Religious language

Cognitivists

Believe that religious statements are statements that are subject to being true or false

Non-cognitivists

Believe that religious statements are statements that are not subject to being true or false

Correspondence theory of truth

• A statement that is true if it corresponds to the real world; whether it accurately describes it

• Compatible with cognitivism

Coherence theory of truth

• A statement that is true if it is consistent with our wider beliefs

• Compatible with non-cognitivism

Realists

• Knowledge refers to something mind independent

• Tend to be cognitivists and work within a correspondence theory of truth

Anti-realists

• Knowledge is mind dependent

• Tend to be non-cognitivists and work within a coherence theory of truth

Analytic

• Propositions which define the meanings of words, known a priori

• True by definition

Synthetic

• Synthetic propositions are propositions which are not analytic, known a posteriori

• Verifiable through experience

Vienna circle: strong verification principle

In order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be synthetically or analytically verifiable

AJ Ayer: weak verification principle (Language, Truth, and Logic)

In order for a statement to be meaningful, it must in principle be synthetically or analytically verifiable as highly probable

Verifiable in practice

Statements which can be verified now through direct observation

Verifiable in principle

Statements which could hypothetically be verified → we lack the means but know how

Strengths of verification principle

• It is a clear criteria for establishing when conversations will be productive and when they will be meaningless

• It is in line with the scientific method which has led to a great deal of human progress

• It holds religious belief to a high standard of reason and evidence so that believers cannot make unjustified claims about God

Weaknesses of verification principle

• Ayer does not consider the possibility of Eschatological Verification

• The Verification Principle is now widely considered less effective than the Falsification Principle

• The Verification Principle assumes that there is only one way of defining meaning and ignores the fact that religious believers may be part of a different language game

Eschatology

The part of theology concerned with death, judgement and the final destiny of the soul and of mankind

Hick: eschatological verification

• The application of weak verification to suggest that statements about eschatology (death, judgement and the afterlife) are meaningful

• Although religious statements are not directly verifiable now, we will be able to verify them after death or on the day of judgement

• They could be verified synthetically when we experience the afterlife

Hick - The parable of the celestial city

• Two explorers are travelling along a road. One explorer thinks there is a city at the end of the road while another thinks the road leads nowhere.

• The evidence could be taken either way but eventually, one will be proved right, so their discussion is meaningful.

• In the same way, religious statements are meaningful because they will eventually be verified.

Strengths of eschatological verification

• It shows that Ayer’s Verification Principle is inconsistent in allowing statements about the moon but not statements about religion

• It offers a way of having meaningful religious discussion

Weaknesses of eschatological verification

• It only applies to Ayer’s Weak Verification – religious statements are still not shown to be strongly verifiable

• It is practically useless as there is still no way of verifying religious statements while we are alive

Popper: falsification principle

• The Falsification Principle was created by Karl Popper as a way of determining which statements were genuinely scientific

• Popper suggests that scientific theories are unique in that they are able to be tested possibly falsified

• The Falsification Principle says that a statement is only meaningful if we know what evidence it would take to disprove it.

• In order for a statement to be genuinely scientific, it must in principle be possible for it to be proven false

Anthony Flew’s - parable of the Gardener

• Two explorers discover a garden. One of the explorers thinks there is a gardener but the other denies the existence of the gardener and prepares a number of tests to find out whether there is a gardener such as cameras, heat sensors, motion sensors, etc.

• None of the tests reveal the gardener but the first explorer refuses to be proved wrong (falsified) by the results of the test and instead insists that the gardener is invisible, intangible, etc.

• Flew points out that the explorer may as well believe in ‘no gardener at all’ as the gardener has died ‘the death of a thousand qualifications’ and no longer has any meaning.

• In the same way, religious believers refuse to be falsified by scientific arguments and instead choose to keep redefining God until he no longer has any meaning.

Analogies in the parable of the gardener

• The garden = the world

• The believer = the theist

• The sceptic = the agnostic

• The gardener = god

• The experiments = empirical/ scientific testing

Strengths of falsification principle

• It improves upon the Verification Principle by recognising what makes scientific theories successful

• It highlights the importance of being willing to be proved wrong which is productive for religious discussions

Weaknesses of falsification principle

• Applying the Falsification Principle to religious statements assumes that religious statements should meet the requirements of scientific theories, which may be unfair.

• The Falsification Principle ignores the other ways in which statements can be meaningful and can be responded to by the theory of bliks

RM Hare: bliks

• A belief about the world that is unfalsifiable and not based on reason, but which has meaning to believers

• R.M. Hare responds to the Falsification Principle by pointing out that it is normal to hold unfalsifiable beliefs. Some of these are sane and others are insane, but a belief is still meaningful even if it cannot be falsified. This is because it affects the way we live our lives and therefore has deeper meaning for our lives.

• A blik is an interpretation of the world, a way of seeing the world that has no evidence to support it but also does not contradict the evidence we have. Religious beliefs, tendencies towards optimism/pessimism, deep convictions etc. count as bliks and we all have them.

Hare - Parable of the lunatic

A student believes the dons (professors) are conspiring to kill him and refuses to believe any evidence that says otherwise. Despite being unfalsifiable this belief is still meaningful because it shapes the way he lives his life.

Strengths of bliks

• The theory of bliks show that it is not only religious believers who hold unfalsifiable beliefs

• Bliks take account of how statements can be shown to be meaningful in a variety of ways

Weaknesses of bliks

• It is not clear how to tell the difference between a sane blik and an insane blik and therefore we cannot say for sure that religious believers are not insane

• Bliks mean there is no way we can sensibly discuss and debate religion which is not productive for discussion

Wittgenstein: language game theory

• To use language is to participate in a game where one knows and accepts the rules

• The meaning of words can be found in their use. Language is a tool more than anything else.

• A language game can be compared to a game, like chess. The rules of chess only make sense to chess players and the word ‘King’ has a particular meaning it does not have in other games.

• Language Games all exist within a particular form of life (community, setting, form of activity, etc.). You have to be a member of the language game in order to play it and crucially, in order to criticise it too.

• This is therefore an anti-realist view – language does not describe the real world but instead is a tool that allows you to play whatever game you find yourself in.

Strengths of language games

• Wittgenstein shows that religious statements can have profound meaning for those who make them even if this is lost on others

• He applies philosophy to the real world rather than getting caught up in debates about the meaningfulness of language that have no relevance to everyday life

• He allows that objective views (e.g. the Vienna Circle) can exist side by side with subjective views (e.g. religion) without contradicting each other

Weaknesses of language games

• Wittgenstein is saying that all religious statements are non-cognitive. This is something that many religious believers would disagree with as they believe they are making cognitive claims.

• Language Games makes it impossible for dialogue to take place between people from one game and people from another.

• Wittgenstein might be missing the point that we better to judge a game from outside because it gives us a less biased perspective.

Tillich: religious language as symbolic

• Paul Tillich argues that religious language is symbolic. A symbol is different from a sign. Signs indicate information whilst symbols represent or stand for something greater.

• The only cognitive statement that can be made about God is that he is “the Ground of Being”. This means that God is our ultimate concern and at the root of our existence. Any other statement made about God is symbolic and therefore non-cognitive. Even the life of Jesus and the Gospels written about him are symbolic as they reveal the Ground of Being.

Six characteristics of symbols

• Are self-transcending (point beyond themselves)

• ‘Participate’ in the reality to which they point

• Open up levels of reality which would otherwise be closed to us

• Open up levels of the soul corresponding to this reality

• Cannot be produced intentionally but grow over time out of the human unconscious

• Are produced and die within a cultural context

Examples of symbols linked to religious language

• Amen - symbols point to a reality beyond itself

• I baptise you in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit - open up levels of the soul which correspond to those realities + open up levels of reality

• Inshallah (god willing) - symbols are produced and die within a cultural context

• Sat Naam (he is the creator) - opens up levels of reality which would otherwise be closed to us and open up levels of the soul

• Om mani padme hum - participate in the power to which they point to

Strengths of Tillich

• Tillich highlights that many things cannot be put into literal words and are better communicated through symbols

• Tillich reflects the way that religions actually practice – e.g. lighting the tabernacle to represent the presence of God rather than trying to describe it

Weaknesses of Tillich

• Tillich does not provide anything that can be verified/falsified, excluding religion from meaningful debate

• Tillich has less appeal for believers who want to speak literally about what is described in scripture

• Definition of god not accepted by all believers

Aquinas: religious language as analogical

• Thomas Aquinas rejects many of the extreme views around religious language. He considers that univocal language describes God as too close to human beings whereas equivocal language means we cannot know anything about him. He also rejects the Via Negativa as telling us nothing about God.

• Analogy is the act of describing one thing by comparing it to something we already know. Aquinas explains that God should be thought about in this way.

Natural theology

The practice of inferring the existence and wisdom of god through the use of natural sciences

Univocal

Words have one meaning; words used to describe god reflect the way these words would be used in their everyday sense → this risks misrepresenting god

Equivocal

Words are used with completely different meanings; words used to describe god mean different things than their ordinary sense → doesn’t give any meaning

Analogical

A middle way between univocal and equivocal language. Terms are applied in a similar way but not identical way when used to describe god

Analogy of proportionality

God possesses these good things in a greater proportion than is found in humans. The good qualities we have finitely, God has infinitely. We have intelligence whilst God has limitless knowledge; we have love while God has omnibenevolence.

Analogy of attribution

God is the cause of all good things in humans. Any good things we see in the natural world can be attributed to their creator. This is also seen in the Design Argument. Aquinas gives the analogy of a bull: if we see healthy urine we assume the bull is also healthy. Likewise, if we see a good world we can assume the creator is also good.

Strengths of analogy

• Since scripture teaches that we are made in God’s image, it makes sense to consider that God would be revealed through human qualities

• Also recognises that religious statements should not be taken at face value but instead are metaphorical

• Analogy is accessible to a range of believers including children – so it is a less complicated way of communicating the idea of God

Weaknesses of analogy

• Although Aquinas claims to be escaping the problem of anthropomorphising God, there is a risk that many people will use analogy to do this, e.g. taking a phrase such as ‘the Lord is my shepherd’ and imagining God as a shepherd

• God is so far outside of human understandings that the analogies may not be useful. For example, there is a huge difference between human kindness and infinite kindness

• By drawing an analogy with things which are flawed (e.g. human beings) there is a worry we might come to view God as also sharing in the negative qualities

Maimonides: via negativa

• The Via Negativa means ‘the Negative Way’. This is a way of describing God by saying what is not rather than what he is. E.g. God is not mortal, God is not bad, God is not finite, etc.

• The Via Negativa was followed by the Christian mystic Pseudo-Dionysius who argued that God is beyond human understanding and can only be described in the negative.

• Gave the example of a ship, where we can get to the idea of a ship just by being told what it is not. In the same way, using negative language brings us closer to God

Strengths of via negativa

• Positive language about God can be misleading and tends to anthropomorphise (make him seem too human) – negative language offers an escape from this

• The Via Negativa emphasises the mystery of God rather than trying to intellectualise him

• Safe and avoids of misuse and idolating

• Clear application to religious practice

Weaknesses of via negativa

• Saying ‘God is not a wombat’ does not bring us closer to God – many negative expressions are meaningless in this way

• It may lead us to a falsely neutral view of God e.g. saying ‘God is not bad’ does not mean he is good, he may be morally neutral

• May not satisfy people’s spiritual needs of intellectual curiosity → too indirect

• Not how religious language is actually used - requires too much effort

• Limited in relevance to those outside mysticism

Cognitive scholars

• AJ Ayer + Vienna circle (depends on question)

• Hick

• Popper + Flew

• Aquinas

Non-cognitive scholars

• Hare

• Wittgenstein

• Tillich

• Maimonides