Religious Language

Question 1

What is meant by “religious language”?

Answer 1

The meaning or use of words in a religious context. Ninian Smart said “talk of God”

Question 2

What is meant by religious language being an analogy?

Answer 2

Thomas Aquinas. When we talk of God we are using analogies because we cannot really talk of God, but we can talk of God in relation to what we know.

Question 3

What is analogy via negative?

Answer 3

• also called negation
• We understand what God is by saying what God is not. - However, this assumes the opposite must be true. By saying what God is not we know nothing more about the nature of God.
• God doesn’t hate us, but does that mean he loves us?
• If we cannot actively know something, how can we know it passively? It still requires knowledge.

Question 4

Equivocal language

Answer 4

one word being used in similar contexts, but do not have the same meaning. e.g. “I love God” and “ I love my sister”

Question 5

Univocal language

Answer 5

One word that has the same meaning in many contexts e.g. Black

Question 6

Criticisms of analogy via negative.

Answer 6

Aquinas disliked the analogy via negative because it assumes opposites. There are many possible opposites of hate.
If we cannot actively know something, then how can be expected to know it passively?

Question 7

What is analogy of attribution?

Answer 7

• We can understand parts of the nature of God by a product of God.
• Peter Vardy says that in medieval times they would tell whether there was something wrong with a bull by drinking its urine.
• If the bread is good the baker is good.

Question 8

Criticisms of analogy of attribution.

Answer 8

There are things in this world which we deem to be evil, such as Hitler. Since by default, God is the maker, and therefore this evil, surely that then tells us that God is not good.

Question 9

What is analogy of proportion?

Answer 9

A word is being used to say something is like it should be. e.g. Aquinas’ function. There is a difference between a good seagull and a good flea, but it is being used in the same way.

Question 10

What is analogy of metaphor?

Answer 10

Religious language such as “Peter the Rock” is a metaphor, Peter was not a rock, but it had significance to its meaning. He was a strong base for Jesus to build his Church, meaning the first leader of the Church.

Question 11

Criticisms of analogy of metaphor.

Answer 11

But does that mean that “God loves me” is a metaphor?

Question 12

What is meant by religious language being symbolic?

Answer 12

Paul Tillic thinks that saying God is good says something symbolic about God, it has a greater meaning than if I said my dog was good.

Question 13

Signs (according to Paul Tillic)

Answer 13

Signs have no greater meaning, they are simple.

Question 14

Symbols (according to Paul Tillic)

Answer 14

Symbols mean something in themselves, something which people are willing to die for.

Question 15

What does it mean for religious language to be non-cognitive?

Answer 15

• a cognitive statement is meant to be true, even if the statement turns out to be false, they are meant to correspond with facts of the world.
• non-cognitive statements are not meant to be true.
• religious language being non-cognitive would mean you say that God loves you, not really meaning you think He loves you. Historically religious language was treated as a cognitive statement, so as a fact of the universe. A fact of the universe should be able to be proved and be empirical, but we cannot prove such a statement.

Question 16

Scholars on non-cognitive religious language.

Answer 16

J H Randall - religious language is non-cognitive and meant to rouse emotion, it is meant to stir people into action and give a sense of the numinous. (radical)
John Hick - religious language is cognitive, it is about religious statements.
R B Braithwaite - religious language is ethical. it is a way to live your life. If God is good, you should live in a loving way.
Mary Warnock - Vast majority of literature is not true, but it holds truths.

Question 17

What is logical positivism?

Answer 17

A movement in western philosophy that believed that only statements that could be verified though observation and logical proof were meaningful.

Question 18

The Vienna Circle

Answer 18

Group of logical positivists in 1920s and 30s heavily influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning.

Question 19

What is the picture theory of meaning?

Answer 19

From Wittgenstein’s book “Tractatus Logico-philosophicus”. We understand statements through the key images of the key words, there are words that don’t have images. What is meaningful is something you can demonstrate. This applies to science but also to philosophy.

Question 20

What is the God hypothesis?

Answer 20

A J Ayer
He rejected the ontological argument because God cannot be proved on a negative.
God is the most likely probability. By saying “God exists” a proposition is made. The proposition is a cognitive statement, and can be tested. We can test regularities in nature, such as boiling water at 100 degrees. In the same way we can demonstrate God’s existence through testing the regularities in nature.
However, testing the regularities in nature only proves that there are regularities in nature, and does not prove the existence of the God that believers believe in. God is a metaphysical term and beyond our physical realm and cannot be tested, God cannot be a hypothesis.
Saying “God exists” is a metaphysical utterance and cannot be true or false, so has no significance

Question 21

What is the verification principle?

Answer 21

A J Ayer
strong verification principle
- Only meaningful if you can test it. It must be empirical
- Its meaningful if it is logical (tautology)
weak verification principle
- a criteria is needed for something to be verified
- evidence may be needed as part of the criteria

Question 22

Criticisms of the verification principle.

Answer 22

strong verification principle
- this way, emotions, love and ethics are not meaningful.
- you cannot verify the strong verification principle.
- there are very few things you can actually verify, historical events cannot be verified.
weak verification principle
- just because there is evidence does not mean it is true.
- science does not follow this, they put forward a hypothesis, experiment on it, then adjust the hypothesis.

Question 23

What is the falsification principle?

Answer 23

Karl Popper, Anthony Flew
The scientific method. The idea that something is meaningful if it is a tautology (true in every possible way) or you can put forward a criteria by which it could be proved to be wrong and therefore improved. Science is more concerned with being able to falsify something rather than verifying. People who use religious language do not accept any evidence against their ideas.

Question 24

What is “language games”?

Answer 24

Ludwig Wittgenstein

• If you understand what is going on around you, you are playing the game, and it is different with everyone you talk to. You only notice the game when you lose it. You are brought up in the game, and to fully understand the language, you must be brought up in it.
• Reflecting on the use of the language and the meaning of the language, you are losing the game, if you have to question a language, you are losing the game, since you do not understand it.
• Non-religious people cannot understand the real meaning of religious language because they were not brought up playing the game.

Question 25

Wittgenstein vs Logical Positivists

Answer 25

Wittgenstein thought reality was determined by language.

Logical positivists think reality is determined by what you can prove.

Question 26

Arguments in favour of Language Games.

Answer 26

• Religious people show their beliefs in many ways (prayer, teachings, actions), these are all part of the game, they are not separate. To understand, you must see what they say and what they do when they say it.
• There are religious people who play the game, the game exists.
• An outsider studying religion (i.e. philosopher) will see people using normal language words being used in religious language. The mistake they make is thinking they have the same meaning. We often project our words into new context.

Question 27

What is Colin Lyas’ example of logical positivists misunderstanding religious language?

Answer 27

The word “exists” has different significance in the following sentences:
A rabbit exists
Infinite prime numbers exist
God exists
To logical positivists, the meaning of exists is the same for both the rabbit and God, so they believe God should be able to be proven empirically like the rabbit

Question 28

Objections to language games

Answer 28

Colin Lyas - the main critics are former insiders, they were brought up in the game so therefore understand the game.

• they deliberately misrepresent what they learned
• they were never insiders, they were brought up in it but didn’t get it
• they either learned it wrong or misunderstood it.

If religion is a language game, it cuts it off from the rest of life.
John Hick - religious statements must correlate with the real world, they cannot be separate
D Z Phillips - if religion is isolated, how can it permeate other areas of life?
Nielson - religion cannot be compartmentalised.

Question 29

I/it and I/you relationships

Answer 29

Martin Buber proposed that when we first meet someone, we have an I/it relationship, but when we get to know them, it becomes an I/you relationship.
We never go from I/you to I/it. Religious language is used between us and God in an I/you relationship.

Question 30

D Z Phillips on Wittgenstein

Answer 30

He said that Wittgenstein was trying to justify good as both relative and absolute. This can be applied to God. If the attributes of God were relative rather than absolute, our view of God would be completely different. The statements you make about God would have a relative meaning based on your relationship with God. Wittgenstein says there are no fundamental truths, because it is all based on the language you are using.
Phillips says Wittgenstein is pointing out what it means to contradict. By believing in x, you automatically don’t believe in not x. Empirical evidence is not the only way.

Question 31

Criticisms of univocal and equivocal language

Answer 31

Aquinas did not want God’s love to be the same as other forms of love, but he also didn’t want them to be disassociated.