Religious Language

Question 1

What is the challenge to religious language?

Answer 1

• Our language is woefully inadequate when talking about God – we cannot express anything about the nature of God within our human terms.
• Religious propositions are often contradictory and paradoxical. For example “God is the father and the son and the holy spirit”. How can one be split in three?
• Biblical language often talks about God in human terms.
• There are peculiarities in the use of religious language.

Question 2

Maimonides

Answer 2

Applying concepts experienced in the physical reality to a metaphysical will often lead to error. Since God is so radically ‘other’ we can’t positively ascribe anything to God. We can however say what God is not (via negativa).

Question 3

John Duns Scotus

Answer 3

Had a univocal approach to language. “God is good” can be understood unequivocally without any confusion. The word ‘good’ has the same meaning if we were to apply it to “Chris is good” and to God, but to a much greater degree.

Question 4

What two forms of verifiable language did the Logical Positivists accept?

Answer 4

• Analytic propositions (a priori) – knowledge is gained through logical reasoning.
• Synthetic propositions (a posteriori) – knowledge can be proved true or false by some form of sense experience or experiment.

Question 5

Verification Principle quote

Answer 5

“We know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false.”

Question 6

Verification Principle

Answer 6

It is not possible to know how to prove the statement true or false, using either knowledge gained through logical reasoning or verified through empirical evidence, then the logical positivsts regard it as meaningless.
We can accept statements as meaningful if we know the conditions under which the statement can be proved true or false.
For example – “the moon is made of green cheese” is false. It would be meaningful as it is known how to prove the statement false (by going to the moon and taking rock samples).

Question 7

Why is it pointless to talk about God?

Answer 7

It is pointless to talk about God as such a proposition could be verified using senses or scientific experiment. We cannot know the conditions under which such a proposition could be proved true or false.

Question 8

For Logical Positivists, what are the problems with talking about God?

Answer 8

• Discussion of God can’t be based on common ground.
• Religious language is not univocal, but is equivocal.
• Different interpretations of words arise.

Question 9

A.J Ayer

Answer 9

A proposition is meaningful if it is known how to prove it true of false in principle or in practice. If it is not known then it is empty of meaning.

Question 10

Strong and weak verification

Answer 10

Strong verification occurs when there is no doubt that a statement is true, as we can verify it using sense experience.
Weak verification occurs when there are some observations that are relevant to proving a proposition true of false, but not enough to prove it conclusively.

Question 11

Quote about strong verification (Ayer)

Answer 11

“A proposition is… verifiable in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth can be conclusively established.”

Question 12

The Falsification Principle

Answer 12

Flew applied this to Religious Language, and concluded that religious language. This is because there is nothing that can count against religious statements. They can neither be proved true, nor false because believers do not accept any evidence to falsify their beliefs.
Flew argued that Christians hold to their belief that ‘God is good’ whatever evidence is offered against it.

Question 13

Parable of the Gardener

Answer 13

the believer gives reasons why God is good, Flew that constant qualifications renders religious statements meaningless. Flew developed Wisdom’s parable to prove his point that the believer wont allow anything to count against their belief.

Question 14

Antony Flew quote

Answer 14

Religious statements “die the death of a thousand qualifications”.

Question 15

Wisdom’s original parable

Answer 15

Wisdom’s original parable was aimed at showing how believers look to patterns in the world that support their belief. As James Richmond points out – religion is sometimes consistent with empirical facts. Belief is founded on aspects of the world that support faith. Statements of belief are what the believer claims they are.
Flew’s version is far more unrealistic

Question 16

Response to criticism of Flew

Answer 16

It being unrealistic is the point. Believers hone in on the beautiful aspects of the world and ignore the terrible aspects.

Question 17

Criticisms of the Verification Principle

Answer 17

For the believer it doesn’t matter that language can’t be verified – ineffability of experiences.
Verification Principle is developed by non-believers and so don’t understand the meaning and purpose of religious language from the perspective of the believer. Ineffability shows they are aware that the meaning is not conveyed using verifiable language.
The verification principle itself cannot be verified.

Question 18

Criticisms of the Falsification Principle

Answer 18

Swinburne – Toys in the cupboard:
There are statements which we cannot falsify and yet we still understand the meaning behind the statement.
For example we can never prove that toys don’t come out of the cupboard and move around when we are not watching them, we cannot falsify this statement. Yet we still understand the meaning behind the statement.

Question 19

Blik

Answer 19

It is a frame of reference in terms of what evidence is interpreted.
It is not based on evidence and so cannot be contradicted by evidence.

Question 20

Religious Language as a ‘blik’

Answer 20

•Although religious language cannot make factual claims it still has meaning, not because it imparts knowledge, but because it influences the way in which people look at the world.

Question 21

Challenges to blik

Answer 21

Flew condemned the argument as a ‘dialectical dud-cheque’. Hare was not really giving a reason why religious language is meaningful.
According to Flew all Hare has done is develop a ‘fraudulent substitute’ of a blik.

Question 22

Believers do allow things to count against their belief

Answer 22

• Basil Mitchell wanted to show that that religious statements are meaningful even if they are not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
• Because they are not falsifiable in practice, they are falsifiable in principle.
• Religious beliefs are held in trust. Flew misses the point that believers have a prior commitment to faith.

Question 23

Parable of the Partisan

Answer 23

The fighter is presented as being open to observations that discredit his belief.

a) Willing to admit that things count against his belief in the leader (a symbol of God).
b) Grounds his belief in reason and fact: he trusts this man who claims to be leader.

Question 24

Hick and Eschatological Verification

Answer 24

• He states that at the end of time all parts of religious belief are made clear by God.
• They will be verified in the future.
• Hick is in a way using weak verification in reverse; we are unaware of the kind of evidence needed to verify religious statements, but such knowledge will be provided after death.

Question 25

Parable of the Celestial City

Answer 25

Two people are on a journey, one is convinced that the road will lead to nowhere, the other that it will lead to the Celestial City. Only when they reach the end will the truth be revealed.

Question 26

Criticisms of Hick

Answer 26

Against Hick – is death with no post mortem existence the verification of religious belief as false, or should this conclusion only mean that the statements are in the end not verified at all?

Question 27

Criticism of Mitchell

Answer 27

Against Mitchell – Mitchell argues believers falsify in principle, but faith wins out. Is this dispensing with reason?
• Is this emphasis on faith dispensing with reason, since despite acknowledging false evidence they merely choose to ignore it.
• Is this really falsification – even in principle? With Mitchell the contradictory evidence is not really evidence. Is his argument just another qualification of the kind Flew is referring to?

Question 28

Richard Braithewaite

Answer 28

Religious statements were used by believers to expres certain morality.
We must look at the empirical use of language as well as the verifiability.

Question 29

Criticisms of Richard Braithewaite

Answer 29

Most believers would assert they are talking about God in a literal way.

Question 30

Ian Crombie

Answer 30

Aims to show how the word “God” is a proper name that identifies an individual being.
But with a name like “God” we cannot interact with an improper name.

Question 31

Wittgenstein - Language Games

Answer 31

Language Games – language is governed by rules, like games. Certain rules differ from situation to situation.
Any language can be meaningful if it is understood by the language users.

Question 32

Wittgenstein quotes

Answer 32

“The meaning of a word is its use in the language”.
“The term ‘language game’ is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity”.

Question 33

Criticisms of Wittgenstein

Answer 33

He removes the need for language to be connected to the world.
He is in danger of reducing belief to a game played out in words and deeds by a community which includes a set of metaphysical claims.

Question 34

How is religious language symbolic?

Answer 34

Religious language is symbolic in nature and has a profound effect on humans.
He makes the distinction between signs and symbols. Signs do not participate in what they symbolise. Symbols however have a powerful meaning.

Question 35

What four main functions do symbols have?

Answer 35

• They point to something beyond themselves.
• They participate in that to what they point to.
• They open up levels of reality that would otherwise be closed.
• They open up dimensions of the soul.

Question 36

What does religious language point towards?

Answer 36

Ultimate reality. The vision of God which he calls “Being itself.”

Question 37

Paul Tillich quote

Answer 37

The language of faith is the language symbol”

Question 38

J.R Randall

Answer 38

Supported Tillich. He sees religious language as a human activity which makes special contribution to human culture.

Question 39

William Alston challenge to Randall

Answer 39

William Alston would challenge Tillich. Alston argues that if we take the symbolic route, then statements do not have any real meaning.

Question 40

What three ways can you interpret myths?

Answer 40

• A fable – a story that is not true. Braithewaite argues they inspire us.
• Enables us to talk about otherwise ineffable things.
• Interpreting the “ultimate reality” – bind people together in accessing the higher level.

Question 41

Aquinas’s analogical view of religious language

Answer 41

We understand that a word, when applied to God has a different meaning from its everyday use because we understand God is perfect. We are therefore using analogies.

Question 42

Why have some philosophers dismissed analogies?

Answer 42

Some philosophers have dismissed the use of analogies. We cannot use them because God is beyond our understanding and so the use of analogies in religious language is meaningless.

Question 43

What are Aquinas’ two analogies?

Answer 43

Analogy of Proportion and Analogy of Attribution

Question 44

What is Aquinas’ Analogy of Proportion?

Answer 44

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. One can understand God is all powerful as we have the human idea of power. God is proportionally more powerful than humans.

Question 45

What is Aquinas’ Analogy of Attribution?

Answer 45

Analogy of attribution – Applies when a term, originally used concerning one thing, is applied to a second as that one thing causes the other. Aquinas saw human wisdom as a reflection of God’s wisdom. God is the source of love and life, therefore it is possible to talk of the “living God”.

Question 46

Rudolph Bultman’s view of religious language as a myth

Answer 46

Scholars who share Bultman’s view have gone as far as to suggest that the belief in in Jesus as God incarnate is a myth.
God in human form was a myth to convey the importance of religious truths.

Question 47

How have scholars criticised Bultman?

Answer 47

Other scholars have criticised this view, as they believe to reject mythological language would be to reject much of the religious belief underlying it.

Question 48

Descartes’ Private Language

Answer 48

He had proved his own existence because of private thought, “I think, therefore I am”.
Wittgenstein argued that individuals could create a private language.
Language is a social product and so any thoughts are not private.

Question 49

Criticisms of Private language

Answer 49

Religious believers are involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. Religious language is not totally isolated. There will therefore be a common ground between religious language and other “language games.”
Non-believers might be able to understand religious language better than believers. This is because they have an objective view of religious language.

Question 50

Is it possible to talk meaningfully about God?

Answer 50

• Supporters of the verification and falsification principles would disagree.
• Hick would make an exception and say that we can verify in eschatological verification.
• Generally it falls to those who reject verification and falsification to defend meaningfulness of religious language.

Question 51

Parable of the Dons

Answer 51

The parable of the Dons – a university student is paranoid that the university dons were plotting to kill him. He would not accept any evidence that was contrary to his belief. He would accept evidence that would falsify his belief, but the belief was meaningful to the student even if it was not true as it influenced the way he saw the university.