.

Therefore, the idea that god is omnipotent goes beyond anything we could have experienced in our everyday lives lives, limitations in human language.

Question 4

The challenges to sacred text (not all religious language suffer)

Answer 4

Not all religious based languages suffer from this language barrier of the metaphysical, as human language are able to describe things that we experience, therefore, we would be able to successfully describe places of worship, the physical action that a religious believer might undertake during prayer.

Question 5

The challenge to sacred text (description of God)

Answer 5

Once the religious language goes on to describe the God or God’s that are worshipped, the concept of heaven and hell or the Holy Spirit, then suddenly what is being communicated may be vague or understandable.

For example, how does a non-believer know what is meant when they are told “Jesus is the lamb of life” or “God is everywhere”. They would be confused because the statements do not occur in everyday physical experiences and thus language cannot describe them. Therefore, religious texts and pronouncements can be completely unintelligible.

Question 6

The challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience (water falling)

Answer 6

Language that we have seen develops from shared physical experiences for example we can see that water falls from the sky, therefore if i use the term rain to describe it and others do the same the language of water falling from the sky develops.

Because all humanity shares the same understanding of water falling from the sky (through our senses) we would all understand the meaning of that word.therefore the term rain becomes a meaningful term to describe falling water from the sky.

Question 7

The challenge that religious language is not a common charged base and experience

Answer 7

As humanity develops, we develop a more complex understanding of the world around us, more complex terms developed to understand it. In terms f rain more complex terms as precipitation, condensation terms develop to understand it. However, they are still meaningful as we can all physically experience.

Question 8

The challenge that religious language is not a common shared base experience ( sole purpose of language )

Answer 8

The sole purpose of language is to express what is happening in the physical world around us. Any language that doesn’t do this is therefore meaningless.

This is the problem for religious language,because it is not expressing things that are common to humanities physically shared experiences, such as rain. E.g when we talk about the concept of God , there is no common or shared experience, this means that we cannot have a universally accepted concept of God.
Therefore, because humanity has no joint experience of the concept of God we could say that God is meaningless.

Question 9

The challenge that religious language is not common shared base and experience summary

Answer 9

Because human language only expresses the shared physical (empirical) experiences, any attempt to use it to go beyond this is render is meant less. Religious Language goes beyond the empirical (God,heaven, hell) therefore it too must be meaningless.

Question 10

What is cognitive language?

Answer 10

Language used to express knowledge which is gained through experience ( from senses) e.g water is wet, water comes from clouds or that which is logically necessary (tautology, analytic, true by definition)

Cognitive language is any form of language that makes an assertion which is either true by definition or can be proven to be true or false by empirical means e.g. if i make the assertion that rain comes from cloud formations, this could be tested to be true or false through empirical ( using the sense) means.

Scientific language used to describe the physical world is cognitive i.e. expressed in terms of what is empirically known and tested to be true or false.

Question 11

What is Non-cognitive language?

Answer 11

It is not used to express empirically knowable facts about the external world. It is not something that can be held up to objective/empirical testing to see if it is true or false.
It is language that is used to express feelings, emotions or give commands.

Religious language statements are non-cognitive because it is making assertions that cannot be tested empirically e.g, the proposition that God is Omnibenevolent cannot be tested true or false empirically.

Question 12

Logical positivism and the Vienna circle

Answer 12

Logical positivism found with Hume
But origins come from famous group of philosophers in 1920 who calmed together in Vienna, they was a group of scientifically trained philosophers who met under the leadership of Moritz Schlick.

They believed language is only meaningful if it based on empirically, any other form of language is meaningless, due to the fact that it is unverifiable.

Therefore, a logical positivism only accepts language as meaningful if it can be objectively proved. I.e. it is cognitive.
Only two wats to illustrate if language were meaningful or meaningless:
- Verification
-falsification

Question 13

Verification (1)

Answer 13

Logical positivists created the verification principle to test if language was meaningful.

There are statements that are true within themselves. I.e they are logical (a prior) or self-evidently true and therefore meaningful.

Question 14

Verification analytical example (1)

Answer 14

Mathematical stamens (2+2=4) the truth of the statement is contained within the statement itself.

E.g, Abraham Lincoln stated “with malice toward none, and with charity for all”

Question 15

Verification (2)

Answer 15

There is factual statement which can be confirmed through use of senses (my car has four wheels) this can be verified through the methods used in science.

Any statement that lay outside these groups were considered to be meaningless, i.e religious language.

Question 16

A.J. Ayer

Answer 16

Developed work of Vienna circle’s logical positivism in his 1936 book: ‘language, truth and logic.’

Doesn’t deny that people make other types of statements that are important to them such as saying “god answers my prayers”, it is just that unverifiable statements do not halve factual significance.

Believe the term ‘God’ was metaphysical, and if ‘God’ is a metaphysical term it cannot be verified, therefore it is meaningless. Therefore any sentence with God in it must be meaningless, i.e ‘God exists’

Other metaphysical words include heaven, hell, religious experiences, therefore making most religious based sentences are meaningless.

Objective religious statements are still meaningful e.g my vicar wears a dog-collar, however any attempt to move beyond this such as literal religious description is meaningless.

Question 17

A.J Ayer strong verification

Answer 17

(Practical verification) accepts only directly verifiable statements e.g I empirically observe my car has four wheels

Question 18

A.J Ayer weak verification

Answer 18

Argues that a statement is factual and meaningful if sense experience can go at least some way to conforming it, thus some religious statement could get under the weak version of verification ‘Jesus existed’. Weak verification became the most popular, especially as it was realised that a strong version would out rule many historical statements that they couldn’t directly verify, i.e the battle of Hastings cannot be verified as no one is alive who witnessed it.

Question 19

Religious state to still mostly meaningless

Answer 19

When the principle of verification is applied to religious claims, the claims can appear meaningless because they cannot be supported by observation from sense experiences that go with that is probable.
E.g, God is omnipotent.

Question 20

Religious statements still mostly meaningless cosmological argument

Answer 20

The cosmological argument which relys on observation of the world around us, lead to debate what level of proof satisfies the weak verification, but non-belivers would dispute this as there is a lack of empirical evidence.

The verification principle even in its weak form, will not believe in God because the word God refers to something beyond experiences, so cannot be verified.

Question 21

Criticism of verification (fails its own test)

Answer 21

The verification principle has a potential flaw as it fails its own test, this si because the verification principle is neither logically obvious nor is it supported by empirical evidence, therefore the verification principle is not verifiable.

Question 22

Criticisms of verification (historical statements)

Answer 22

Ayer had to add the weak verification principle because his initial theory did not count historical statements as meaningful, this undermines the verification principle validity.

Question 23

Critics of verification (post-mortem verification)

Answer 23

Hick argued that the Christian concept of God was verifiable in principle (weak principle). By using his parable of the journey to the celestial city, Hick demonstrated that whilst the knowledge of the existence of God may not be immediately verifiable in practice there is the possibility that it can be verified post mortem (after death). This concept is eschatological verification.

Can link to epistemic distance.

Question 24

Falsification

Answer 24

The principle of falsification took the opposite view to the verification principle but with the aim of coming to the same outcome.

Therefore, the falsification principle addresses the same question, ‘when is a statement scientific as opposed to any other types of statement’.

Question 25

Falsification- Karl popper

Answer 25

Suggested that “one can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or testability.”

Compatible with Einstein’s theory of gravity with astrology.

Popper argued that Einstein’s theory of gravity was scientific because it was potentially falsifiable, its truth or falseness could be tested against empirical observation of the universe.
Astrology is labelled unscientific as people who accept it do not allow any evidence to counter it.

Question 26

Falsification- Flew

Answer 26

Flew linked the falsification principle to religion, he argued a statement is only meaningful if it is known what empirical evidence could count against it (can be falsified)

Theist intend their language to be taken factually an make assertions, e.g, God exists. However, assertion must give the conditions under which they can be falsified,.

Argued that religious believes do not give the conditions which will count against their claims. This makes their religious statements meaningless.

Question 27

Falsification- Flew example

Answer 27

When a believers states that “God loves us as a father loves his children” we would expect divine help in times of serious trouble or disease, yet God seems distant, absent, so believers generally make some qualifications- God’s love is both like human love.
The point is that they will not allow anything to count against the original theological statement.

Flew argued that religious believers have killed their own religious claims ‘by a thousand qualifications’

Question 28

Falsification- Flew parable of the garden

Answer 28

Two explores came across a clearing in which grew flowers and weeds, one argued that there is a gardener on account of the flowers, the other argued that there could be no gardener on account for the weeds.

Flew argued that the religious believer is guilty of the same error as the man who believed in the prepense of the gardener, failure to prove God’s existence doesn’t lead ti withdrawal of ones believers faith claim, rather they continue to believe in God.

Question 29

Criticisms of falsification- Hare

Answer 29

Takes an existential view, therefore the concept of meaningful comes from the impact that a belief had on the unique individual, not the empirical falsification. I.e it doesn’t ,matter if others do not share my beliefs, if it is meaningful to me then it my unique world it is meaningful.

Question 30

Criticisms of falsification- Hare (post-modern view)

Answer 30

Illustrates the post modern view with his concept of bliks, the used bliks to describe the way individuals look at their lives and experiences.
Hare argued a bliks had the power to change our behaviour and the relationship that we had with the world around us, e.g, one particular blik might ve a religious experience.

Hare argued that blicks are absolutely meaningful to individuals, even if it cannot be falsified,illustrates by the parable of the university dons and the lunatic student.( a student is convicted his teachers are out to kill him and no evidence will count against it.

Question 31

Criticisms of falsification- Basil Mitchell

Answer 31

Main criticism of flews falsification is that he does not really understand the religious persons perspective.

Flew argued that religious believers allow nothing to count against their beliefs, however Mitchell argues that this was an over-simplification of religious beliefs. Because religious believers are frequently faced with challenges to belief including evidence that seems to be contrary to their beliefs, fundamental wrong to say that such evidence has no impact of religious believers
E.g, amber heard last her faith when her sister died in a car crash when others don’t.

Question 32

Criticism of falsification Mitchell parable

Answer 32

Used parable of ‘the partisan and the stranger’ to illusates his points.
Overall argued that flew misunderstands the challenge of holding a religious faith and vulgarly simplifies it.

Question 33

Cristian of falsification- Richard Swinburne

Answer 33

Argues that there are lots of cases where language is accepted as meaningful even if it cannot be falsified.

E.g,our partner might tell us they love us, although this cannot be falsified most humans will accept it as meaningful even to the extent of committing themselves to a life long partner ti said person,

Uses own example of toys in a cupboard that comes to life, even though there is no evidence to falsify claim the idea remains meaningful to those who hear it.

Question 34

Aquinas background (rejection of other language)

Answer 34

Aquinas was an early supporter that analogically language was the best way to describe God.

Question 35

Aquinas rejection of via negativa

Answer 35

In the Middle Ages religious language was traditionally ‘via negativa’ they suggested that people can only talk to God in negative terms . I.e God is not human, God cannot die.
However, Aquinas rejected the via negativa because it does not say anything directly about God. He suggested that religious language should mean something concreate when applied to God.

Question 36

Aquinas rejection of Univocal language

Answer 36

When language is used precisely, i.e, the word used only has one meaning regardless of its context. E.g restaurant means a place to eat regardless of whether you say shall we go to the restaurant.
Aquinas rejected univocal langauge to describe God because God is greater than humanity. Therefore, we cannot possibly use the same word in the same way to describe humans then God e.g ‘ my wife is loving’ and then say ‘God is loving’ not using love univocally because Gods loving nature is greater then the wife’s loving nature.

Question 37

Aquinas rejection of Equivocal Language

Answer 37

When language is used imprecisely i.e, the same term has a completely different meaning according to the context e.g the box could mean the cardboard container or an organised fighting match, this type of language is useless for describe God because no one would know the context you are using the word therefore tells us nothing precise about God.

Question 38

Aquinas language theory

Answer 38

Aquinas religious language theory is based on the second of his five ways i.e every effect must have a cause.
Therefore, like everything else in human language is ultimately cause by God, this includes the concept of words in language e.g, the word ‘loving’ has a specific meaning. However, as God is the causer of all things so God must be the causer of there concept of loving

Therefore human language is ultimately caused by God and ius a reflection of Him

Question 39

Aquinas language theory analogy

Answer 39

Aquinas thought that God’s created world is a reflection of what God is as he is the ultimate creator, just as an artist and their work is ultimately connected.

Question 40

Aquinas theory ‘the doctrine of analogy’

Answer 40

Believers want to be able to express their belief that God is unique and cannot satisfactorily be compared with anything we known in this world
If we talk of ‘love of God’ we could make reference to human notions of love, therefore we draw on analogy between Gods love for humanity and a mothers love for a child, therefore we have a notions of God’s love. God love is greater the the human concept of Love.

Question 41

The Analogy of Attribution

Answer 41

Aquinas doctrine of analogy is based on concept of causes, therefore each attribute humanity has must ultimately have been caused by God.
Aquinas draws the distinction between positive and negative attributes suggesting god is only responsible for the positive attributes and the negative comes from human sins.

Therefore, it is possible to draw to draw meaningful analogies between God and humanity because human attributes come from God and therefore a reflection of Him, when saying ‘Human love is similar to Gods love’’ is a fair analogy because the attributes of love between God and humanity is related.

Question 42

The analogy of proportion

Answer 42

Beings have attributes in proportion to the kind of reality that being possess. For example, an apple has life in proportion to an apple, when i say apple is good i don’t mean the apple is morally good because this is outside of proportion of an apple, ie it has no intellectual capacity to choose to be good or bad.

Human goodness is at a higher level then the apple , it is in proportion to humans as humans can think and reflect the human concept of goodness, but I limited

Gods love is in proportion to his goodness which is at an even higher proportion, perfect therefore gods unlimited goodness is in proportion to Goodness is in proportion to Gods.

Question 43

Summary of Aquinas

Answer 43

In terms of doctrine of analogy’s what Aquinas is saying is that when we use religious language to say, e.g, God is good, we mean that God’s goodness is similar ti human goodness but different because God’s goodness is on a higher level, Gods goodness is in proportion to him and human goodness is in proportion to humanity.