THEME 4 POR RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

REALISM 

• based on the correspondence theory of truth - truth corresponds to the external reality it describes
• god talk relates to objective, independent facts 
• god love is meaningful as an external reality 
• truth is verification transcendent - cannot be conclusively verified 

ANTI-REALISM 

• based on the coherene theory of truth - truth is hat which fits with other statements held to be true 
• god talk relates to subjective, community dependent beliefs 
• god love is meaningful in the internal reality of the form of life which it is expressed
• truth is verification dependent - the truth of the statement can be verified 

COGNITIVE LANGUAGE - claims that can be known/ held as true/ false - moral claims are argued not to be facts but feelings with no way to ascertain if they are true or false can be PROPOSITIONAL claims that are things that can be known 

NON-COGNITIVE LANGUAGE - claims that are subjective and deal with matters that are not simply resolved by establishing whether they are true/ false, this is NON PROPOSITIONAL language which serves some other function than making claims about what is true/ false 

ANTI REALISM - VERIFICATIONISM - NONCOGNITIVE - COHERENCE OF TRUTH - VERIFICATION DEPENDENT 

REALISM - CORRESPONDENCE - COGNITIVE - VERIFICATION TRANSCENDENT 

• limitations of language for traditional conceptions of god - used to define god/ meta physical qualities that cannot be seen in the material world - cannot be sure of the meaning of concepts/ relate them to human experience 

• challenge to sacred texts/ religious pronouncements as unintelligible - RL appears a contradictory/ paradoxical claims which are hard to understand - can the purpose of this language be taken literally/ non literally?

• challenges that RL is not a common shared base and experience - scripture/ other RL uses specific terminology = uses words that are only used in the context of religion and not elsewhere in human experience - this makes it difficult to understand/ communicate to the non believer and the meaning of religious texts is highly subjective 

• differences between cognitive and noncognitive language - non cognitive language does not express the propositional truth and cannot be known as true or false, RL assertions are not experimental/ empirical and tells us nothing about the real world

EPISTEMOLOGICAL CLAIM - truth and knowledge only comes in 2 ways that replicate humes fork - VIENNA CIRCULAR 

1. ANALYTICAL - true by definition universal, univocal meaning of language ie corpse - AYER argues that supernatural ideas like god, heaven, afterlife, soul are not univocal - they mean different things to different faith traditions = therefore religious ideas/ experiences are philsophically meaningless and nonsense 

2. EMPIRICAL - tested by sense/ experiment - AYER argues that supernatural ideas like god, heaven afterlife, soul are not empircal they cannot be seen/ touched heard = therefore religious ideas/ experiences are philsophically meaningless and nonsense 

philsopheres who follow this principle argue that RE is not true by definition/ testable with evidence - be dismissed = meaningless/ nonsense. Spiritual ideas are not agreed/ uniform - cannot be seen.                                                                                                                         types of verification 1. STRONG- prove it true/ false in practise here/ now 2. WEAK - known in principle to verify with the statement. strong verification better than weak - conditions are stricter and more empirial 

• god exists - cannot be proven/ shown to be provable - not empirical hypothesis. because god is transdcendent - non physical gods actions can only be infered by design 
• ayer does not advocate athesim because if god talk is nonsense - this is incompatible with atheists who talk meaningfully about the idea of god 
• ayer claims that god is not a proposition - expresses no facts - use of nouns in religion gives the illusion of correspondence 
• ayer says that maby theists agree with him because they accept god is transcendetal and mysterious - means admission of god being unintelligible 
• ayer dismisses intuition as a method of knowing god because intuitions are ineffable - beyond description/ explanation - means intuition is non empirical and contains facts - just subjective 
• we cannot known god from religious exp because RE cannot be compared to experiencing a yellow patch - synthetic and verifiable 
• believes religious exp is interesting but expresses no knowledge - theists may believe their experiences are cognitve - if not empirical = self deception 

• 1. statements are not verifiable - contradictory
• 2. we often have things we might know but cannot verify - two people can look at the same situation yet seen them very differently - ayer sees RL as meaningless could reflect his voew on religion?
• 3. some philosophers reject the verification principle because it is far too narrow view of the purpose of language - not all statements verifable - including historical ones
• 4. religious language is weak according to the weak verification principle ie god can verify his own existences = the weak verification principle can be fulfilled 
• 5. HICKS ESCHATOLOGICAL VERIFICATION suggests to the truth of religious statements will be verifiable when we die 
• 6. HARE argues that unverifiable statements can be meaningful and impact a persons life in a real way - he calls these BLICKS 
• 7. too narrow, assertion/ assumption, self contradictory, verification cant be verified, all empirical claims are only ever temporal and provisional 

the truth of religious statements can be weakly verified in prinicple by stating that at the end of life we will be able to hypothetically know if there is a spiritual dimension 

the truth of religious statements can be strongly verified in practise because we will all die and reach the end of the road and see whats there ie road analogy 

the belief/ experience of the believer can in principle be verified at the end when he does, if heaven is at the end of the road of life 

• verification has come difficulties - some scholars rejected verification and developed falsification principle

• scientific falsification - popper applied this principle to scientific statements, all ** cannot be verified but they can be falsified - uses white swan example

• philsophical falsification - flew applied this principle more widely to religious statements RS are meangingful if we can identify the conditions that would cause us to reject them 

• flew argued believers so committed to their belief that they hold them without evidence/ when evidence contradicts them - made their beliefs unfalsifiable 'death of 1000 qualifications' - too many excuses and illustrates with gardener parable and child dying of cancer - problem of evil

• falsification is stronger than verification - requires on piece of evidence 
• verfication is only provisional - we cannot be sure that all evidence is gathered 
• both fail their own criteria - verification cant be verifed and falsification cant be falsified

FLEW - uses parable of the gardener to show that if religious beliefs cannot be falsified they are meaningless/ empty/ vacuous - RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS ARE UNFALSIFIABLE = MEANINGLES 

HARE -uses parable of lunatic and concept of blicks to show that unfalsifibale beliefs do not have to be meaningless  - all people religious/ non religious hold non empirical bliks which nonrational cannot be falsified - are meaningful because they form the basis for how they understand and react to the world - believed some bliks were correct and others were not - did not tell us how to distinguish between them - RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS ARE NON COGNITIVE, UNFALSIFIABLE BUT STILL MEANINGFUL WAYS OF ENGAGING WITH THE WORLD 

MITCHELL - uses parable of partisan and the stranger to show that unfalsifibale beliefs can be logical - belivers faith can be tested with evidence but there are still rational reasons to hold on to faith - beliver will not allow their faith to be decisively falsified but will accept the existence of evidence that could count against their belief - RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE DECISIVELY MEANINGFUL AND BASED ON RATIONALITY, PRIOR FAITH COMMITMENT 

FLEW - believer will not allow their assertion to be falsified by evidence - it becomes so qualified that it dies the death of a thousand qualifications - refusal to allow falsification renders theological utterances - meaningless. RS look like assertions are are intended to be cognitive but flew says they are not - example of fatherly love of god for his children illustrates spite of no loving intention the believer maintains/ qualifies their belief 

HARE- lunatic uni student believes teachers will muder him, he will not change his mind- this parable shows the problem with flews theory - there is no evidence that can be counted against/ falsifies his belief, asserts nothing = meaningless/ delusional/. assertions that cannot be falsifed are still meaningful -bliks - sane and insane 

MITCHELL - a parable of the partisan - faith is based on reasons, the lunatics is not because bliks do not have reasons - flew is right to say that RS are assertions because the partisan is making an assertion about the stranger - explains and makes sense of the strangers behaviour 'god is love' is equivalent to 'the stranger is on our side' both are not conlusively falsifiable and can be treated in 3 ways 1. provisional hypothesis than can be discarded with evidence 2. articles of faith 3. empty statements that mean nothing. the believer denies the first but does not have to slip into the third

BRAITHWAITE - religious statements are not cognitive but moral claims that express attitudes

SWINBURNE - unfalsifiable beliefs are meaningful because they can also be true, even if they cannot be observed ie toys becoming alive in the cupboard - toy story

HARE - religious statements are unfalsifiable, but still meaningful ways of engaging with the world 

MITCHELL - religious statements cannot be decisively falsified but are still meangingful , based on rationality 

• before aquinas it was believed that any description of god as limiting/ misrepresenting 
• in response it was argued that we restrict descriptions of god to what he is not
• shown by the example of a ship - you will come nearer to god by the negative attributes 
• strengths - not limiting/ misleading, not anthromorphic, applicable to all cultures
• weaknesses - is god comparable to a ship? negatives no helpful, negatives amount to nothing, what are you worhipping? scriptures use positive descriptions 

2 TYPES OF LANGUAGE 

1. UNIVOCAL - meaning is clear/ exact in all circumstances ie with god/ humans

 
2. EQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE - meanings is unclear/ there are multiple meanings ie gods love is not like human love 

ANALOGY - partial similarity between 2 things or ideas - analogy is a compromise/ middle way between univocal and equivocal language - avoids anthropomorphism 

ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION - there is a point of comparision between earthly things and god, all good attributes come directly from god - gods attributes causes our attributes - uses the baker example - bread is good because the baker is good 

EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTION - god is our efficient cause/ it is meaningful to make comparisons since we are the effect/ cause, but the cause does not posses this characteristic - uncaused

INTRINSIC ATTRIBUTION - where the cause is both the cause/ effect, being made in gods image is an example, god is the cause and effect

REJECTED VIA NEGATIVA - does not explain why some words are used but not others, believers want to talk about god 

ANALOGY - partial similarity between 2 things or ideas - analogy is a compromise/ middle way between univocal and equivocal language - avoids anthropomorphism 

ANALOGY OF PROPORTION - proportionate relationship between all things and god is the ultimate cause/ point of correspondence ie god has life - is the cause of life - giver of life 

REAL PROPORTION - humans posses wisdom but in comparison to gods is like foolishness it must be scaled up

METAPHORICAL PROPORTION - god is not literally like a word/ light, it is a metaphor which must be scaled up

REJECTED UNIVOCAL/ EQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE - religious words like holy are not univocal, univocal word anthromorphises god. equivocal language is too subjective 

believers treat phrases ie god is good - as propositional, cognitive fact and aquinas would agree that analogies communicate facts - in limited ways

logical positivists say analogies cant be verified = non cognitive 

• agrees with aquinas that we should use analogies to avoid univocal/ equivocal language
• we should use models which qualify our understanding and qualifiers relate them to god with more accuracy ie creation 
• we create things so we have a model of what creation means but the creation of god is qualified by it being ex nihilo
• MODELS - points of reference things we know that aid our understanding ie love, freind, power
• QUALIFIERS - things that relate it to God more accurately ie omnibenevolence, unconditional friend, omnipotent 

a model is a small inferior version of something but similar 

a qualfier is the superior elevated realitythat the model points 

• are analogies meaningless? hume said god is a metaphysical being, cannot be meaningfully compared to anything in the world 
• analogies ignore gods otherness
• aquinas use of analogy tells us nothing new 
• aquinas analogies are based on his religious assumptions = literal beliefs about creation
• should we describe god with negative/ evil analogies?
• analogies cannot be verified empircally
• analogies only works for people who already play the language game 

REPRESENTATIVE SYMBOL - described with adjectives and contains 5 characteristics 

• 1. point beyond themselves, something ultimate, nonempirical, transcndntal which cant be grapsed directly 
• 2. allows participation in the reality they represent it expresss the being/ meaning of that which it represens
• 3. cannot be created at will, symbols must be accepted, understood, expresed by a group, if rejected the symbol is lost
• 4. opens up new dimensions of reality, all access to ultimate reality
• 5. intergrating/ disintergrating power - symbols include creative effect and exlude destructive effect individuals and groups 

discursive symbol - these are signs - which point beyond themseles but have no direct connection to what they represent 

symbols refer 2 types of approaches. 1. PHENOMENOLOGICAL - ordinary objects used in specific way to give them meaning, cant express whether experience is valid. 2. ONTOLOGICAL - deaks with the nature of being and the world becomes symbolic 

PRIMARY SYMBOLS - lead us directly to god 

• speak of divine actions such as creation, miracles, incarnation - often understood literaly 
• the realm of divine manifestations in infinite and concrete reality
• point directly to the object of religious symbols 

SECONDARY SYMBOLS - do not refer to god directly - general suppoting symbols ie water

• 'lord is my shepard' = lord = primary symbol, shepard = secondary poetic metaphor 

HOW TO JUDGE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS 

• is it valid/ adequate?
• are they authenti? non authentic symbols lose their experiential basis
• is it truthful?
• quality of the symbol, does it remain?

pitfals of symbols they can bring confusion and become idolatrous- you worship the symbol, not the referent 

• signs and symbols are used as indicators to communicate/ explain something
• a symbol is there to explain more complex concepts that we might not understand 
• a symbol is not signposting - should not been seen as completely separate to one thing
• if a symbol is going to have meaning it cant be made up
• to become a symbol the whole group has to understand meaning that is attributed 
• symbols help us to understand things that we might not know - help us understand spirituality
• symbols are very powerful and can unite, divide the community 

TYPES OF SYMBOLS 

• PRIMARY PHENOMENOLOGICAL - Ordinary objects used in specific ways that refer direct;y to god ie rosary beads
• SECONDARY PHENOMENOLOGICAL- ordinary objects used in ways that are nonreligous, dont refer directly to god ie water, light, dove
• PRIMARY ONTOLOGICAL- aspects of the whole world that refer directly to god ie death, birth
• SECONDARY ONTOLOGICAL - aspects of the whole world that are nonreligious, do not refer directly to god ie shooting stars 

SYMBOLS ARE MEANINGLESS AS THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED

SYMBOLS CANNOT REPRESENT GOD AS WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE REFFERENT TO WHICH THEY POINT 

SYMBOLS CAN BECOME OUTDATED IE PATRIARCHAL 

SYMBOLS CAN BE ABUSED AND MISUSED

HOW DO SYMBOLS ENABLE US TO PARTICIPATE IN A REALITY?

• symbols are non cognitive 
• symbols are anti realist - do not express objective truths
• symbols funtion to nurture moral/ community values 
• means of expressing deeply felt emotions of all kinds like loyalty/ prejudice 

4 functions of symbols 

• 1. arose emotion and action
• 2. stimulate and insipre community/ cooperative action
• 3. allow non literal expression 
• 4. clarify and reveal experiences of god 

aesthetic analogy - like a painter, poet - symbols awaken us to discern new qualities help us to see new things makes us receptive 

TYPES OF MYTHS 

• everyday myths refers to an imaginary story that we dismiss as fantasy
• theology myth means narrative - issue of truth, falsity was not a consideration - myths embody wisdom and existential issues 
• incarnation birth myths - good vs evil - some myths are aetiological attempt to explain the cause of things ie life, death, sin, suffering 
• myths in christianity are no longer seen as historical events - seen as non literal, non cognitive 
• jasper - myths tell stories, express intuitive insights, carry meanings
• barbour - myths have psychological funtion of reducing insecurities, expressing unconscious wishes and unite the community
• bultman - myths - supernaturalism - express a pre modern worldview that is incompatiable with a modern view of the universe. The modern believer must choose between two contradictory worldview - take the demythologising - ***** back the myth to find the existential truth in the text 
• jenkins - trie to differenciate the doctrines from stories they found in which are non literal

• JENKINS accused of being a heretic because he denies doctrines of faith 
• wants to separate the doctrine from the stories which have been told
• we should not take biblical stories literally = misunderstanding of their nature 
• maintains the bible is not to be used as an accurate account because stroies were passed on through generations - no direct personal experience 
• claims that we should demythologise :
• the last supper - edit story to serve purpose 
• virgin birth -greek language may be misinterpreted 
• resurrection - key issue is not historical accuracy but what it meant to the disciples 

• Part of the vienna circle, encouraged idea that only empirical statements were meaningful
• he is an anti realist, non cognitive view of RL
• believes language exists to enable us to picture the world
• liguistic statements correspond to facts - so empirical world provides the limits of our language 
• since god exists beyond the world we cannot talk of god 
• uses analogy of language games - only makes sense to members found within the game, not outside of it, no one outside the game is in a position to attack religious claims because they are simply misunderstood 
• have similarities ...
• 1. all games and al languages have rules, playing the game means learning about the rules
• 2. games and language both require participation 
• 3. there is no one unique game and no one unique meaning of language 
• 4. in games and language mistakes can be made 

• WITTGENSTEIN adopted a anti realist stance - argued meaning of language was found in how it is used- only members can understand 
• words do not have intrinsic meaning but our found only in context 'form of life' 
• language is not private but social 
• inner subjective language is like a private box - can have a beetle in the box, cant have a beetle in the box - actual contents is hidden/ irrelevant - there is no way of knowing 
• the meaning of language must be public with public rules 
• inner private sensations cannot be scrutinised 
• meaning is established by user agreement 
• limits of my language are the limits of my reality 
• argues 'god exists' only have meaning to the extent that we use shared language to describe these things 

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS COGNITIVE -ramsey and wisdom

wisdom - emphasied interpretation of LG not actual evidence ie within the design arguement theists and atheists look at the same evidence but interpret it differently

ramsey - argued logical positivism is too limiting, emotion involved in discussing belief means we cannot talk about god from a verification viewpoint

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS NON COGNITIVE - neilson and DZ phillips 

neilson - took language game theory and applied it to religion - wittgensteins fideism - different discourses are distinctive forms of life and have logic of their own, not subject to criticism 

DZ phillips - argued LG are inaccessible to outsiders, philosophers, sociologists will try to change RL into their own terms but faith statements cannot be evaluated by a criteria external to them 

SUCCEED

• provides criteria to judge the value ie can it be verified/ falsified?
• it is true that verifying the metaphysical/ transcendental is problematic 'metaphysical surplus'
• analogies allow us to compare religious to non religious ideas 
• everyone uses analogies

DO NOT SUCCEED

• non cognitive statements are still used in both non/religious contexts - not a unique problem
• all solutions to judge RL contain weaknesses that undermine credibility
• debate of RL continues - do not have an agreed paradigm - everyone has their own say
• tillich/ jenkins attempt to define symbol and myth as non literal have not been effective solutions - believers still define these as literal, factual/ cognitive accounts 
• wittgensteins language games do not work for believers - fact that religious believers try to convert other people shows religion is not a language game true to their own 'form of life'
• metaphysical ideas cant be described by analogy, accuracy cant be checked

YES 

• wittgenstein would argue that RL is a game that only makes sense to believers who play th game 
• issue of metaphysical surplus is not a stumbling block for believers - their faith, fideism, overcomes the surplus 
• tillich saw the value of RL as simply being an expression of ones personal beliefs

NO 

• atheist philosophers claims to understand RL - issue of what we understand it to be?
• atheist philosophers have beliefs and assertions about RL that are equally unverifiable as those of believers