AQA A-Level Religious Studies - Religious Language

Tautology

True by definition e.g. a famous celebrity

What did Ludwig Wittgenstein study, and what group was he a part of?

Studies language

the 'meaning of meaning', was a member of the Vienna Circle

What was the Vienna Circle?

A group of logical positivist philosophers formed in the 1920s-30s led by Moritz Schlick

Logical Positivism

Belief that a concept is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified

Analytic Statements

True by definition

tautologies

a priori

Synthetic Statements

Can be verified or falsified through empirical means

a posteriori

What did A.J. Ayer believe about religious language?

Claims such as 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are both meaningless as there is no empirical evidence which can be used to support them, God is a metaphorical being which means that he is not discoverable by sensory experience.

Verification Principle

A statement is only meaningful when it can be verified or falsified (does not have to be true to be meaningful)

Cognitive Language

Makes factual assertions which can be proved true or false, or at least treated as such.

How do religious believers use cognitive language?

They make claims such as 'God exists' and 'God loves us' with the assumption that other people understand them to be true, they assume that these claims can be made and understood in the same way as other factual claims

What are some problems with cognitive language?

• God cannot be measured the same way as other empirical statements
• All experience of God is subjective
• Therefore, religious language is meaningless as cognitive statements cannot be proved true or false, but they are treated as if they can

Non-Cognitive Language

Makes claims or observations which are to be interpreted in some other way e.g. metaphors, symbolic language, ethica commands. Uses images and comparisons to help people understand concepts.

What are some problems with Non-Cognitive Language?

• It is not always clear, some people may interpret it literally when it is actually symbolic
• Subjective e.g. symbol of a cross for believers and non-believers
• Can Non-Cognitive language still point to a Cognitive truth?

Is there a limit to what we can verify?

Yes, we cannot verify historical events as we cannot observe it or subject it to further testing, a lot of what we take for knowledge defies strict verification

What is the weak verification principle?

If we understand the steps we could take to prove it, or by setting up standards for evidence we can verify something 'in principle' or 'in the weak sense'

Strong verification

verification in practice

Means you can actually go and verify that statement

Weak verification

verification in principle

Means you not actually be able to verify a statement yourself, but in principle, you know how it could be verified

Directly verifiable statements

Ones that are verifiable by observation

Indirectly verifiable statements

Ones which are not directly verifiable, there is indirect proof of them but no direct proof

Strengths of the verification principle

• Fits with modern society which relies on science
• Solves the problem of people misunderstand religious language and saying it is meaningless
• Strong and weak verification allows for a range of statements to be meaningful
• Allows for development and for scientific theories to have meaning

Weaknesses of the verification principle

• Cannot prove itself
• Ignores fideism, an essential part of religious language
• Some argue religious language is non-cognitive
• We can understand the concept of something even if it is false
• Historical statements cannot be empirically verified

What principle was proposed by Karl Popper?

The falsification principle

What is Popper's version of the Falsification Principle?

That a proposition is scientific is we can state what evidence would prove it false

Why does Popper believe in the Falsification Principle?

He believes that if we believe science is about proving our views, then we will learn nothing at all, in experiments we should seek to falsify and not verify theories.

How does the Falsification Principle demonstrate that religious language is meaningless?

Because there is no evidence which can falsify them, believers accept no evidence against them

How does Flew apply the Falsification Principle to religious language?

Religious believers do not give any conditions which will count against their claim, they will simply argue another qualification to alter their statements, and thus religious statements die a "death by a thousand qualifications"

What does it mean to die a "death by a thousand qualifications"

When a believer modifies their statements about God is response to a challenge, they end up with a vague and unfalsifiable claim which no longer resembles the original claim at all

What is Flew's Garden Parable?

Two explorers find a clearing, one explorer continues to argue that their is an invisible and intangible gardener who is at work in the garden, whilst the other does not. The believer alters his belief about the gardener in response to ever criticism, resulting in the belief dying a "death by a thousand qualifications"

Strengths of the Falsification Principle

• Makes logical sense
• Flew proves religious claims are empty as all evidence against is ignored
• Main criteria of a meaningful statement is to know what evidence falsifies it, believer don't know this and therefor their statements are meaningless

Weaknesses of the Falsification Principle

• Religion is more than denial and acceptance of facts
• A whole realm of human experience cannot be confined to factual propositions
• 'God' is a reasonable explanation for claims (Flew later accepted God as an explanation for evolution)
• Assumes believers don't accept any evidence against their claims, but the problem of evil has led many to question their beliefs

What are some of Hick's ideas about Eschatological Verification?

There are some propositions that cannot be verified by everyone, and that some statements have to be verified through an action

What is Hick's parable of the Celestial City?

There is no evidence if the city to two men who make the journey, the fact one of them believes in the city influences the way that he encounters and deals with various events, this changes everything and is meaningful whether the city is true or false. At the end of the journey the two men will discover who was right and who was wrong

What is Eschatological Verification?

Claims of Christianity can only be verified or falsified at death, e.g. to say 'God exists' or that there is life after death

Strengths of Eschatological Verification

• Celestial city is possible, 'life after death' is either true or false
• Shows Christian claims are cognitive because if we do end up in a resurrected body after death we will know many claims about life after death and about resurrection are true
• 'experiencing as' shows interpretation is an essential element of experience, as shown in the Celestial City, the two interpret the same evidence in different ways

Weaknesses of Eschatological Verification

• The Celestial City parable is wrote from the perspective of a believer, to an athiest the possibility would never occur to them
  COUNTER: There is evidence in favour of life after death e.g. near death experiences and past life recall
• Hick's argument that religious claims are verifiable is not a normal factual claim
  COUNTER: there are other statements that will be verified if true but never falsified e.g. 'there is life after death' cannot be falsified because if it is false then there is nothing

What is a blik?

A frame of reference, through which everything is interpreted

What is Hare's Parable of the Lunatic?

A university student is convinced his professors are trying to murder him, this affects his approach to any food they give him even when someone tries to convince him they're not. This is the 'blik' with which he interprets all his professors actions

How are religious statements meaningful when we consider bliks?

They are not necessarily true statement, but they have meaning for religious people and effect the way they see the world

What does Hume say about bliks?

He believes all observation/evidence is up to interpretation, so we may have a unique blik acquired from family or friends

Strengths of bliks

• Non-rational and cannot be falsified as they are groundless
• Can be supported by a view of religious language as non-cognitive
• Hare argues that even though they can't be falsified they still have meaning to those who believe them
• Meaningfulness extends beyond proof and reflects how humanity uses language

Weaknesses of bliks

• Hick criticised them and argues they are based on reason and evidence
• Hick claims in his parable that there are 'sane' and 'insane' bliks, but if they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable then we cannot prove or disprove them, and cannot call them 'sane' or 'insane', 'right' or 'wrong'
• Functionalists would argue we need to look to the function that religious language serves

What does Richard Braithwaite say in criticism of bliks?

He argues religious assertions serve primarily an artificial function, thus religious statements express and recommend a commitment to a general policy or way of life, they are not a frame of reference

blik

What did Wittgenstein argue about speaking of things we don't understand?

"Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must remain silent"

What did Wittgenstein compare language to?

He said language was like a toolbox, different words perform different functions like different tools do
"The function of the words are as diverse as the functions of these objects (tools)"

What does Wittgenstein argue with Language Games?

That the use of language is governed by rules, just as games are governed by rules. To use a word you must first understand how it works

How does Wittgenstein compare language games to chess?

If you don't know the rules of chess, you might know that a 'King' exists, but without knowing the rules this is meaningless. In the same way, to use language without understanding the function of words is meaningless

How does Wittgenstein compare language games to a train?

If we do not know the function of the levers of train, then we cannot drive. In the same way, if we do not understand the function of religious words then we cannot use them. Religious language is meaningful for believers as they understand the rules for how it is used

Strengths of Language Games

• Recognises the range of interpretation (non-cognitive)
• Sets boundaries for use of language
• Distinguishes language from other types
• People can be 'initiated' into the game i.e. converting to another religion and learning about their beliefs

Weaknesses of Language Games

• The problem of interfaith discussions: how can believers come to agreements together if each faith plays their own game?
• The common ground argument: religious language isn't isolated because it ties to other aspects of life, so non-believers should be able to understand it too
• Non-believers can be objective and understand how a word works without accepting the meaning

Analogy

An attempt to explain the meaning of something difficult to understand by comparing it to something we know

Univocal Language

Uses words in the same way exactly e.g. bath mat, door mat

Equivocal Language

Language with more than one interpretations

words meaning different things in different contexts

Analogical Language

The same word used in a similar or related way e.g. a smooth floor and a smooth wine

Why does Aquinas reject univocal language?

If we speak univocally, we are claiming God is good in the same way humans are good, Aquinas rejects this as God is perfect. Therefore, humans can never be good in the same way that God is.

Why does Aquinas reject equivocal language?

If we are speaking equivocally, we are saying God is good a completely different way to humans. Aquinas rejected its use as it would mean that we could not claim to know anything about God.

What does Sigmund Freud say about anaologies?

"Analogies, it is true, decide nothing, but they can make one feel more at home."

What is Aquinas' Analogy of Attribution?

The view that God is the cause of all good things in humans. Aquinas said that God being loving in his essence does not only mean that God displays love, but that he is the cause of all love. Everything else is loving because it partakes in the essence of God.

What is Aquinas' Analogy of Proportion?

The view that all good qualities belong to God and are in proportion to humans. E.g. a fast cat is fast in proportion to other cats. Aquinas says when we describe God as 'loving' we must recognise that he is these on an infinitely vaster scale

Strengths of Analogical Language

• Avoids the problem of using univocal and equivocal language to describe God
• It can help to speak meaningfully about God by comparing him to contingent things
• It helps to preserve the mysterious nature of God

Weaknesses of Analogical Language

• Leaves us with a limited understanding of God
• May not be possible to make a comparison between a necessary and contingent beings
• Would be easier to accept that God's transcendence means not even analogy can describe him
• Theists make religious claims literally not analogically

What does Ian Ramsey mean when he talks about models and qualifiers?

• We use models when speaking of God, such as 'loving' which are things we can reference to our experience
• To ensure that God is not limited we need qualifiers which are adverbs such as 'everlasting'
• We anchor the description in our experience then use qualifiers to show how God is more

Apophatic Theology

From the Greek 'to deny', the denial of a positive attribute of God, the approach taken by Via Negativa

Kataphatic Theology

From the Green 'affirmation', uses positive terms to describe God

Via Negativa

Describes God in the negative way by saying what he is not

Why does Via Negativa reject giving God positive characteristics?

Because they believe these are misleading, terms such as 'King' and 'love' relate to human attributes and are misleading

What did Pseudo-Dionysius say about Via Negativa?

He said it is the only way to speak of God as God is transcendent and beyond comprehension, to speak of God is counter-productive as God cannot be perceived through reason or senses. People who seek God should be willing to accept that God remains a mystery

What did Moses Maimonides say about Via Negativa?

The best way to explain God is to explain what God is not, this way people can move closer to God without limiting him

How does Buddhism use principles of Via Negativa?

Describes the nature of Nirvana and of Buddha through what they are not. They convey the essence of ultimate reality, the negation of things we know from the physical world

How does Brian Davies criticise Via Negativa?

He said to say what something is not doesn't lead to what the thing actually is, it only gives us an indication of what something is not, not what something is

What does Tillich argue about religious language?

He argues ordinary human language is inadequate when talking about God, he says religious language is symbolic rather than literal and cannot be subjected to tests to assess its meaningfulness

What does Tillich say about symbols?

"Symbols open up levels of reality which were otherwise closed to us"