Religious Language

Religious LanguageReligious Language

The Verification PrincipleThe Verification Principle

““We say that a sentence is factually We say that a sentence is factually significant if he knows how to verify the significant if he knows how to verify the proposition….that is, if he knows what proposition….that is, if he knows what observations would lead him to accept the observations would lead him to accept the proposition as being true or reject it as proposition as being true or reject it as being false.” being false.”

A. J Ayer ‘Language, Truth and Logic’ 1936A. J Ayer ‘Language, Truth and Logic’ 1936

Verification PrincipleVerification Principle How we use language as the means of How we use language as the means of

conveying knowledge.conveying knowledge. Only those propositions that can be verified Only those propositions that can be verified

empirically have meaningempirically have meaning Analytical propositions: - a priori by which Analytical propositions: - a priori by which

knowledge gained through logical reasoning e.g. knowledge gained through logical reasoning e.g. bachelorsbachelors

Synthetic propositions: a posteriori by which Synthetic propositions: a posteriori by which knowledge could be proved true or false – knowledge could be proved true or false – verified by some sort of sense experience = verified by some sort of sense experience = verification principle e.g. James is tallverification principle e.g. James is tall

If it not possible to prove statement true or false If it not possible to prove statement true or false then it is meaningless e.g. meaningless to talk then it is meaningless e.g. meaningless to talk about God.about God.

Often contradictory or Often contradictory or paradoxicalparadoxical

““God is the Father and the Son and the Holy God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” Spirit”

God is both God is both oneone and and three.three. Jeremy Jones Jeremy Jones can be a father and a son, because can be a father and a son, because

there exist separate persons, but it is hard to there exist separate persons, but it is hard to understand how God can be father and son to understand how God can be father and son to himself.himself.

The claim ‘God is omnipotent’The claim ‘God is omnipotent’ An omnipotent being both can and cannot give An omnipotent being both can and cannot give

itself a task which it could not perform.itself a task which it could not perform. Does this mean these claims are meaningless?Does this mean these claims are meaningless?

A J AyerA J Ayer

Strong verification: anything that can be Strong verification: anything that can be conclusively established as true/ false conclusively established as true/ false here and now e.g. Aimee’s Dad has no here and now e.g. Aimee’s Dad has no hair.hair.

Weak Verification: experience renders Weak Verification: experience renders something probable e.g. Columbus something probable e.g. Columbus discovered America, the world is evolving.discovered America, the world is evolving.

EvaluationEvaluation

1.1. The Principle of Verification itself cannot be The Principle of Verification itself cannot be verified using the Verification Principleverified using the Verification Principle

2.2. John Hick – eschatological verification it may John Hick – eschatological verification it may be that religious statements will be verified at be that religious statements will be verified at the end. We don’t know yet how to verify the end. We don’t know yet how to verify religious statements. So statements like ‘God religious statements. So statements like ‘God exists’ can be meaningful.exists’ can be meaningful.

3.3. Some statements could be provable to one Some statements could be provable to one person and ‘meaningless’ to another e.g. some person and ‘meaningless’ to another e.g. some witnessed Jesus raising from the dead. To witnessed Jesus raising from the dead. To them this is verifiable, to others not verifiable them this is verifiable, to others not verifiable and to others could be weakly verified.and to others could be weakly verified.

The Falsification PrincipleThe Falsification Principle

Anthony Flew:Anthony Flew: Religious statements are meaningless. Religious statements are meaningless. For a statement to be meaningful, it must be For a statement to be meaningful, it must be

known what empirical evidence could count known what empirical evidence could count against it (or prove it wrong)against it (or prove it wrong)

E.G Aliens live on mars = meaningful as we can E.G Aliens live on mars = meaningful as we can prove it wrong.prove it wrong.

Religious statements like ‘God is good’ are not Religious statements like ‘God is good’ are not falsifiable as religious believers do not allow falsifiable as religious believers do not allow anything to count against them anything to count against them

Falsification Principle: Counter Falsification Principle: Counter criticismscriticisms

R. M. Hare – Religious Language is meaningful. R. M. Hare – Religious Language is meaningful. Flew/ Ayer make mistake of treating it as Flew/ Ayer make mistake of treating it as cognitive when it is in fact non – cognitive.cognitive when it is in fact non – cognitive.

Cognitive: knowable as a fact outside human Cognitive: knowable as a fact outside human mind e.g. water boils are 100c whether humans mind e.g. water boils are 100c whether humans involved or notinvolved or not

Non Cognitive – dependant on human thought Non Cognitive – dependant on human thought and opinion – not existing independently of and opinion – not existing independently of human belief.human belief.

Religious language is still meaningful even if not Religious language is still meaningful even if not verifiable or falsifiable. It gives knowledge and verifiable or falsifiable. It gives knowledge and influences the way people see the world.influences the way people see the world.

R.M. HareR.M. Hare Used the example of a lunatic who believes all Used the example of a lunatic who believes all

his teachers are trying to kill himhis teachers are trying to kill him This is the way in which the lunatic saw the This is the way in which the lunatic saw the

world and nothing could change his view of the world and nothing could change his view of the world.world.

Hare coined the word ‘blik’ to describe the way Hare coined the word ‘blik’ to describe the way in which people see and interpret the world.in which people see and interpret the world.

The importance of a ‘blik’ is that they are not The importance of a ‘blik’ is that they are not falsifiable and it does not make factual claims.falsifiable and it does not make factual claims.

No evidence or argument can demonstrate the No evidence or argument can demonstrate the falseness of a blik.falseness of a blik.

Counter criticismsCounter criticisms Basil Mitchell: Flew and Ayer missed the point Basil Mitchell: Flew and Ayer missed the point

that religious believers hold certain things on that religious believers hold certain things on trust.trust.

Flew was wrong to say religious believers never Flew was wrong to say religious believers never allow anything to stand against their faith. They allow anything to stand against their faith. They do, but they have a prior commitment to God – do, but they have a prior commitment to God – trust and faith.trust and faith.

Richard Swinburne: - Flew was wrong – we can Richard Swinburne: - Flew was wrong – we can understand ideas even though they may not be understand ideas even though they may not be falsifiable. falsifiable.

E.g. toys in a cupboard – we cant prove they E.g. toys in a cupboard – we cant prove they don’t move around when we’re not in the room don’t move around when we’re not in the room but the idea is meaningful to us.but the idea is meaningful to us.

Purpose of religious languagePurpose of religious language R. B. Braithwaite: VP and FP (verification/ R. B. Braithwaite: VP and FP (verification/

falsification) make mistake of regarding falsification) make mistake of regarding religious language as cognitive when its non religious language as cognitive when its non cognitive. Religious language is ultimately cognitive. Religious language is ultimately moral language.moral language.

1.1. Any religious claim is primarily a moral claim , Any religious claim is primarily a moral claim , it expresses intention to follow certain code of it expresses intention to follow certain code of behaviour “God is good.”behaviour “God is good.”

2.2. Refers to a story as well as an intentionRefers to a story as well as an intention3.3. Not necessary to believe story in order to Not necessary to believe story in order to

adopt a certain way of life.adopt a certain way of life.

Dionysius (c.500 CE) Dionysius (c.500 CE) State of knowledge 1:State of knowledge 1:

Believed there are 3 states of knowledge and meaning in Believed there are 3 states of knowledge and meaning in what we can know and say about God:what we can know and say about God:

1. One approach is the Via Negativa (the Apophatic Way)1. One approach is the Via Negativa (the Apophatic Way) It is possible to talk about God, not by saying what he is, It is possible to talk about God, not by saying what he is,

but what he is but what he is notnot.. E.g. “God is not evil”, “God is not human”, “neti neti” (not E.g. “God is not evil”, “God is not human”, “neti neti” (not

this and not that)this and not that) God is:God is: “…“…not soul or mind…It is not number or order, greatness not soul or mind…It is not number or order, greatness

or smallness…It is not immovable, moving or at …”or smallness…It is not immovable, moving or at …”

State of knowledge 2:State of knowledge 2: Having established that God can only be Having established that God can only be

referred to in negative terms, what can be known referred to in negative terms, what can be known of Godof God

The “State of Affirmation”- what we can say The “State of Affirmation”- what we can say about God, albeit inadequatelyabout God, albeit inadequately

Source of this knowledge is the BibleSource of this knowledge is the Bible God is loving/ just etc. though this is symbolic God is loving/ just etc. though this is symbolic

languagelanguage

State of knowledge 3:State of knowledge 3: To try and convey that God is beyond human To try and convey that God is beyond human

understanding by adding that God is “beyond” the understanding by adding that God is “beyond” the human conditionhuman condition

E.g. “God is beyond goodness”E.g. “God is beyond goodness” This is metaphorical language, but leads people to This is metaphorical language, but leads people to

greater spiritual awarenessgreater spiritual awareness In ‘The Mystical Theology’ Dionysius explains God is In ‘The Mystical Theology’ Dionysius explains God is

beyond all categories of human thoughtbeyond all categories of human thought John Hick (1999): Dionysius…John Hick (1999): Dionysius… ““God is utterly transcendent…indescribable and God is utterly transcendent…indescribable and

incapable of being conceptualised by the human mind.”incapable of being conceptualised by the human mind.”

‘‘God’ refers to a being beyond God’ refers to a being beyond human experiencehuman experience

Many theologians believe God is beyond our Many theologians believe God is beyond our understandingunderstanding

And our language is woefully inadequate to talk And our language is woefully inadequate to talk about God.about God.

Every positive attribute of God (e.g.... all-loving, Every positive attribute of God (e.g.... all-loving, all knowing) must be balanced by recognition all knowing) must be balanced by recognition that human language is inadequate to describe that human language is inadequate to describe GodGod

Do our attempts to talk about God fail because Do our attempts to talk about God fail because of his transcendent nature?of his transcendent nature?

Evaluation of the via negativaEvaluation of the via negativa

May give people an insight into nature of God by May give people an insight into nature of God by pointingpointing beyond the language usedbeyond the language used

But Hick believes Dionysius contradicts himself But Hick believes Dionysius contradicts himself by saying God is ineffable, yet revealed in the by saying God is ineffable, yet revealed in the BibleBible

Ultimately, does the via negativa move us any Ultimately, does the via negativa move us any nearer to saying anything about God that is nearer to saying anything about God that is definitely true?definitely true?

What are symbols?What are symbols? Have deeper significance and ‘point beyond Have deeper significance and ‘point beyond

themselves’themselves’ ““A pattern or object which points to an invisible A pattern or object which points to an invisible

metaphysical reality and participates in it” (Erika metaphysical reality and participates in it” (Erika Dinkler-von Schubert)Dinkler-von Schubert)

They can be pictorial, abstract, verbal or active They can be pictorial, abstract, verbal or active (a symbolic action)(a symbolic action)

E.G. A white light burning over a Tabernacle in a E.G. A white light burning over a Tabernacle in a Catholic church= the presence of ChristCatholic church= the presence of Christ

The light could mean so much to a Catholic The light could mean so much to a Catholic Christian…Christ/ tradition/ worship/ familiarity…Christian…Christ/ tradition/ worship/ familiarity…

Paul Tillich (1885-1965)Paul Tillich (1885-1965)‘Systematic Theology’ 1951‘Systematic Theology’ 1951

God is what concerns us ‘ultimately’God is what concerns us ‘ultimately’ But Tillich did not see ‘God’ as a physical reality But Tillich did not see ‘God’ as a physical reality

bound up in the physical worldbound up in the physical world ““God does not exist. He is being itself beyond God does not exist. He is being itself beyond

essence and existence. Therefore to argue that essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him”.God exists is to deny him”.

Any language beyond the statement “God is Any language beyond the statement “God is Being-Itself” is symbolicBeing-Itself” is symbolic

““The language of faith is the language of The language of faith is the language of symbols.” (Dynamics of Faith, p.45)symbols.” (Dynamics of Faith, p.45)

Paul TillichPaul Tillich Argued that when you say something about God Argued that when you say something about God

in concrete terms, you are using physical, in concrete terms, you are using physical, contingent languagecontingent language

Yet what you are saying about God is likely to be Yet what you are saying about God is likely to be non-physical and non-contingentnon-physical and non-contingent

The language you employ points beyond the The language you employ points beyond the concrete concepts to a transcendent realityconcrete concepts to a transcendent reality

Tillich held belief that symbols ‘participate’ Tillich held belief that symbols ‘participate’ somehow in the object they refer to.somehow in the object they refer to.

E.g.. The national flag- E.g.. The national flag-

it represents national pride and is also it represents national pride and is also partpart of of that national pride.that national pride.

Four functions of symbol:Four functions of symbol:

J. H Randall argued symbols work by:J. H Randall argued symbols work by: Motivating- by firing up emotions and Motivating- by firing up emotions and

inspiring people to actioninspiring people to action Socially binding people with the same Socially binding people with the same

understanding of the symbolunderstanding of the symbol Communicating- things that are not literalCommunicating- things that are not literal Disclosing- revealing hidden depths to us Disclosing- revealing hidden depths to us

about spiritual mattersabout spiritual matters

Problems/ criticisms of seeing Problems/ criticisms of seeing religious language as symbolicreligious language as symbolic

There are some things that believers would want to claim There are some things that believers would want to claim are literal, e.g.. “God is good”are literal, e.g.. “God is good”

John Hick argued Tillich’s view of symbols ‘participating’ John Hick argued Tillich’s view of symbols ‘participating’ in their object is vague about what this meansin their object is vague about what this means

Symbols can become objects of worship in themselvesSymbols can become objects of worship in themselves They can be trivialised and their original meaning lostThey can be trivialised and their original meaning lost Symbols are intended to ‘point beyond’ themselves to a Symbols are intended to ‘point beyond’ themselves to a

metaphysical reality, but there is no way of knowing if the metaphysical reality, but there is no way of knowing if the symbol gives the right or wrong insight into the ultimate symbol gives the right or wrong insight into the ultimate reality, therefore we cannot know if they are appropriate.reality, therefore we cannot know if they are appropriate.

Problems/ criticisms of seeing Problems/ criticisms of seeing religious language as symbolicreligious language as symbolic

They can become outdatedThey can become outdated Paul Tillich wrote, “It is necessary to Paul Tillich wrote, “It is necessary to

rediscover the questions to which the rediscover the questions to which the Christian symbols are the answers in a Christian symbols are the answers in a way which is understandable to our time”way which is understandable to our time”

Paul Edwards did not believe symbols Paul Edwards did not believe symbols convey any factual knowledge and are convey any factual knowledge and are meaninglessmeaningless

Myth and religionMyth and religion

William Paden sees belief in God- and William Paden sees belief in God- and gods, as living pieces of mythgods, as living pieces of myth

All religious language is mythic- two levels:All religious language is mythic- two levels: 1. Voice of myth- the foundational stories 1. Voice of myth- the foundational stories

of the religious world (first-order)of the religious world (first-order) 2. Doctrine, commentary and religious law 2. Doctrine, commentary and religious law

which speaks about 1. above (second- which speaks about 1. above (second- order)order)

Myth and Religious WorldsMyth and Religious Worlds Myth gives meaning to past, present and futureMyth gives meaning to past, present and future Sets the participant’s life in a contextSets the participant’s life in a context Paden goes on to describe how mythic language has a Paden goes on to describe how mythic language has a

special type of powerspecial type of power Mythic power can be seen in the absolute status of Mythic power can be seen in the absolute status of

scripture or oral equivalents in non-literate culturesscripture or oral equivalents in non-literate cultures It is recited, chanted, intoned, learned…It is recited, chanted, intoned, learned… Anthropologists have found tribal communities Anthropologists have found tribal communities

distinguish between stories of entertainment and sacred distinguish between stories of entertainment and sacred storiesstories

The ‘sacred stories’ contribute to the worldview, in terms The ‘sacred stories’ contribute to the worldview, in terms of people’s moral, social and metaphysical existence.of people’s moral, social and metaphysical existence.

He argues religion gives a person a particular He argues religion gives a person a particular ‘Worldview’ and that this colours all their experiences‘Worldview’ and that this colours all their experiences

Myth is not fixed and unchanging, but can Myth is not fixed and unchanging, but can adapt, transform, re-seed itself, witheradapt, transform, re-seed itself, wither

According to a community’s needs and According to a community’s needs and interpretationsinterpretations

The immanence and application of The immanence and application of mythmyth

Paden goes on to discuss, with examples, how Paden goes on to discuss, with examples, how myth has an applied function, e.g..myth has an applied function, e.g..

The calendarThe calendar Sacred placesSacred places Ritual and re-enactmentsRitual and re-enactments Rites of passageRites of passage Healing ceremoniesHealing ceremonies Recollection in times of need or crisisRecollection in times of need or crisis In moral behaviourIn moral behaviour

Ludwig WittgensteinLudwig Wittgenstein Various situations in your life involve you communicating Various situations in your life involve you communicating

in different ways e.g. talk differently at college/ work/ in different ways e.g. talk differently at college/ work/ familyfamily

The meaning of language is the way in which it is used – The meaning of language is the way in which it is used – depends on society, people etc. each activity has its own depends on society, people etc. each activity has its own language – like a game without own set of rules.language – like a game without own set of rules.

Language games: used in all forms of human activityLanguage games: used in all forms of human activity People not in game do not understand language – People not in game do not understand language –

meaninglessmeaningless Religious belief has its own language but you cannot say Religious belief has its own language but you cannot say

it is meaningless due to you not understanding it.it is meaningless due to you not understanding it.

AnalogyAnalogy Comparison between two thingsComparison between two things Univocal – uses word in same way exactly – Univocal – uses word in same way exactly –

meaning is the same e.g. Paris is a city, Rome is meaning is the same e.g. Paris is a city, Rome is a citya city

Equivocal – language is unclear/ ambiguous e.g. Equivocal – language is unclear/ ambiguous e.g. John is on the right – could mean 2 things ‘right’ John is on the right – could mean 2 things ‘right’ in terms of location or political viewin terms of location or political view

Aquinas: language is said by God = is an Aquinas: language is said by God = is an analogy e.g. God is love or god is my father. analogy e.g. God is love or god is my father. This language is being said equivocally This language is being said equivocally

Brian Davies: “The bread is good; the baker is Brian Davies: “The bread is good; the baker is good.”good.”