Philosophy - Religious Language

if god is truly omnipotent, omnciscient and omnibenevolent then are words such as 'fatherlike' 'creator' and 'loving' effective, true and meaningful ways to describe him? can they do god justice? 

• agnostic thinkers god is something we can neither know or speak about. its pointless to talk about what god is like as god is unkown. 
• As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?
• this was taken from the Russell and Copelstone debate and shows an agnostic view. 
• theists have always tried to communicat their understanding of God via language in Hindusim - 'the supreme lord of all beings'.
• life after death, nature of the soul, enlightenment.

there are many specialist terms that religious people use which may not be fully understood by those who do not understand religion. 

religious language could be realted to simply the words found in the glossary that are to do with religion e.g. in Christianity. 

religious language involves old fashioned words from traditional acts of worship. in philosophy religious language is a much broader concept. 

TRUTH CLAIMS - thiests use language to make statements on what is or what is not the case. for example 'Jesus is alive today' much debate is concrened with teh use of this type of langauge. 

a truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true. 

'we are truly sorry and repent all of our sins' 

'how long, O Lord, must i call for help but you do not listen'

A02 - can be used in evidence that religion is no more than just hysteria - people encourage eachother to believe beccause of the warm feelings it gives them; responding to their emotional needs. 

A02 - however others argue that emotions are an important part of human life and it has a irghtful place in religion. 

PETER DONOVAN - religion encourages people to discipline their emotions in the rigth direction i.e. calimg anger or hatred towards others. smiliarly it can be used to evoke feelings of worship. in Hinudism 'Aum' is used to put people in a particular frame of mind.

religious language can be used performatively. 

words that announce something has happened/ is about to happen. 

'we now commit this body to the ground' 

'let us worship god' 

often the words have the same functions as an action. without words spoken at a wedding a husband and wife could not be married or a baby could not be baptised.  'i baptise you in the name of the lord'. 

religious language can be prescriptive. 

encouraging people to act in certain ways and not others. 

'you shalt no murder'

you shalt not steal'

you shalt not commit adultry' ------------- basically the 10 commandments.

A02 - religious lanuage therefore means alot more than just making truth claims. its often best understood in the context of worship, where it might accompany actions. e.g. lighting candles or particular events held.

• god is too extreme and ineffable to be put into words 
• as such we can never have any meaningful languge that can do justice to who god is 
• instead of trying to describe what god actually IS
• we should describe what he is not leaving everything to do with what is is lost. 

instead of saying god is 'good' we say 'god is without bad'

this emphasises the difference between god and humanity. descriptions that try to give god positive attributes should be avoided. 

'god is like a shepard' conveys false ideas about God that he is human like or has a body or is male of has faults. 

A02 - but if thats the best way we can understand something then why shouldnt we talk about him in a postive way? how can something like god be seen to be so great by talking about him in a way that 'is not'. 

if we talk about god being good, we do not really know what it means to say that 'god is good' 

pseudo dionysius stated that god is 'beyod assertion' and 'beyond denial' the via negative is the only way we can truly talk about god. 

the souls seearch for god is held back by the demands of the bodys and minds desire for understanding. 

its counterproductive to talk about god as though he can be understood through the senses or reason. its only through the recognition of the limits of humanity that spiritual progress can be made. 

we should stop trying to use logic and arguements because we aint gonna get no whereeee.

instead allow god to speak to you, and remain a mystery until then you will miss the point and develop and understanding of the idea of god that is too small. 

Maimonides - emphasised the use of negative terminology and lanuague to describe god. we can know he exits but know nothing about him because he is not likle humans. he is beyond description.

Brian Davies - argues against the negative use of langauge top describe god and suggets that describing somrhign in terms of what it is not does not give you any idea of what it it. declaring that god is not a wombat does not help you come closer to what he is. im thinking of an object its not a trumpet, binoculars or a bike so what is it? 

the via negativa may not work for someone who began by knowing nothing about God. 

in the ontological arguement anslem describes god as 'that than which nothing greater can be concieved' does this description make god seem too small? 

speaking analogically.

positive truth claims made about god that can be conveyed in stories.

in theology myths arent neccessarily accurate but suggests truths that might be hard to express in other ways. 

they have the intention to encourage a particular attitude of people 

depper understanding of the moral consequences and appropriate behaviour

a story or myth is left to the readers interpretation

• culturally determined 
• focused on a particular geographical location/historical period 

• some elements may be lost in translation 
• myths could take on a meaning the writer never anticipated
• distorting the original communication

ADVANTAGES

• gives a visual way of understanding abstract ideas
• stories can be so vivid the myth can be rememberd even if the religion dies out 
• ideas expressed in myth form can be easier to communicate 
• several meanings can be converged into one story or myth
• can return to them again and again to find new meanings.

DISADVANTAGES

• no precise way of understanding our the writer wants the myth to be viewed
• religion can later be interpreted in the wrong way
• may only be truly understood in a certain group of people 
• may lose their original meaning which defeats the point of a myth

genesis creation stories all point that they were supposed to be understood as myths.

Ateiological myths= set to origins of the puzzling features in the world.

to take creation stories historically, literally and scientificallytrue youd be missing the point.

A02 - some say that to suggest words of god as myths comes too close to suggesting the bible is false

A02 - evolutionary theories produced evidence that would contradict the bible, they may go hand in hand and help the idea that myths are supposed to be taken non literally. 

allows intelligent, rational christian people to carry on their faith in christ whilst accepting scientific discoveries. 

Rudolph Bultmann ---

• new testamnet was never trying to make historical fact
• expression or belief was made through the language of myth 
• point of gospel,what direction did people want to take their lives in relation to and understanding of god. intelligent, modern, literate people could not take miraculous events seriously. 
• christianity should not be rejected 
• demythologise the bible.

John Hick ---

• took up Bultmanns idea of demythologising the bible in such a fast changing world
• jesus was not literally god in human form but a pictoral way of expressing the importance jesus to god and his godliness. 
• no literal meaning 

central beliefs should be taken literally not as myth 

if events such as jesus feeds 5000000000000 however many it is arent taken as true then there is a danger that the bible just becomes a guide on how to be nice to people and may question gods nature. 

looking at the world in a rational scientific way isnt always the best way of looking at things.

if modern society has difficulty accpeting myths are truths then they need to change. 

SUMMARY: 

using myths can create more problems in religion than solutions to understanding religious language. its hard to know how far interpreting language as mythical rather than literal should go. 

its hard to know the central truth, what embelishment can be stripped away and how the myth is to be understood. 

just another way of saving positive things about god. 

all language is symbolic - we use shapes letter and numbers to stand for things

secular and religious language - figurative, we recognise its metaphorical without having to be told. 

symbolic language used when talking about god i.e. he is my rock but should we take this metaphorically or literally? 

this helps convey feelings or emotions that are hard to express otherwise may help to indetify themsleves with a particular group. 

A02 questions to ask:

• Do you think the symbols are effective? Could the same thing have been said without symbols
• anthropomorphism (the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object)? 

made a distinction between signs and symbols

signs = stand for something else, as long as everyone agress on what it stands for it doesnt matter what it is. 

symbols = participates in the object represented. evokes feeling i.e a flag is patriotic and may create feelings of loyalty. 

all religous ideas and langauge were symbolic pointing beyond themselves to 'being itself' which was how he understood the nature of god.

A02 - Macquaire argues with tillich and suggests a sign can have an intrinsic connection with what it signifies 'clouds are a sign of rain'

this contradicts tillichs claim that the function of a symbol is not a sign. symbols and signed were two hard to distinguish between categories.  

the value of symbols provoke us in an existential response and an understanding in terms of 'similarity of relation'

existential response - symbols remind us of feelings i.e theists are reminded of feeling cleansed when dipping themsleves into water. we should have this same emotional response to God. 

simiality of relation - symbols can work in the same ways as analogies. light is to the world as christ is to us. in buddhism the journey of the lotus flower from down in muddy pond to the surafce of the water represnting personal journey and enlightenment. 

Different symbols can compliment or contradict each other – not to be treated like a theory where one is true and the other is false.

Instead, convey a persons own interpretation and feeling-it can be part of private as well as public religion.

 E.g. hammer and sickle – could mean hope, strength, unity or fear and repression.

Perhaps religious symbols are tied to particular cultures or times in history and their meanings can only be properly understood by those who believe.

The Verification Principle

Beliefs and concepts are investigated to attempt to discover whether or not they are coherent or whether there is evidence for or against to distinguish what is true/ false.

Some philosophers argue statements such as ‘God exists’ and ‘God is love’ etc are neither true or false but meaningless.

We can only discuss statements which mean something and according to some, religious statements lack any kind of meaning at all.

There is no point in raising questions because there is nothing to talk about!

The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not God exists, or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. It is solely concerned with working out whether or not religious language means anything. 

Some philosophers have argued that religious statements, such as ‘God exists’, ‘God is love’ and so on are neither true nor false, but meaningless.

There is no point, according to some thinkers, of even raising these questions, because there is nothing to talk about.

Philosophical discussion about meaning often identifies two different ways in which a word or phrase might mean something.

The key role of ‘Religious Language’ is God-talk, that is, being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent manner. The problem arises when we consider ‘what can be said about God?

• you can speak and write about God, because God is a reality. 

• statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real.

Wittgenstein raised questions on the meaning of language – inspired debates worldwide.

‘the meaning of meaning’

How meaning is conveyed from one person to another and the neccessary conditons for something to have any meaning at all. he had a strong influence in the vienna circle. 

These people held the belief that theological interpretation of events and experiences belonged in the past, to an unenlightened age when ‘God’ was used as an explanation for what science could not yet master.

Augustine Comte 

Comte – theological way of looking at reality was outdated and Vienna Circle took up this idea.  They held that empirical evidence was the key to understanding what was and what was not meaningful

The ‘positivist’ age, where only useful form of evidence for investigation was that which was available to the senses – tested in a scientific way.

The verification principle: if a statement is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless.

The Vienna  Circle concluded that religious statements were meaningless, on the basis that they do not satisfy any of these criteria, because religious language claims are subjective and cannot therefore be empirically tested and verified.

A J Ayer observed that, since the existence of God cannot be rationally demonstrated, it is not even probable, since the term ‘god’ is a metaphysical term referring to a transcendent being which cannot therefore have any literal significance.  

As such, Ayer observed that the same had therefore to be the case for atheistic and agnostic statements, since any  statement which includes the term ‘god’ is meaningless.  

‘The notion of a being whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all’.

Ayer argued that, since claims about God’s existence cannot be contradicted, they are not ‘significant propositions’ – they are neither true nor false, but cannot be valid.

Analytic statements

• Propositions which define meanings of words.  No need to check if true/false as we know them to be either true or false. E.g. a kilogram is a unit of mass = true analytic statement. 

• Also includes tautologies (statements which say the same thing twice e.g. ice is icy) and mathematical statements (3x4=12).

Synthetic statements

• Information about reality e.g. ‘It is rainy today’ or ‘this sandwich has ham in it’
• To qualify as meaningful, they had to be verifiable using empirical evidence

Can one meaningfully talk of a transcendent metaphysical God acting (creating sustaining, loving being) in a physical empirical world?

Ayer was not simply concerned with talking about God, but also with all other religious language, including talk of an after life, which cannot be verified either. 

Talk of a soul he dismissed as meaningless since it is a metaphysical assertion to say that ‘there is something imperceptible inside a man, which is his soul or his real self, and that it goes on living after he is dead’.

Talk of religious experience was also soundly dismissed by Ayer as being talk of experience which cannot be validated empirically: ‘The fact that people have religious experiences is interesting from the psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply that there is such as thing as religious knowledge’.

Ayer was not denying that people make statements that are important to them, such as ‘God answers my prayers’ they are just unverifiable so have no factual significance. So, how do you verify a proposition?

Practical verifiability- refers to statements that can be tested in reality. If I said ‘Norwich City wear yellow and green shirts’ this is verifiable in practice. However, if I said ‘there is life on other planets in the our galaxy’ this is meaningful and verifiable in principle, but in practice we lack the technical ability to visit every planet and look for life.

‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification - Ayer distinguished between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification. Strong verification applied anything that can be verified conclusively using empirical evidence.

Weak verification refers to statements that can be shown to be probable by observation and experience . Ayer suggested WV should be form used as SV has no real application e.g. ‘All humans are mortal’.

A02- Strong verification could not refer to ‘basic statements’ of ‘single experiences’ verified by their occurrence. He also saw weak verification as far too liberal allowing meaning to any statement whatsoever.

Ayer suggested two new criteria:

• Directly verifiable statements are ‘observation statements’ (a statement that records an actual or possible observation. E.g. It is snowing at the North Pole).

• indirectly verifiable statements are those which are not directly verifiable or analytic themselves but can be supported by other directly verifiable statements (E.g. The existence of black holes).

• the theory itself does not pass the test as a meaningful statement. The verification theory cannot be verified by sense experience and so is not a meaningful synthetic statement; and if it is analytic, it is giving a new sense to the word ‘meaningful’, a new definition which we do not necessarily have to accept.

• The idea that all meaningful synthetic statements have to be empirically verifiable also causes practical problems. Many of the claims in science, for example the existence of black holes, cannot be verified by sense experience. Many historical statements of events that have happened in the past cannot be tested now using the senses.

• Meaningless statements such as ‘ I had a weird dream last night’ would have to be dismissed because there is no way of testing them using the senses, but statements such as these do have meaning to us. Just like “I love you”.

• Logical positivists accepted that there was a problem, and that they were disallowing too much as meaningless, so the theory was weakened to allow for ‘indirect experience’. However there was still a desire to dismiss all meaningless talk of the supernatural, of god, of life after death and other theological concepts such as sin and salvation.

• Religious truth claims such as ‘God created the world’ were ruled out as unsound.

argued that religious truth claims are verifiable, because they are ‘eschatological verifiable’. He meant that although we cannot test and see at the moment, in this life and world, whether the good will be rewarded, or whether God really does exist and love us, after death these claims will be verified.

Although critics of John Hick have argued that ‘eschatological verification’ is not possible, because even if there is an afterlife and even if we do have a physical senses in it with which to perceive things, they will not necessarily be the same senses that we have now; and if there is no afterlife, then there will be no one to do the verifying.

A02 - It became clear and Ayer himself agreed, that the theory could not be adjusted so that scientific and historical statement were seen to be meaningful and yet religious claims ruled out.

The falsification principle was developed as a modification of the verification principle, once it had been accepted that the verification principle was unsound.

In order to say something which may possibly be true, we must say something which may possibly be false.

Falsification:  The philosophical theory that an assertion is  meaningless if there is no way in which it could be falsified.

The falsification principle is not concerned with what may make something true, but with what may, in principle, make it false. 

The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, or testability.

Albert Einstein's theory of gravity was a scientific theory as it was potentially falsifiable, meaning the truth or falseness of it could be tested against empirical observations of the universe.

If this principle is applied to religious belief than falsification draws in to question the nature of claims such as ‘Jesus was the incarnation of God’ or ‘God loves me’. If these claims are scientific they must be able to be scrutinised against sense observations and thus potentially be falsified.

Flew draws a parallel between the believer and a religious person who claims ‘God loves us as a father loves his children’ and ‘god has a plan’. 

According to Flew, when these beliefs are challenging, e.g. when encountering evil and suffering, religious believers do no accept they are wrong.  Instead, they qualify their claim by saying that God’s love is not like human love, or God’s plans are a mystery to us.

Eventually, there is nothing left of the original assertion.

e.g god is all powerful but he didnt prevent burricance Katrina?

Flew concludes that claims religious believers make about the nature and activity of God, die a ‘death by a thousand qualification’, in the end the believers are saying nothing at all because their statements are empty.  They are neither meaningful nor meaningless but ‘vacuous’.

Flew – a statement is to be scientific, if it has to assert something and at the same time deny the opposite of that assertion.

Comments on Flew’s point:

‘An assertion which does not rule out anything but rather is compatible with any conceivable state of affairs, does not appear to assert anything either’.

e.g. if I said I was standing on a mountain , that would rule out some states of affairs – I would not be sitting down or lying on a beach or reading in the bath.

If asked, ‘Under what circumstance would your claim to be standing on a mountain be false? I could answer with some examples, ‘If I were weeding my gardener, my claim to be standing on a mountain would be false.

Flew argues that when a theist talks of God and his attributes, they refuse to rule out any states of affairs.  If asked ‘under what circumstances would your statement that God loves us be false? They would not be able to think of any.

Whatever happens, however cruel/ frightening, they would still cling to their original assertion, all the while qualifying it with claims that God’s love is mysterious.

For Flew – a claim which cannot be falsified is not really saying anything at all.

Flew’s position: Theological utterances are not assertions; they have no cognitive meaning

Hare’s position: Flew is right to say theological utterances are not assertions, however,  they are ‘bliks’ and so are meaningful

Mitchell’s position: Theological utterances are meant as assertions and they are very meaningful to those who hold onto them.

‘I must begin by confessing that, on the ground marked out by Flew, he seems to me to be completely victorious.'

However, this does not mean Hare is in complete agreement with Flew (notice the ‘on the grounds marked out by Flew’). Hare uses a parable of his own to suggest that Flew is standing on the wrong ground to be able to understand religious assertions. 

Hare’s example outlined how the lunatic saw the world and nothing could change his view of the world. Hare notes that according to Flew’s criteria the lunatic’s assertion would be meaningless as there is no behaviour being demonstrated by the dons that would support his theory. 

Hare coined the word ‘blik’ to describe the way in which people see and interpret the world (a ‘blik’ being a basic, unprovable assumption that gives explanation to the user). The important characteristic of the ‘blik’ is that it is not falsifiable and it does not make factual claims about the world that can be tested.  No evidence of argument can demonstrate the falseness of a ‘blik’. 

‘Bliks’ are ways of seeing the world and the difference between different people’s ‘bliks’ cannot be solved by observations of what the world is like. 
Flew makes a mistake by treating religious statements as though they are scientific explanations (see Wittgentsein). Flew accepted Hare’s idea of ‘bilks’ (he even thanks him for introducing the concept to philosophy) but adds, Christianity does not rely on ‘bliks’ as part of their statement of faith stating ‘the man who reassures himself with theological arguments for immortality is being as silly as the man who tries to clear his overdraft by writing his bank a cheque on the same account.

Flew states Christianity makes ‘assertions’ about the universe and God which form the basis of theological apologetics. To base your theology on a ‘blik’ would be make your religious activity fraudulent, or merely silly. When Christians claim God really did this, then by implications this claim is testable or falsifiable and so not merely a ‘blik’.

Mitchell tackles Flew’s ‘dying a death of a thousand qualifications’ comment. He does this by using the same example as Flew that religious people assert God as loving whilst witnessing acts that seem contrary to this. 

For Mitchell statements like ‘It is God’s will’ (which Mitchell parallels with the ‘he is on our side’ statement from the partisan) would be thoughtless and insane (vacuous formulae) if the believer ‘blandly dismisses [what he witnesses] as of no consequence, having no bearing upon his belief.’ However, Mitchell states the believer ‘...experiences in himself the full force of the conflict.’ In other words puts what he sees into a wider context of the whole of his doctrine and becomes a ‘significant article of faith’.

By this Mitchell agrees with Flew that religious utterances are not ‘bliks’ but indeed assertions. However, unlike Flew, Mitchell sees these assertions as explanations not an assertion ‘...so eroded by qualifications that it was no longer a qualification at all’ (Flew).

In conclusion Mitchell states that significant utterances of Christian belief and doctrine can be treated in one of three ways...

‘God loves humanity’ is not conclusively falsifiable, but can by treated as follows:

• As provisional hypotheses to be discarded if experience goes against them
• As significant articles of faith
• As vacuous formulae (perhaps out of a desire for reassurance) to which experience makes no difference and which make no difference to life 

We do not have to be able to specify what would count against an assertion in order for that assertion to be meaningful.

We cannot specify what would count against scientific theories involved, but this does not make theories meaningless to us

Because we accept that this is undoubtedly something which, hypothetically at least, could count against those theories, if only we understood what their implications were.

For Swinburne’s objection to work, we would have to allow that something could count against the existence of God, or nature of God as traditionally understood, even if we cannot specify what that might be.

Richard Swinburne in ’The Coherence of Theism’ (1977) argues that factual statements can be falsified. However, some existential statements cannot be falsified but this does not stop the statements being meaningful.

‘Some of the toys which to all appearances stay in the toy cup- board while people are asleep and no one is watching, actually  get up and dance in the middle of the night and then go back to  the cupboard leaving no traces of their activity.’ This can be  neither proven true or false (verified or falsified) but it can be  understood and is therefore meaningful.

The principles of verification and falsification both present strong challenges to religious belief.

However, they are not the only ways in which to assess religious language, and for many believers the language they use to talk about God is symbolic, mythological or just different from other language.

Therefore, believers might claim that the principles of falsification and verification are not relevant challenges to religious language as the nature of religious language is different from that supposed in the verification and falsification debates.

However, could it be that verification and falsification are themselves just ‘bliks’ or an exercise in language games?

What is the purpose of language?

the purpose of language is  to enable us to represent the world. Wittgenstien’s concluding sentence was ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.’

He became interested in analysing how words were used in various ‘forms of life’ or settings.

he stated that language did not exist to just describe or ‘picture’ things. Wittgenstein promoted a functional theory of meaning which saw language as having an ‘anti-realist’ or postmodern purpose.

Wittgenstein’s argues that his role is to let the fly out of the fly bottle. In other words, philosophers resemble flies trapped in the jar of language, buzzing around and not really getting anywhere due to misunderstanding  what words do.

Language statements, including religious ones, are not intended to be true or false (verifiable or falsifiable) for everyone, but only for those who are within that ‘form of life’.  An example would be a scientific statement would be true or false for a scientist in a scientific community but not, necessarily, for an artist. 

In every ‘form of life’, by which Wittgenstein meant, science, mathematics, poetry, sport and religion etc, words and phrases are used within the context of their subject area – the ‘game’.  All forms of life have their own language and have their own rules concerning meaning. 

The language in the game is non-cognitive – it is not about making universally true statements, but about communicating meaning to the other players in the same game. 

Language can be used correctly or incorrectly within the form, but its primary useage is not to make verifiable or falsifiable statements, rather it is to communicate a meaning amongst others within that form. Non-players of a particular game cannot criticise the language of a player and in order to utilise it one needs to learn and understand the conventions and the ‘criteria of coherence’ which can only be understood by playing the right game by the right rules.

Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use

As far as religious language is concerned, Wittgenstein was suggesting that it is meaningful when understood within the context of its own language game.  Those who don’t play the game will hear religious language and misunderstand it.  He called this a ‘category mistake’.  For example, if a believer speaks of their ‘soul’ and a scientist then tries to find it as a physical object, this would be a clash of language games and this would be ‘... a blunder that’s too big.’

Wittgenstein saw religious language  as one that could not be analysed via the narrow criteria of the verificationists. Religion cannot be spoken of and analysed in a scientific way as it is not the same thing. This view led some to suggested Wittgenstein’s ideas resembled Fideism (the belief that faith is more important than reason – beliefs cannot be subject to rational analysis). However, those who accuse him of this forget his principle that it is function within the game that makes language meaningful.

D Z Phillips (Dewi Zephaniah 1934-2006) developed Wittgenstein’s approach noting religious statements  cannot be understood in a literal way but they still have a profound meaning for those who make them.

• It highlights the non-cognitive nature of religious language
• religious language is often allegorical, metaphoric or simply talking of something outside of human empirical understanding.
• It distinguishes it from other types of language.
•  the language game theory accepts religious language as being distinct in its own game but with wider, eschatalogical, implications
• Language games provide boundaries for the correct use of language.  each form of life has its own set of rules.
• Believers can be initiated into the rules of language. the language is accessible and so can gain meaning.
• Language games defend language against criticisms from other ‘forms of life’.
• truth is understood as relative and statements are to be judged against their context and not on whether they are inherently or objectively true or false.