Religious Language

Speaking about God

Part 1

Why Religious language?

The concept of a God is:• Something other

• Something timeless

We talk of things using our knowledge that is acquired through our experience• If something is ‘other’ and ‘timeless’ it is by definition

not part of our experience

How then can we talk of something that does not belong in our world?

True or False?

Cognitive• Statements that are either true or false

• Used of God in theistic proofs

Non-Cognitive• Statements that are neither true nor false

• Used by philosophers who generally do not seek theistic proof

What does a word mean?

Univocal• Words that have only one meaning

• E.g. sky, tree

• Words about God must have same meaning as in our world

Equivocal• Words that have more than one meaning

• E.g. mouse, web

• Via negative

Thomas Aquinas

Language as Analogical• Middle position

• God not like us

• But we can reason about Him

• Means of comparing what we know to God e.g. father, love, good

Analogy

Of attribution• Contains idea of origin

• E.g. Human wisdom is a reflection of God’s wisdom

Of proportionality• Attributes of God are proportional to his nature

• Just as attributes of humans is proportional to their nature

Putting it all together

Answer the following exam question in groups

• Aquinas provides the solution to talking about God through the concept of analogy. Discuss.

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Explain concept of God Consider Cognitive and Non-cognitive language Introduce Univocal and equivocal - examples Aquinas’s answer – Analogy – explain, give example What do you think and why? Conclusion

Religious Language

Speaking about God

Part 2

Logical Positivism

Empiricism• Knowledge is based on experience

The Vienna Circle• 1920s & 1930s

• What is meaning of ‘meaning’?

• Philosophers• Schlick and Carnap

Verification Principle

By the Logical Positivists Logical principle about meaning of words

• For a statement to be meaningful it had to be verifiable by sense experience

Verification Principle

Wittgenstein• A major influence due to his theory that

language had to be about objects

• But misunderstood as he believed in the mystical

VP excluded statements such as• ‘Julius Caesar landed at Deal in 55BC’

Verification Principle

A J Ayer• Book, 1936, Language, Truth and Logic

• Strong verification• Verify by sense experience and observation

• Weak verification• Verified by others

Problems with VP

Principle itself is not verifiable and therefore is not meaningful

Keith Ward – religious statements not excluded• If I were God I could check the truth of my

own existence

Problems with VP

John Hick• Eschatological verification

Theological statements meaningful by weak verification• ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ = historical

statement

Ayer later admitted inadequacy of the principle

Falsification Principle

Anthony Flew – 1950s• Statement is meaningless if no sense

experience cannot count against it

Parable of John Wisdom• The invisible gardener

‘Death by a thousand qualifications’

Problems with FP

Hare• Religious beliefs are ‘Bliks’

• Parable of lunatic who thought dons were trying to murder him

Mitchell• Religious statements can be falsified in

principle but not in practice• Parable of resistance leader

Hare and Mitchell accept falsification principle to an extent

Problems with VP

Richard Swinburne• The coherence of Theism 1977

• Claimed that statements can have meaning although they are not falsifiable

• Toys play at night

John Hick – Celestial City• Verifiable but not falsifiable, yet is meaningful

FP fails it’s own test just as VP does

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Explain empiricism Introduce the Vienna Circle VP – what does it say – example Who has challenged it and how What do you think and why? FP – what does it say – example Who has challenged it and how What do you think and why? Conclusion

Religious Language

Speaking about God

Part 3

Symbolic Language

Signs• Provide information

Symbols• Impact on feelings and emotion

• Have the power to evoke participation

Symbol

Paul Tillich – 1885-1965• “Symbolic language alone is able to express the

ultimate because it transcends the capacity of any finite reality to express it directly” (Dynamics of Faith, 1958)

• God is not ‘a Being’ but Being itself

• God is personal but not a person

Symbol

Don Cupitt (Taking leave of God, 1980)• Religious language is not about the

transcendent or metaphysical

• It is about our experiences, our psychology and feelings

• Therefore the problems of religious language disappear• Not everyone agrees though, Keith Ward maintains the idea

that God is transcendent (Holding Fast to God,1982)

Metaphors

Metaphor creates participation Janet Soskice

• (Metaphor and Religious Language, 1985)

• Language reveals something about God

• E.g. Brain = Computer

Metaphors

Sallie McFague • (Models of God in Religious Language, 1982)

• Not only religious language but theology is metaphorical

• Root metaphors = Father, Son, Kingdom

• Wants new metaphors, e.g. mother, lover, friend

Something to think about

Do you think a symbol can represent that which is beyond our experience?

How can we be sure that a symbol does not give the wrong insights about the ultimate?

Myths

A myth was seen as something that was not true

Now seen as giving insight into human existence

Need to be deciphered. language used is symbolic

Models

Ian Ramsey (Religious language, 1957) A model helps us to understand the

original ‘Models’ need to be qualified ‘Qualifiers’ point to how we should

understand the original in relation to the model

Models

Infinitely good

Model

Qualifier

Language games

Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Early ideas of ‘Picture theory of meaning’

• Words name objects

• Therefore objects are meaning of words

Latter claimed he was wrong• Unrealistic to assume that all words are based

on pictures

Language games

Put forward idea of language-games Meanings depend on the context in

which a word is used• E.g.: problems with the concept of the ‘soul’

would disappear if people realised that the physical language game does not apply to the soul

Putting it all together

Answer the following exam question in groups

• ‘All talk about God is both without meaning and without purpose.’ Discuss.

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Pick out the salient points – ‘talk of God – without meaning –

without purpose. Define God Consider the arguments against the idea of God – verification

and falsification Include criticism of above Refer to the various ideas of symbolism, showing how religious

language could be valid. What do you think and why? Conclusion