'Is religious language a form of life' - discuss

religious language is a form of life, this is because the very nature of religious lanauge as expressed by tillich, means that it is constantly changing and developing over time much like a living organism. similarly the views put forward by wittgenstien also agree, since religious language holds meaning for some communities but not others. The meaningfulness and thus extent to which it is a form of life may be disputed by objective claims made by the verification and falsification principles, but ultimately religious lanauge is only really something that we can understand from a subjective level since it is part of our personal and often priviate experiences. Therefore, religious language can be a form of life to some people but not one to others, it all depends on our religious views. what is wrong however is trying to dispute other peoples notions and claims of God.

wittgenstien language games + non cognativist theories, such as symbolism, that support religious lanaguage being something which we live by - bliks may support as well as the parable of the partistian

denial of the meaningfulness of religious langauge by the verification principle, falsification principle show how religious lanugage is not a form of life and rather a mistake that we make

ARGUMENT → we cannot know for sure whether religious lanauge is a form of life, but we can use our own personal non cognative experiences with religion in order to better understand religious langauge and become tolerant of other peoples views (john wisdoms parable of the gardener) ALL DEPENDS ON PERSPECTIVE!! cannot say for definate it is a life form or meainingless but should work on how we as christians or atheist use language.

PARA 1 → WITTGENSTIEN ARGUES THAT RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE IS A FORM OF LIFE

  • beelte in the box link + langauge games

  • a strength of this theory is that → langauge games makes logical sense, it fits with how we experience religious langauge as a life form that connects some people yet leaves others ultimately out

  • weakness → elements within religious langauge that he struggles to explain, e.g not understanding the rules how do we convert, circular argument peter greach and whether actually any meaning is explored then how can religious langauge be a living thing

  • counter → only further highlights and drives the non cognativist nature of langauge and our inablitly to come to conclusions about the true nature. but wittgenstien in trying to imbed his theory with actions and how we experience religious langauge although not perfect does describe our personal understanding of lanauge, therefore we can see how religious lanauge can be a form of life, as it is something that is organic.

  • overall → wittgenstiens pratical and relfective approach on how we understand religious language helps to lead us closer to understanding the complex nature of the way in which we describe God. But ultimately we are never fully going to understand langauge completely therefore we cannot say for definite that it is a form of life.

PARA 2 → TILLICH ARGUES THAT RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE IS A FORM OF LIFE

  • may be slightly more effective than wittgenstien in developing and building on the way in which we understand langauge in a non cognativist manner

  • a strength of this theory is that it allows and focuses on the change of religious lanauge and the way in which we interpret things. e.g tillich example of a flag, this helps to fit with the way in which we experience religious langauge as developing as our individual connections with God grow stronger, perhaps then similar to religous langauge being a form of life due to evolution and deeper understanding of things. tillichs theory allows for christians to deeply assimilate themsevles within the life form of religious language without having to explain non cognativist ideas

  • weakness → if religious lanauge is open to interpretation does this however lead to it loosing meaning overtime, therefore diverting away from it being a life form that we can understand. The ideas put forward by tillich may ultimately be to subjective to really even understand. Jh randal furthers this critque- that symbols do not have a basis in relaitly, are we then undermining the whole force of christianity by suggesting it is a life form that only we can understand

  • counter → religous langauge is open to interpretations but tillich does not reject using the bible to help centre our thoughts and opinons on it - some levels of objectivity within life forms of religous language, he is more dicussiing the personal meaning that we have to language. simialrities in our human nature and a grounded in the bible will help us stay on the right track but we can develop our own personal relationship with God - this is ultimately what christianity is about our relationship with God.

  • OVERALL → religious language can be seen as a life form that we havea personal connection to, that others do not understand. however, we cannot ever be sure that it is not and should recognise the issuses of non cognativist approach that may end up undermining the force of language.

PARA 3 → OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT SUGGEST THAT RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE IS NOT A LIFE FORCE

  • empirical theories would completely reject religous langauge being a form of life, mainly due to them point blank rejecting the meaningfulness of religous langauge all together this is because there is very limited evidence to support religous language having any meaning

  • FALFISICTION PRINCIPLE BY FLEW DEVELOPS THIS ARGUMENT FURTHER which undermines religous language having any meaning, this is because the very notion of religous language is untestable, and when we try and deny it, (develops from parable of the gardner) death of 1,000 qualifications. trying to defend religous language as a life form just ends up undermining its menaing even further. this utlitmately seems like a reasonable claim to make about religous language

  • WEAKNESS → fails to understand how religous language truely functions, far to theortetical and scienetific rather than accepting the subjectivty and philisophy of religon. RM HARE DEVELOPS THROUGH ‘BLIKS’ religious language doesnt try and express realitly but personal meaning, which makes it a living thing in peoples minds but perhaps not a living thing to those who do not hold the same values

  • some may then ask what is the point of non cognativist views - but too pessmistic…

  • OVERALL → there is a denial from the falsification principle of there being any meaning and thus a life to religous language. it is reasonable to reject what we do not understand and accept, but we should not diminish other peoples views that we do not ulitmately truely understand. be more tolerant of how others experience religion and not try and define the ineffeiable.