Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Unit 4: Religious Language - Coggle Diagram
Unit 4: Religious Language
A: The Inherent problems of RL
2. Sacred texts & religious pronouncements unintelligible
Metaphysical lang needs explanation (sin, salvation, atonement)
David Hume
- metaphysical speculation lacks a solid foundation in empirical evidence & should be treated with scepticism.
Worldview shape how we see the world- if you have a particular Christian 'blik' perhaps we understand rel language.
Special status of religious books hard to understand
Language of worship unintelligable to non-believers.
Wittgenstein
- learn the rules of the game.
Ayer
maintained it was meaningless.
Challenge of interpreting literal/ metaphorical language
3. RL not a common shared base and experience
insider/outsider problem - Ninian Smart -
methodical agnosticism
through
eidetic vision
. Eidetic vision, as proposed by Smart, allows individuals to glimpse aspects of reality that are not readily accessible through ordinary sensory perception.
Problem of sharing understanding experience with those outside of faith
1. Limitations of language for traditional concepts of God
How can believers communicate faith when it is beyond understanding?
Thomas Aquinas
- profound rel experience whilst in mass . "
All I have written seems like straw"
. God cannot be captured.
God concept abstract, mystery, transcendent
4. Difference between cognitive & non-cognitive language
Challenge if RL is cognitive it should be possible to prove false.
If non-cognitive, it is difficult to understand the subjective nature.
C: RL as non-cognitive analogical
RL better understood as expressions of interpretations/ feelings rather than fact.
Aquinas & Maimonides
held view that God was not comprehensible
Thomas Aquinas
3 types of statement
equivocal
analogical
When we speak of God, we speak analogically.
God is our efficient cause (Aristotelian)
Analogy of attribution
God is compared to things in world because he is the cause/ source.
Analogy of proportion
God is compared to things but the comparison is scaled.
univocal
Ian Ramsey
Models
RL uses models, similar to science (DNA). Words like righteous, loving, just, atonement have a human reference point, but they are models. e.g. first
cause
(model)
Qualifiers
We use qualifiers to signal a distinction - they adapt the model and provide disclosure e.g. infinitely/ perfectly/
first
(qualifier) cause
Disclosure - penny drop
Religious Language
, 1957
Challenges
Assumes there is a God to talk about
Swinburne argues for use of univocal language about God
Hume challenges use of analogy (only useful if you understand both points of comparison)
Futile to communicate about a being so unlike anything known
Analogy unhelpful as God is unknowable "all I have written seems like straw"
B: RL as cognitive but meaningless
Logical Positivism
no statement has meaning unless the truth or falsehood of the statement can be established by philosophical or empirical means
influenced by
Hume
(skeptic, rejected metaphysics). Also differentiated between statements of facts (empircally verifable) relation of ideas (logically true)
LP developed by Vienna Circle, 1920s/1930s
three types of statements: analytic or logical, synthetic or empirical or meaningless.
Influenced by
Wittgenstein
early work
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
A.J. Ayer
VP in practice/ VP in principle
Developed emotivism/ prescriptivism
Strong verification/ Weak verification
Language, Truth, and Logic
, 1936
(experienced NDE which weakened conviction there is no God)
Challenges
Some scientific statement cannot be verified
Ethical/ emotional claims cannot be verified
VP doesn't fulfil own criteria
Only present statements can be verified
Religious statements
can
be verified -
Keith Ward & John Hick
Falsification
Anthony Flew
Theology and Falsification
delivered paper 1950
Influenced by Karl Popper
that statements should be falsifiable, rather than verifiable.
John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener to highlight how religious people will not allow their statement about God’s existence to be falsified.
Challenges:
R.M Hare
Bliks (unverifiable/ non-cognitive)
Basil Mitchell
Partisan & Stranger. RL is cognitive
Richard Swinburne
VP & FP not useful as statements can be meaningful even if they cannot be falsified. Toys in cupboard
Challenges
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”
religious language unique - expresses the wholly other, unknown, unseen...
religious believers want to speak cognitively (express facts) e.g. God exists
D: RL as non-cognitive symbolic
John Randall
RL performed different function to scientific language. Requires different analysis
RL is mythological, religious belief is symbolic
Distinguishes between
sign
and
symbol
RL does not need to match objective reality - Anti-realist/ Coherence theory of truth
4 Functions of symbol
Social
Communication
Motivation
Clarification & disclosure
Influenced by Feuerbach
Paul Tillich
Also distinguishes between
sign
and
symbol
LP treats all words as signs rather than symbol. Symbols have power that cannot be killed by science.
Symbols allow people to express
ultimate
(holy/ numinous)
concerns
.
6 Characteristics of a symbol
Open up new levels of relality
Have multiple meanings
Participate in that which they symbolise
Cannot be manufactured
Point beyond themselves
Symbols can die
Understanding our image of God
Literal - non-symbolic as the ground of being
Symbolic - perfected human qualities or actions ascribed to God
Challenges:
People want assertions to refer to fact
Symbols take us nowhere - meaningless
What is a valid insight into ultimate reality and what is not?
Randall focuses too much on social
function
of religion than on ontological truth
Most religious people want to hold correspondence not coherence view of truth
unclear! Use RL to explain RL
E: RL as non-cognitive mythical
Myths present in all belief systems & cultures
2 Basic errors:
Fundamentalists interpret them literally
LPs reduce them to simply fiction
Must understand writers
Sitz im Leben
Myths are rich source of spiritual, moral, emotional truth
Mircea Eliade
popularised study of myth
Influenced by Jung
Myths help us differentiate between sacred (holy) and profane (everyday)
Many types of myth:
good vs evil
Evil, darkness & chaos threaten to take over, but goodness, light and order prevail
Easter story
Manichaeism
heroic
Jesus/ Buddha
Ian Barbour - Ideal | Problem | Salvation
creation
Non-cognitive, but useful
Origins of world and humanity
Features:
Water
Light
Land
Humanity
Challenges
Competing Myths
Meaning changes over time
Borrowed myths
Demythologisation & varying interpretations
Incompatible with scientific understanding of the world
Myths help to overcome fears of the unknown
Elements of fear, lack of control, mystery
Modern myths (dystopian fiction) serves this role:
Do not attempt to challenges science but speak to spiritual/ emotional needs
myths effective way of transmitting religious, social and ethical values.
Alasdair MacIntyre
Rather than analysing myths as true or false, we should analyse whether living or dead.
3 options:
Myths are fairy stories
Myths are not intended to be factual
Myths help us declare our place in society, God and purpose. This impacts behaviour
Do myths help bind communities together?
Do they shape human behaviour (ethics)?
Do they provide sense of purpose?
Do they inspire social action?
F: RL as non-cognitive Language Games
Ludwig Wittgenstein
1889-1951
Philosophical Investigations
Uses
language that can be put to use rather than truth/falsity.
"Don't ask me for the meaning, ask for the use."
Language works through language games - meaning only comes out of context. We need to understand/know the game we are participating in.
Coherence/ anti-realist
Forms of life
Challenges
Rejection of any 'true' proposition that can be empirically verified.
No meaningful conversation between different groups
No adequate meaning for word 'God'
Wittgenstein's analogy not a strong one - Rush Rhees