Religious Language Flashcards
What is cognitive language?
When you ask if a statement is true or false e.g. dog is asleep in its basket. Factual. Proved true or false by empirical evidence. A triangle has 3 sides.
What is non cognitive language?
When you cannot ask if something is true or false e.g. a legal/ military command or a prayer. Expressions of value/opinion/feeling/emotion. Can’t prove true or false.
What did philosophers realise in the 20th century?
Language is the way we communicate concepts and make ourselves understood. In the philosophy of religion we are trying to describe concepts that no one physically sees and hears e.g. God.
What is univocal language?
The word has exactly the same meaning at all times e.g. Bachelor.
What is equivocal language?
The same word is used with 2 or more completely different meanings e.g. mean of these numbers, I am a mean person and what do you mean?
Who came up with the concept of language games?
Ludwig Wittengenstein who believed religious language was meaningful. He came from a rich family and both his parents were jewish, the youngest of 8.
What did Wittgenstein believe about language being a game?
To use language is to participate, in a game where we know and accept the rules. This is not to say that language is trivial, the analogy of a game best highlights the nature of language. To play the game you need to understand the rules, seems pointless if you don’t understand the rules of the game. When we are using language we are in the game, to use a word you have to first understand how it works.
What is a classic example?
A game of chess, you might be told that a piece was called a ‘thing’ without understanding the rules of chess, you could never use the piece. To argue how language used is meaningless, if you want to play the game, you must accept the rules. You cannot play chess if your opponent is trying to play checkers.
What did he say about the 2 sides of the game?
Suggested that language and therefore the rules of that language can be seen from both sides, those inside the game and therefore know the rules. His example: if you found yourself standing in the driver’s cabin of a steam train, in the front there would be controls you have no understanding of and the driver would perfectly. The only way to engage controls is to learn through attempting to drive a train.
What did DZ Phillips think?
Religious language is meaningful to those who genuinely use it e.g. God is love meaningful in context.
Why is studying religious language important?
The problem is that univocal language can leading to humanising God too much, making some view RL as meaningless, as God is perfect. Equivocal language gives different meanings so can be lead to confusion about what God is like and a misconception of him. Language used can be seen as meaningless and it is important to study it to examine if we can find ways of getting round these issues to make RL meaningful.
What are the strengths of language games?
It creates barriers for correct use of language,. so we can have a meaningful conversation. It distinguishes from other types of language. Parallels with learning a language, real life and relatable. Highlights non cognitive nature of RL, truth understood as relative and statements judged against their context, not whether or not they’re inherently true.
What are the weaknesses of language games?
Rules of the game can’t be changed to allow outsiders in e.g. chess, so alienating and isolating, unproductive. Doesn’t allow for believers claims to be empirically tested, so can’t verify a conclusion. There is no correct definition of everything, so rules may not exist - equivocal language. Impossible to be outside the game, as always make an effort to describe things and get to the point eventually.
What is principle does the Via Negativa/ Apothatic way work on?
We can only describe God using negative language by saying what he is not e.g. God is not loving.
Why can God not be described using positive language?
God is greater than human comprehension, statements about God can’t be made accurately, as otherwise we are anthropomorphising God, we can make God like a human, but humans aren’t as good as God. It leads to inaccuracy, offense and maybe blasphemous.
What type of language is language given to God?
It is equivocal - ‘God is good’ and ‘John is good’ are very different things. We don’t know what God is. We say what God is not instead by making negative statements, we might find knowledge although limited of what God is.
Who came up with the Apothatic way? RL as meaningful.
Dionysius- 6th century, using the negative way was the only way to speak truthfully about God, God is beyond human understanding. Maimonides - God’s attributes can be understood through what they are not.
What are a strength of the Apothatic way?
Human language is drawn from the ordinary everyday world and to use it to describe God anthropomorphises God, as if he is described as loving, they are using the human concept of God in order to describe this quality of God, which lacks accuracy. If we use nagtive language we aren’t attempting to try and understand God in human terms, just furthering out understanding.
What is another strength of the Apothatic way?
We can derive knowledge from stating the opposites of what God is e.g. God is not powerful. Positive language presumes we can describe God in our terminology, blasphemous and foolish to describe omniscient God in our human language.
What is a weakness of the Apothatic way?
The Apothatic way couldn’t exist without the Cataphatic way, saying God is not something is dependent on positive language, to say God isn’t visible needs the use of the positive term visible. Negative language is still inaccurate and surely just using anthropomorphic language in a different way not avoiding inaccuracies.
What is another weakness of the Apothatic way?
Doesn’t lead us to an understanding of God at all, rejects any knowledge of God. A Christian following the Apothatic way learns nothing of God - Anthony Flew. Negative language more confusing, God is not good, could simply display God is not bad, but not that he is the most loving and good entity imaginable, positive language possibly takes us a step closer to this deeper understanding.
What is a final weakness of the Apothatic way?
Human language can be transformed by God’s inspiration. Writers of the Bible use human language, but are guided by God’s wisdom from the holy spirit. God may desire us to use human language to describe him, might help us understand him better. Difficult for believers to agree, as contradictory to many statements in the Bible using positive language - God is wise. The Bible is influenced by God, surely wouldn’t use positive language of this painted an inaccurate picture of God.
What is the definition of a myth? RL as meaningful.
Stories designed to resolve philosophical or religious problems or dilemmas. Stories that have an element of truth and meaning, but aren’t factually true. A religious view on a myth isn’t to be taken literally, but nonetheless fundamentally true.
What are myths?
Timeless narratives not fixed in historical time frames, understood from all ages. Speak of what believers hold to be most true and meaningful, what they think is eternal and original, what they hope will happen and what they see as real, however pleasant or terrible.
What are the common themes in myths?
Existence of chaotic formless state. A God who acts in a void, which means the universe coming into a being, creation of humanity. The relationship between divinity and humanity. Meaningful as teaching us something.
What did Sarah Tyler think about myths?
Defines a myth as a literacy form describing otherworldly matters in this wordly terms; myth is a linguistic method of interprets ultimate reality - ultimate truths. Vehicles to convey complex religious truths.
What did Macquarrie think about myths?
We shouldn’t ignore the meaningfulness of myth. They answer the why questions concerned with human existence, insight into what man’s relationship with God might be.
What can we take as a message from the myth of Jonah?
That God is merciful as he rescues Jonah and kept him alive. Worshipping other Gods is wrong, we need to keep the covenant. If we repent, God will forgive us and look after us.
What did Rudolf Bultmann suggest?
We must understand parts of the Bible as mythological as the world view at the time was mythological infused with spiritual powers and realities; people can be possessed by evil spirits and supernatural powers can intervene in the world.
What was his main concept?
Instead of understanding all parts of Bible as literally true we must recognise that certain stories are myths which communicate the values of Christianity e.g the Genesis Creation stories are myths that communicate our relationship with God and the idea of God as creator.
What did he conclude about myths?
Myths communicate values and truths, but truths aren’t separate from the myth but bound by it.
What did Bultmann suggest about the new testament?
We need to demythologise it and re interpret its mythical world view, so we can see the true message. If we take the myth literally it devalues the significance. E.g. birth narrative in Luke - God’s purpose is obtained through the lowly and excluded like the birth in the stable and the visit of the shepherds. He thought in the 1st century it was part of the culture to have a myth of a redeemer who is killed and resurrected and for humans this is linked to Jesus.
What did Bultmann think about the mythical structure?
It is anachronistic - chronological inconsistency in some arrangement and makes little sense today. If we take the death and resurrection of Jesus literally we miss the resurrection stories as expressions of the transformation of the self through committing in faith. For Bultmann we need to demythologise scripture and get back to the key message of Jesus.
What are the strengths of Bultmann’s argument?
Explains different interpretations, understanding and different types of Christians as they find different meanings when they demythologise it. Goes away from the supernatural, helping find the true meaning of the story, find core of the Bible in modern times. Not tied up in every word of the Bible. Our interpretation not followed blindly.
What are the weaknesses of Bultmann’s argument?
Should have demythologised in the first place, however if we did the story wouldn’t be as interesting, easy to understand or appeal to younger audiences as a vehicle to explain complex story. Danger in too much interpretation is that the resurrection can be understood as a myth and this is the risk believers have to face when facing challenges of falsification. Verification principle: if myths are a product of emotions they are meaningless and non cognitive.
How do fundamental conservatives criticise Bultmann’s theory?
They see the religious language contained in the Bible in a more univocal way. Interpreting religious stories as myths is a problem as it undermines their status as true accounts of the event.
