Religious Language Flashcards
What is the debate?
Solely concerned with working out whether or not religious language means anything. In the debate about religious language it is important that there are two types.
What two types of relgious language are there?
1) Cognitive: facts
2) Non-congintive: emotions, feelings metaphysical claims
who was an early proponent of speaking about god in analogical terms?
St Thomas Aquinas
What language did Aquinas reject when talking about god?
Univocal: where words always mean the same thing - ‘black’
rejected because god is not the same as anything we know
Equivocal: words means different things in different context - ‘gay’
rejected because we cannot understand what it would mean in the context of god
what is the analogy of attribution
possible to work out the nature of god from his creation
can gain knowlege about the health of a bull from its urine but not fully understand it
what is the analogy of proportion
John Hick points out that a dog can be faithful but is different to the way a human can be faithfull
this is the same with god - we can use words used to describe human things to talk about god but they would have a slightly different meaning for god
how does Ian ramsey believe religious language is used??
he says religious language is a ‘model’, not exaclty like the real thing but gives an impression of what it is
we use qualifiers to adapt the model becuase we are talking about god, for example “infinitely”
what is via negativa?
form of theology that states we cannot know what god is but only what he is not.
ultimately, god is beyond human comprehension so cannot be talked about with language
emphasises the trancendance of and otherness of god
what did paul tilich believe ?
we can talk about god through the use of symbol
makes a distinction between a sign and symbol
without knowing what a sign means it is meaningless but a symbol take part in its meaning, symbols open up levels of realtity that are otherwise closed to us
visual symbols aid our understanding
what does jerry hughes say about the use of religious language?
it is preferable to use metaphorical language becuase it is less likely to mislead because we know it is not literal
how are myths useful to talk about god?
the myth makes stories easier to understand than a philosophical point because they are retellable and have culteral identity and communicate values
EG - genesis in the bible
what does HJ Richards say about myths?
myths are described as deep stores and not meant to be taken literally. on the other hand they are meant to be taken seriously - they deal with deep reality
myths = superhuman story meant to be interpreted
universal truths
Michelangelo’s sistine chapel
Traditionally thought to illistrate the Genesis story in which God breathes life into Adam.
God is dipicted as a elderly white bearded man wrapped in a swirling cloak - adam is completely nude. Whith age comes wisdom but God is not shown as frail. He is wise and powerful. His outstretched armed to impart the spark of life to that of adam.
A reminder that man is made in image and likeness of God.
The all seeing eye of God
Introduced late, around the 16th century into Russian icon painting as an attempt to show the omniscience of God.
The four corners are the symbols of the four ghospels
God is at the top, below him mary and Jesus in the middle
what significance can religious art have for people
mistake to think religious language is purely spoken - can be shown in art and symbol too
art can deepen the relationship with god, does not have the limitation of the written word
art can show a deep meaning
is open to interpretation so is more personal
eg all seeing eye of god shows gods omniscience to theists
what are the weaknesses of analogy
Aquinas’ analogy argument rests on God having created the world
Analogy picks some qualities but not others - what about evil
Analogy can tell us nothing new as it is based on things that are already in existence
Analogy cannot be empirically verified
what are the strengths of analogy
analogy offers a frame of reference to understand things outside our frame of reference
analogy has an empirical base - the world, when we are trying to understand god we can draw on our knowlege of the world - analogy of attribution, because god created us in his image we have some of his attributes
word used are not meant to be taken literally so avoids anthropomorpising god
analogy is helpful becuase it can explain difficult concepts such as god agape love
arguments against via negativa
if we only talk about god negatively it is not very easy for a person who has no experience of god to understand what we mean
Anthony flew in ‘theology and falsification’ says that if we only describe god negatively our definition of god will be the same as our defintion of nothingness
holy scripture, which comes from god, talks about god positively, god is a king, a father, a sheperd, a rock
arguments in favour of via negativa
it does not place a limit in god but giving a point of reference that is within the physical world
does not anthropomorhpise god
unlike symbols, analogy or myth, via negativa applies equally well in different cultures and times - no need for interpretation
arguments against use of symbols as religious language
symbols may loose there original meaning - swastika
tilich argues that relgious symbols successfully point to an understanding of God which is beyond human understanding - no form of human language can give insight to god
may give the wrong insight about god - catholic lamp which symbolizes omnipresence of god but for a non religious person it may be nothing more than a candle
paul edwards argues that symbols do not convey factual knowledge so are meaningless
stregnths of symbol as religious language
JR Randall - can stir strong emotion
Carl Jung - in book ‘man and his symbols’ Jung argues that symbols have great value for humans as they are inate and point beyond there mere depiction
life is more than just facts - it is also emotional and symbols best describe this. tilich believes they unlock dimensions of our soul that would otherwise remain closed
symbols can evolve - change and fit with different societies and cultures
argument apposing myths
not supported by empirical evidence - do not contain literall truths
AJ Ayer would say myths like all other forms of religious language are meaningless becuase there is no method of verification and are fictional accounts so should not try to find any meaning in them
myths are so far removed from reality that the logical mind can not be expected to accept them
the theme of myths are the creation of modern scholars, not the people who wrote them so can we really say the believers so are we imposing an interpretation on myth on what was infact belief?
strengths of using myths
allow humans to gain insight into cosmological and existential questions that are differcult to otherwise express
myths are never meant to be taken literal it is the message they convey which is more important - ie day of judgement story which encourages people to strive to be good
motivate people to lead a moral life - backed up by american philosopher John Herman Randall who said myths bind communities together
means through stories to understand god
if you accept myths for what they are, the issue of verification, levelled by anthony flew and AJ Ayer become redundent
what is logical positivism ??????
developed in 1920s
commonly known as the vienna circle
believed that theologens and philosohpers spend a large amount of time speaking in a laguage which is nonsense or telling others to do so
they saw there job as freeing people from factually meaningless chatter by applying the principles of science to language
what are the two types of sentance that the vienna circle proposed?
analytic statements "a triangle has 3 sides" -dont say much about the world -tell us what a word means -factually meaningful as you can verify by analysing the words being used
synthetic statements
“my poo is smelly”
-are also factually meaningfull becuase their truth can be checked
what are the 3 main logical positivist challenges to religious language
strong verification, weak verification and falsification
what is the strong verification principle!!!!???
this principle asserts that statements are only meaningfull if their truth of falsity can be conclusively proved by either experience or observation
metaphysical statements are meaningless because they cannot be verified
AJ Ayer: “the term god is a metaphysical term. and if god is a metaphysical terms then it cannot even be probable that god exists”
- Ayer does not deny God’s existence but he denies the probability of God’s existence on the grounds that there is no way to empircally verify his existence
problem of strong verification principle
as it requires conclusive proof through observation or experience, it condemns as meaningless too many sentences that are obviously meaningfull
for example: all poo is smelly, with the strong verification principle you would need to smell every poo in the world to verify - this is why the weak verification principle is a ting
what is the weak verification princple!?
strong verification principle with 2 modifications:
1) recognises that it is not always possible to gather all evidence for conclusive proof so says that statements are meaningful if it is possible in principle to gather the evidence
2) if you can establish such statements as probable through experience and observation then the statement is meaningful
“all poo is smelly”
1) it is possible to gain infomation to prove/disprove this
2) having smelt a smaple of smelly poo you could conclude it is probably that all poo is smelly
AJ Ayers says that statements can either be directly or indircectly verifiable - directly by observation -indirectly through observation of other evidence eg black holes
what is the falsification principle ?
statementw which attempt to say something about the world are only meaningful if it is possible to say what would make the statement false
philosopher Karl Popper was the inspiration behind this principle becuase he pointed out that if meaning depended on verification then the whole of science would be wiped out because none of the general laws of science are actually verifiable
anthony flew said that if you can prove a statement to be false it is meaningful eg ‘all swans are white’, one black swan proves this is not true. he also said a lot of religious people do not allow the possibility that their statements may be falsified which makes their statements meaningless
a famous example of the falsification principle is john wisdoms parable of the gardener:
“Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, ‘It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.’ The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn’t agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all.”
- according to flew the the claim that there is a gardener is meaningless becuase he will not accept the evidence against the gardener
what is the theory of ‘blicks’?
RM Hare’s response to the falsificaiton principle
a ‘blik’ is a view not necessarily based on reason or fact and cannot be verified or falsified but it is meaningful to the believer - we do not need to explain why we hold this ‘blik’ (crazy student parable)
what does basil mitchell think of the theory of bliks??
he thinks that believers have a prior faith commitment to god based on their faith. they dont allowed contrary evidence to undermine their faith but it is still meaningfull to them - it cannot be verified or falsified in the simplistic way demanded by the logical positivists
John Hick - Eashatological verification
This states that at the end of time all the parts of religious belief that require faith will be made clear by god (parable of the two people on the road to celestial city)
on the road you cannot tell who’s view is correct but neither is meaningless because once the road is finished there is the possibility of verification at the end of the journey
what are RB Braithwaite’s views or religious language ?
language as a moral assertion: religious language is meaningfull becuase of what it brings about, he was not concerned with what religious statements are but how they are used
they can be verified becuase of the change in behavior they bring about. he argued that becuase religious statements such as “god is the almighty father” bring about a change in action they have meaning and bring about a moral commitment to a certain kinda of life
what is ludwig wittgenstein’s view on religious language
he had supported the logical positivists (vienna circle) but came to reject the verification principle
he believed the meaning of words is in their use: the function they perform as agreed by the particular group or society using them
he developed the theory of language games
- just like games like football and rugby, language operates according to rules
- religious believers have their own language which non believers will find meaningless because they are outside the language game. they cannot claim it is meaninglesss just because it does not make sense to them
