Religious Language

• means of communicating about religion
• 3 contexts:

1) to describe/express religious experience

2) to communicate religious experience/content & describe beliefs

3) liturgy (formal acts of worship)

• Wittgenstein: language games
• sees religous language as anti-realist & dependent on context

2 biggest issues:

• how can words be used to accurately describe God (=> issues with univocal/equivocal language)
• is religious language meaningless (cognitive/non-cognitive language)

Also...

• if we use other forms of lanuguage, how can they be meaningful or comprehensible
• should religious language be understandable to those outside the religious community
• does religious language depend on making factual assertions

• based on principle of negation - saying what God isn't
• supporters argue lang. when applied to God = equivocal as he is metaphysical & physical lang. cannot describe him
• avoids anthropomorphism
• comes from ideas of Plato....
• Form of the Good = metaphysical & perfect, this world = physical & imperfect
• Plotonius: God is beyond description with ordinary lang. - we need to use the apophatic way
• Maimonides: God is 'wholly other'
• to make positive statements is improper & disrespectful -> we can know THAT God is but not WHAT God is
• Pseudo-Dionysius: God is beyond assertion
• 3 states of knowledge:

1) state of affirmation

2) the 'beyond' state

3) the via negativa/apophatic way

• Cole: 'by denying all descriptions of God, you get insight & experience rather than unbelief & scepticism'

• arguments/statements are meaningful ONLY if they can be verified
• any statement that can't be = meaningless
• Hume: only a sense of experience leads to real knowledge & a meaningful statement -> therefore religious statements = meaningless (EMPIRICIST)
• Vienna Circle - logical positivists - put forward strong verification
• ONLY statements that can be verified by sense experience are meaningful, excludes religious & historical statements
• A.J.Ayer -> weak verification
• statements can be proven 'in principe' or 'in practice'
• historical statements can now be seen as meaningful BUT religious statements = still meaningless
• Hick: argues for eschatological verification - statements may be verifiable in future
• example of Celestial City (life after death)

SWINBURNE: statements can still hold meaning for the believer!

Verification principle cannot itself be verified!!

• aims to determine which statements are scientific
• only scientific if they can be falsified
• Popper: developed theory -> only falsifiable statements are meaningful
• Flew: explorers in the jungle story - God-talk = meaningless
• God dies 'a death of a thousand qualifications' -> will always try to qualify their belief in face of contradictory evidence
• Wisdom: similar story of explorers in the garden BUT comes to a different conclusion - falsification cannot be applied to religious language
• Hare: argues religion is a Blik -> a way fo viewing the world - not open to falsification
• story of the crazy university student
• Mitchell: partisan & stranger story -> demonstrates how theists are able to maintain their faith, there is no need to qualify beliefs
• Swinburne: toy cupboard story - there are statements which we cannot falsify yet we are still able to understand the meaning behind them
• Ayer/Hick: maintain their views on verification

• comparison of 1 more & 1 less complex item to held understanding
• e.g. God is like a rock
• univocal vs. equivocal language issue -> Aquinas argues analogy = middle way
  
• Aquinas: analogy of proportion & analogy of attribution....
• proportion = all good qualities belong infinitely to God & also proportionately to humans
• attribution = God is the cause of all good things in humans -> 'upwards' analogy of attribution
• therefore we can gain insights into nature of God using analogy
• Ferre: argues analogy of proportion leaves us with 2 unknowns - no improved understanding of God
• also argues that proof of God is unattainable - how far will we go in comparing God to other things?
• Ramsey: models & qualifiers
• model = words & titles attrubuted to God
• qualifier = gives model further meaning; qualifies the belief
• Ross: analogy is not meant to logically prove God - it aims to enhance our understanding only
  

• 'object or person which points to an invisible, metaphysical reality & participates in it' -> Tillich
• sign = 1 dimensional
• symbol = meaning
• Tillich: religious language is largely symbolic
• symbols communicate key beliefs & values -> hold meaning & are difficult to change (e.g. national flag)
• God = 'ground of being'
• meanings of symbols CAN be changed though - e.g. Virgin Birth or Swastika (reinterpretation)
• Dinker-von-Schubert: symbols are important in normal language, therefore it's natural for them to occur in everyday language
• they identify matters we may not otherwise be able to express/conceive
• Stephens: our entire perception of the world is symbolic & so we only ever get some information -> religious symbols face same problem
• Randall: religious language is non-cognitive & non-representative - therefore it may cause confusion
• to overcome - should focus on FUNCTION not MEANING
• Edwards: symbols are non-cognitive & therefore meaningless

• Miller Burrows: 'approximate expression of truth, which the human mind cannot perceive sharply or completely'
• purpose = to communicate relationship with God, to interpret ultimate reality & to help people gain an insight into diffcult to express concepts
• origins in Greek/Hellenistic myths
• Bultmann: myths are outdated & irrelevant in today's society
• argues Bible should be 'demythologised' to reveal the true 'kerygma'/real truth
• Max Miller: 'myths are poetic descriptions of natural phenomena' -> idealistic, exaggerated statements
• De Wette: 'kernel of truth is hidden within myths' - useful for 'historical knowledge' about relationships with God - contextual
• Strauss: we need to move away from true/false scrutiny....
• move from a 'story of a MIRACULOUS OCCURENCE' to a 'STORY of a miraculous occurence'
• i.e. we need to looks at the meaning, not whether the event actually took place