Review: Religious Language

Review: Religious LanguageMr. DeZilvaMarch 18th, 2014.March 24th, 2014.

What is Religious LanguageReligious language refers to specialist vocabulary and terms that religious people would useFurthermore, it is used in the context of truth claims statements used about what something is or is not.i.e. Jesus is alive todayRL can also be used to express feelings and emotions, particularly if you are of a certain faith.What is RL continuedRL can be used performativelyi.e. I now pronounce you husband and wife togetherRL is used to announce that something has happened or will happenRL can be used prescriptivelyi.e. Honour your father and your motherEncourages people to act in certain waysKey TermsCognitive Statements expresses facts and knowledge (e.g. Tollbar is a school).Non-Cognitive Statements expresses things which we could never know: feelings, values, and (perhaps) metaphysical claims (e.g. Tollbar is the best, most compassionate school in the world).

Critics of religion might emphasise the Non-Cognitive nature of much religious language.

The problem with RLBasically, the problem is one of meaning. If we are to believe in God or some other aspect of religion, we can only do this if we can use language to talk about it in a meaningful way. If talk of God is nonsense then the idea of God is potentially nonsense.The debate is ages old. The religious have always claimed that the divine is difficult to express in terms of limited human language. In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah found himself in Gods presence and said, woe is me, a man of unclean lips! This connects with the idea that God is transcendent beyond us. Yet, the opposite point has also long been recognised: if God cannot be described then there may be little scope for belief.

The Via NegativaVia Negativa means (negative way) and is sometimes called the Apophatic WayThis involves speaking of God using only negatives to emphasise the difference between God and humanityAs soon as we speak of God in positive terms and suggest that God has attributes which we recognise from the physical world, we are making inaccurate statements.

Via Negativa ContinuedPseudo-Dionysius (6th Century) argued that the via negativa was the only way in which we can speak truthfully about GodGod is beyond human understandingWe need to go beyond the realms of sense perception and rationality in order to become unified with God; a cloud of unknowingIt was only through the recognition of the limits of humanity that spiritual progress could be madeVia Negativa ContinuedMoses Maimonides (12th Century) argued that attributes of God could be expressed in negative termsWe come to understand what God is not, and therefore, move closer to appreciating what God is.Ship exampleBuddhism would also support the via negativa in order to describe the nature of realityi.e. to understand nirvana, one must know that it is absolutely NOT what you can know with senseChallenges to the Via NegativaBrian DaviesOnly saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, and if one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.There are endless possibilities in terms of what one could be thinking of even if all negations are crossed offAnthony FlewThere is little separating the definition of nothingness and the definition of God (i.e. soundless, invisible, etc)

Further ChallengesIf God is out of our experience, then we cannot reach Godi.e. white is the opposite of black only makes sense to someone who has seen whiteMany holy scriptures make positive references about Godi.e. The Bible says that God is a king, judge, father, shepherd, etc.

Support to the Via NegativaVia negativa does not place a limit on God by giving it a point of reference within the physical worldContributes to the mystery and mysticism of God Conveying the belief that God is not like usVia negativa applies well in different cultures and periods of history since we can say something about God, which can be true and not need interpretation.Practice Exam QuestionThe only way in which meaningful statements can be made about God is the Via Negativa. DiscussFor this question, the via negativa needs to be compared with other ways of making statements about God, so it would be useful to consider discussion on Falsification, Analogy, etc. Regardless, you would still be required to explain the via negativa and include examples of different thinkers who have supported it. Criticisms of the via negativa should also be explained and evaluated and to what extent are these claims valid? Alternative ways of talking about God using positive terms could be explored, but should not take up the bulk of the paper. Aim to present an argument, as opposed to a display of various perspectives.The Vienna Circle & Logical PositivismThe Vienna Circle was a group of Philosophers who met after the first world war. They held the belief that theological interpretations of events and experiences belonged in the past.Developed a more positivist approach. The first problem or criticism of RL originates from a group of philosophers called the Logical Positivists. They were concerned with the relationship between the use of language and knowledge, rejecting as meaningless what they saw as non-cognitive (fact free) claimsLogical Positivist and The Vienna Circle were inspired by Ludwig Wittengstein (1889 1951)Wittgenstein suggested that meaningful language is connected with the things we know from our senses.Logical Positivists said: how could religious language link with sense experience?

The Verification Principle: AJ AyerAyer became influenced by developments in Vienna and developed the idea of a Verification PrincipleVerification means checking a statement to see if its true. The VP states that A statement which cannot be conclusively verified is simply devoid of meaning.

The VP: Ayer (continued)The VP was a way in which statements could be tested to see whether there was any point in talking about them.Verificationists like Ayer hold that statements can only be meaningful if they can be demonstrated, and these can be divided into two types:

The VP Ayer (continued)Analytic Statements: true by definitione.g. this circle is not a square, or 2+2=4Synthetic Statements: true by confirmation of the sensee.g. I can see that its ham for lunch on ThursdayVerificationists hold that statements can only be meaningful if they can be demonstrated, and these can be divided into the two above statements.The VP: Ayer (continued)Ayer thought that religious claims are Non-Cognitive and impossible to verify, so they are meaningless. He does not say that they are just false; it is more that they cannot really tell us anything at all.

The VP continuedDenotation: When the word stands for something, acts a labels for somethingi.e. The word window stands for the part of the wall that has glass in itConnotationWhen the word carries other associationsi.e. the word window might stand for opportunityThe word carries meaning beyond the literalFurther Support to the VPJohn HickEschatologically verifiableReligious truth-claims are verifiable after death (eschatos = last)Convincing evidence is not available now, but will beWeak Verification (Ayer)Answers the problem of the senses (next slide)Suggests that we might know things by setting up sensible standards for evidence i.e. eye-witness accounts, multiple sources, etc.Strong Verification: Opposes Weak; Can be directly verified by empirical observationChallenges to the VPThe verifiability of the theory cannot be verified by sense experienceWe cannot tell with our senses if something has or has not happened, thus it is not a meaningful synthetic statementHistorical and Scientific statements would never have any meaningAnthony FlewInstead of a statement needing to be verifiable, it should be falsifiable

The Falsification Principle by Anthony FlewReferred to a parable from John Wisdoms Gods article (invisible gardener)Draws similarities between The Believer and a religious person who makes claims such as God loves us as a father loves his childrenEvery time the religious believer is faced with a challenge to their religion, they modify their beliefsReligious believers make claims about the nature of God, but modify them so much that in the end they eventually have no meaning.

The FP Flew continuedAny positive claim we make also assumes that we deny its negation. I.e. If I say that College work is fun, I am also saying that College work is not, not funLanguage is only meaningful if we can conceive of some evidence which might count against it. I.e. Its only meaningful to say that College work is fun because students might be able to show contradictory information: boring research projects, tedious routines.The FP In a nutshellThe problem with God talk is that it often implies that it could never by falsified: I know that God loves me in a special and mysterious way which no-one may question or disprove. If God is just a mystery, then we are not using language in a constructive, meaningful way

If asked, Under what circumstances would your statement that God loves us be false religious believers would not be able to think of any they would still stick with their original assertion/claim, but for Flew, the claim needs also to be falsified.The Falsification PrincipleClaims religious believers make about the nature and activity of God die a death by a thousand qualifications - FlewIn the end, religious believers are saying nothing meaningful at allChallenges to The FPVia Positiva (Cataphatic Way)The way of speaking of all of the positive attributes of God so that one can merge with or become imbued with these Godlike characteristicsi.e. God is LoveRichard SwinburneWe do not have to be able to specify what would count against a statement in order for that statement to be meaningfulSupport to the FPKarl PopperOne can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or testabilityI.e. Einsteins theory of gravity was scientific because it was potentially falsifiableIts truth could be tested against empirical observationsFalsification is a way to demarcate (establish) scientific statements which are supported by some form of empirical evidence from other statements which are unscientificThe FP and Bliks (critiqueto Falsification)Hare took up the idea of falsification and used it to describe certain beliefs which he called bliks. A blik is a non-rational belief which could never be falsified (disproved). Bliks are not necessarily untrue (some are sane and some insane), but they are groundless.An insane blik vs. a sane blik religious statements are an interpretation of the world, which could be seen as sane or insaneAn unfalsifiable convictionParable of the Lunatic and the University Staff exampleJohn Hick responds by saying that religious statements have reasons, statements, scripture, etcThe judgement that religious beliefs are insane is still arbitrary and has no observational evidence.

R.M. HareFor example, let us say that a student is convinced that his philosophy teacher is trying to kill him but, as his friends point out, theres no evidence at all that this is the case. The student may say that this teacher is so clever that he would never leave any evidence of any kind.28The FP critique continuedBasil MitchellObjects to the idea that religious claims are groundless bliksArgues that religious claims are grounded in some factsThe Partisan and the Stranger A stranger supports a revolutionary fight but sometimes seems to help the enemy. This is similar to i.e. the problem of evil and belief in God

The Use of Analogy to express understanding of God What is Analogy?Analogy is a comparison that attempts to show how two or more things are similar

We cannot say anything positive that is literally true of God, because the use of ordinary human language automatically limits God.

The Analogy of Paleys Watchmaker helps explains the teleology of the universe to compare the design of the world to that of a watch this helps express God in human languageKey TermsUnivocal: The same word is used with the exact same meaningI.e. A green hat & A green ball Green has the same meaning

Equivocal: The same word is used with a different meaning (or ambiguous)i.e. Fruit punch & Hole punchPunch has different meanings.

How do you think these two terms relate to Religious Language?

Problems - UnivocalBlack cat, black hat, black mat: for all these, black means the same thing.Problem: If we say that lesson was good then good means something different from saying God is good, since God is perfect and infinite.So, Aquinas argues, we cannot speak of God univocally.

Problems - EquivocalGay can mean very different things: happy, homosexual, or (among some students) not very good.Problem: If we say that God is good means something completely different from any other good then God would be unintelligible (we couldnt understand him).So, Aquinas argues, we cannot speak of God equivocally.

St. Thomas Aquinas & AnalogyWe could make positive claims about God and convey positive ideas, but we need to understand that we are speaking analogically, not literally.

Two Types of Analogy:Analogy of AttributionAnalogy of Proportionality

Analogy of AttributionWhere there is a causal relation between the two things being describedI.e. A sticky cake might be called sickly because of the effect it has on the person eating itI.e A seaside town might be called healthy because it causes the people who live there to be healthy.

Analogy of Attribution contdAquinas thought that we could gain understanding of God by considering his role as creator. Simply, if God made the world then we could expect the world to reflect God in some way. Therefore we would be justified in drawing analogies between the world and God; the world is an order of referenceThe example of a bull and its urine.

The health of the animal is present in its urine; we can tell that the bull is healthy by studying this. However, the health of the bull is only complete in the bull itself. So, what the urine tells us is indirect and incomplete. So too with God: what the world tells us of his goodness is meaningful, but it is also limited.

37Analogy of Proportionality:Where the words relate to objects which are different in proportionI.e. A clever dog and A clever scientist, with clever being used proportionality however, the Dog is clever as far as dogs go. The scientist is clever as far as scientist and other people go

Therefore When we use terms like loving or faithful when describing God, we can understand them, however, realise that for God, it is used in an infinitely larger scale.Analogy of Proportion contdIt follows the basic idea is that humans possess Gods qualities because we are created in his image (Genesis 2). However, because God is perfect, we have his qualities in a lesser proportion.It is important to remember that God cannot be wholly understood and that we never will reach a clear understanding of what exactly God isBut, there is a dim and imperfect likeness amongst two comparatives, as there is between us and God.

Analogy of Proportion contdAn analogy which is just a metaphor and does not really deal with proportionate qualities would be one of improper proportion. For instance, God is a rock. This ignores essential differences in qualities for the sake of a loose comparison.

Critique of AnalogyDarwin & DawkinsWere humans actually created in the image and likeness of God? Evolution would disagree and if Evolution is fact, then the comparisons of proportion mean very littleThe Problem of EvilIs evil also analogical for God? If so, this makes a perfectly good God impossibleSwinburneAnalogy is an unnecessary theory. We can speaks of God and humans as good univocally, but they both possess goodness in different ways. But it is still the same essential quality.Critique of Analogy contdWilliam BlackstoneWe have to translate the analogies into univocal language before they mean anythingi.e. We have to understand how Gods love relates to human love before we even begin our understanding Support to AnalogyC. Stephen EvansIt is okay to accept that God is mysterious and that our knowledge of Him is limitedThere is an otherness (Otto) of God a fearful and fascinating mystery, that our language ought to convey, not disguiseIan RamseyReligious Language function as modelsModels something that represents something else and helps us to understand the originalThese words are used as a reference point from our human experiences that we can applyUse of Symbol to express human understanding of GodWhat is Symbol? (In terms of RL)Language can be used figuratively and people recognise it right awayi.e. Im going to kill my husband when I get home is understood as actually not killingReligious language is used symbolically when talking about their relationship with Godi.e. God listened to their prayersSymbol contdPaul Tillich spoke aboutsymbols

Symbols are not signs. Symbols participate in what they point towardsI.e. Road signs just point to a fact about a road, but a symbolic flag participates in the power of the nation, idea, or king

Symbols contdTillich gives four key features of symbols:1) They point to something beyond themselves,2) They participate in that to which they point3) They open up levels of reality which otherwise are closed to us,4) They open up dimensions of the soul which correspond to those aspects of reality.For point (3) (4), the person needs to be familiar with the religion/religious language for meaning - this allows for a personal participation that is essentially for religious symbolsSymbols contdWe could think of a ChristianCross, for example.It is a marker for Christianity, but it also makes a powerful statement and draws Christians in to participate in what they see as the reality of the messiahIt represents Jesus sacrifice and the redemption he brings.It is a prompt from prayer, worship, and meditation

Criticisms of Tillich and SymbolJohn HickParticipating in a symbol is unclearThe flag example; in what sense does the flag really do something? Is there really a big difference from signs here?William AlstonObjects that symbolism means that there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or falseTillichs symbols are not literally true, Alston feels that they could have no meaningful impact on us.They could not send us to heaven or hell, for example.

Criticisms of Tillich and Symbols contdJohn MacquarrieSymbols provoke an existential responseRemind us of feelings (loyalty, awe) and then we can recognise that we should have the same response to GodSymbols prove an understanding in terms of similarity to relationSimilar (if not the same) as analogiesRelate light to the world to Gods relationship and affect on humans.Ludwig WittgensteinLanguage GamesThe use of Myth to express the human understanding of God What is Myth?A story that tries to communicate fundamental issues/values about a culture or a society (in this case)It incorporates symbols, metaphors, and modelsA myth may or may not be historically accurate, but it conveys important truths that might be difficult to express in other ways.Myth continuedStories such as that of Hercules or Hera and Zeus tell about the value system of the ancient Greek cultureIn the case of Religious Language, myths communicate the values of ChristianityThe Creation Story communicates a deep and real awareness of God as Creator and of human beings place in creationMyths are important because they preserve cultural identity of a group in story formMyths may point to and reveal something about God (similar to that of a symbol)Examples of myth include various Old Testament stories (Genesis, Job, Parting of the Red Sea)Critique of Myth (not necessarily support or challenge)Rudolph BultmannAttempted to remove the supernatural view of the world of the New Testament (miracles, religious experiences), as they conflicted with modern science discoveriesHowever, Bultmann argued that the writers of the New Testament were never trying to make a record of accurate historical fact, but they expressed their beliefs through myth.The real point of the gospel message was the need for people to reach a personal decision about the direction they wanted their lives to take in relation to GodCritique of Myth (not necessarily support or a challenge)John HickSuggested that Jesus was not God in human form, but that the idea of Jesus as God incarnate was a mythHick still recognises and argues for the importance of Jesus to God and the expressing of Jesus godliness but not literally true i.e. God was in Christ Many would argue against Hick and say that there is some Biblical scripture that needs/should be taken literallyLudwig Wittgenstein & Language GamesLudwig Wittgenstein Years after he had influenced the Logical Positivists, Ludwig changed his views on how language worksFocused on the uses of languageLess concerned with the truth or falsity of languageWords have no objective reference points; they simply reflect systems of behaviour

Dont ask me for the meaning, ask for the use. Wittgenstein continuedFor Religious Language, he thought that function might be more important than meaning.Argued that language works through a series of language gamesThis means meaning only comes out of context; we have to know what game that our terms are participating in.The problem Issues in Philosophy may occur through a misunderstanding of the words, which can be used in different language games. Wittgenstein continuedMeaning is all about observing what the right way and the wrong way to do things is like (similar to that of a game)With religion there may be conventional ways or unconventional ways to talk about GodLG connects with the Coherence theory of truthThis is the view that statements are true if they fit with other statements and beliefs which are internally consistent.The Game of Religious LanguageIt could be argued that the game of religious language cannot be criticised because internally it is coherent and intelligible.Religious views fit with other religious viewsReligion is a Language Game and it makes more sense if you are participating in itHowever This allows any claim to be equally valid to another because it is a relativist conceptImportant to note Wittgenstein talks very little about Religion as a language game, and never clearly states that Religion is a language game.Support to Language GamesD.Z PhillipsExtends the idea that religion is a language game and thus, cannot be either grounded or criticised since it is a system all of its ownThe reality of God or religion does not lie in the abstract issue of if God exists, but instead it is located in the words and practice of the religionTherefore God is defined by the language game of faithTo understand what God is, you need to take part, participate and play the game.Phillips continuedIf a philosopher wants to give an account of religion, he must pay attention to what religious believers do and say It is not the task of a philosopher to decide whether there is a God or not, but to ask what it means to affirm or deny the existence of God.

Criticisms of Language GamesLG reject the popular view that language can be objective and scientificWith this view of Religious language our language can never convey truth in an absolute senseThere could be no progress in philosophical debates, (because they are based on misunderstandings of language).Any debate held would be an issue of language, as opposed to the actual contentWittgensteins LG (alongside Phillips) leads to irrationalism and blind faith.This denotes any ideas of justification (and make it okay)

QuestionsCritically assess the views of Paul Tillich on Religious Language

Evaluate the claim that analogy can successfully be used to express the human understanding of God.

Critically compare the use of myth with the use of analogy to express the human understanding of God.

Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.

The falsification principle presents no real challenge to religious belief. Discuss

Critically assess Wittgensteins belief that language games allow religious statements to have meaning.

To what extent is the Via Negativa the only way to talk about God?