RE Philosophy of Religious - Religious Language 1 (Part 1_

How do religious Believers use language?

• To show personal commitment to a religion e.g. conversion experiences.

• To promote certain types of behaviour e.g. moral/religious rules.

• To worship God e.g. liturgy, hymns, prayers etc.

• To use specific technical words e.g. holy, transcendent, Eucharist, resurrection, reincarnation.

• To make assertions about how thing are e.g. There is life after death through reincarnation.

What is Religious Language difficult to understand?

• Religious assertions refer to something that is beyond human experience.

• They describe the infinite & mysterious.

• Difficult to understand.

• Difficult to explain.

• e.g. religious experience.

What way are there of using Language (1)

1. Univocal Language:

• e.g. ‘Paris & Rome are cities’.

• Straightforward & clear.

• Unambiguous concepts - no doubting the statement.

• Same word is used with exactly the same meaning.

2. Equivocal Language:

• e.g. ‘John is on the right’.

• Unclear & ambiguous.

• Word/phrase can have more than 1 meaning.

• Can be confusing!

• ‘Right’ could refer to political view/where he is standing.

What is Cognitivism?

• It states that concepts like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist and moral concepts are real things. It is objective; based on facts.

What is Non-cognitivism?

• It states that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’,'wrong’ have no actual existence and that morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions.

How is religious language used by Philosophers?

1. Cognitive statements: Objective

A sentence about which it is appropriate to ask whether it is true or false.

• T/F in way that literal statements are T/F.

• e.g. traditional arguments for the existence of God.

2. Non-Cognitive statements: Subjective

A sentence about which is it not appropriate to ask if it is true or false. Orders, prayers, stories, poems are non-cognitive utterances.

• No open to T/F at all

• No new fact to discover - just seeing what is there in a new way.

• e.g. religious statements - religious experience.

• Toronto Blessing.

How does types of language apply to Religious Language?

• Cognitive (realist) language = assertions that makes factual claims about an objective reality. Facts are known to be true or false through cognitive knowledge.

• Non-Cognitive (anti-realist) language - language which serves another function and which is made meaningful by it’s context. It cannot be proved to be true or false through knowledge - ethical, moral or emotive language.

What is the problem with Cognitive & Non-cognitive language?

• Most thinkers - for example Richard Dawkins, would say the bulk of religious sentences are cognitive but false.

• For Dawkins, the believer speaks sentences which are untrue = religion is a disease.

• On the other hand, most believers would argue to say God exists is to utter a true statement = cognitive.

• Believers generally think that when they talk of God’s action in the world it is about a state of affairs they think is true but which atheists believe is be false.

Why is the use of religious language a different understanding of truth? (1)

1. Cognitive approach assumes a Correspondence theory of truth.

• ‘Realist’ philosophical approach.

• Statement is T/F if is corresponds to the state of affairs it’s about.

• Religious truth is discovered.

2. Non-Cognitive approach assumes a Coherence theory of truth.

• ‘Non-realist’ philosophical approach.

• Statement is T if coheres (fits in) with other T statements.

• Truth is relative to the community who make the statements.

• Religious truth is made.

Why is the use of religious language a different understanding of truth? (2)

Cognitive (realist) language = assertions that makes factual claims about an objective reality. Facts are known to true or false through cognitive knowledge.

Correspondence theory of truth: what makes a statement true or false is whether it corresponds to the state of affairs it is trying to depict.

Non-Cognitive (anti-realist) language = language which serves another functions and which is made meaningful by it’s context. It cannot be proved to be true or false through knowledge - ethical, moral or emotive language.

Coherenece teory of truth: what makes statements true is if it fits with other true statements (they make religious truths rather than discover them),

How does Religious Language apply to interpretation of scripture?

• Not all religious statements are cognitive even for a believer.

• E.g. ‘Hail Mary full of grace’ - greeting.

• Interpretation of scripture.

• Literalist view = verb inerrancy (inerrant = perfect/no errors).

• What about the intention of the early writers = to what extent were they intending to write material that was to be intented as fact (which could be T/F) or were they trying to show truth as a writer like Shakespeare would do?

What is the significance about Cognitive or non-Cognitive on religious language?

• This really matters.

• In recent years, there have been argument that suggest that all religious sentences are non-cognitive.

• It is evident that some are, but there are many twists and turns when we attempt to investigate the discourse of faith.

• Language used within the religous aspect of life. It’s significance & meaning are internal to a given religion.