Religious Language

Question 1

Define Hume’s “Fork”.

Answer 1

The name given to one of Hume’s philosophical claims.

There are two areas about which we can have knowledge: matters of fact and relations between ideas.

Question 2

Who were the Vienna Circle?

Answer 2

A group of philosophers who met in early 20th century Vienna. Their theory of logical positivism inspired Ayer’s V.P.

Question 3

What is logicial positivism?

Answer 3

Scientific/ logically necessary statements alone have meaning. These statements must be of logic or capable of proof by empirical evidence.

Metaphysical statements (including religious statements) are meaningless.

Question 4

Define metaphysical statements.

Answer 4

Claims made about things beyond the empirical world.

Question 5

Define cognitive language.

Answer 5

Language which conveys factual information and is open to examination. It is mostly synthetic in nature.

Question 6

Define non-cognitive language.

Answer 6

Language of which it is inappropriate to ask whether or not it is factual and is open to examination.

Such language may make moral claims or it may convey emotions, give commands, etc.

Question 7

What is the verification principle?

Answer 7

A development of the Vienna Circle’s Logical Positivism.

AJ Ayer says that the meaningfulness of a statement relies on its verifiability.

Question 8

According to AJ Ayer, what are the two types of meaningful language?

Answer 8

Analytic statements - true by definition.

Synthetic statements - empirically verifiable.

Question 9

What is the difference between verification in practise and verification in principle?

Answer 9

Verification in practise is possible only when statements can be conclusively established empircally.

Verification in principle is possible when it can be stated what observations would make the statement verifiable in practise and doing so could be possible in some point in the future.

Question 10

What did Ayer conclude of unverifiable (in practise/principle) statements?

Answer 10

They have no factual meaning.

They are a “pseudo-proposition” (applied to statements i.e. “God exists” and “God is loving”).

Ethical statements are simply statements of approval or disapproval.

Question 11

What 3 things did A.J. Ayer say of religious statements?

Answer 11

They are:

• neither true or false
• meaningless
• pointless

Question 12

Strengths of the VP

Answer 12

• Straightforward, focuses on facts which can or cannot be verified.
• Aligned with a scientific approach. Considers scientific theories which cannot yet be verified.
• Ayer points to the need of being clear in one’s language. Some religious statements are obscure and unsupported. Philosophers of religion now think carefully of the nature of religious language.

Question 13

Weaknesses of the VP

Answer 13

• Straightforward does not mean true. Too many people value ethics, philosophy and aesthetics for it to be meaningless.
• V.P. assumes that science tells us everything important of the world. Many would disagree.
• Karl Popper says that the scientific method works through falsification, not verification. “V.P. is flawed.”
• Ayer’s criticisms of religious claims are not true of all religious arguments. The basis that existence of the universe is made by an external creative intelligence on the observation that Human minds are creative is no more irrational than other scientific assumptions.
• The VP itself cannot be empirically verified and is therefore meaningless. It is a recommendation rather than a factual statement.

Question 14

What is the basis of Anthony Flew’s Falsification Principle?

Answer 14

A statement is factually significant only if there is some form of evidence that could falsify it.

Question 15

Inspiration for FP.

Answer 15

Karl Popper - criticised VP that scientific method is falsification not verification.

Question 16

Support for the FP against religious statements.

Answer 16

Flew adopted and negatively presented John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener.

Religious believers will go to any length to stop anything counting against their faith claims.

Statements are continually modified/weakened to accommodate any challenge. They are empty statements.

Question 17

What did Flew say of God?

Answer 17

“God dies the death of a thousand qualifications”.

Question 18

Strengths of the FP.

Answer 18

• An improvement from the VP
• Flew, referring to the approach of some to religious beliefs: they are blinkered and refuse to take seriously the challenges to those beliefs. Instead, they make excuses.

Question 19

Weaknesses of the FP.

Answer 19

• Flew’s category is too rigid. Many aspects of experience are not in the same category as scientific fact and have deep significance for humans.
• Not all religious believers allow nothing to falsify any of their claims. The problem of evil makes many question or even lose their faith.

Question 20

Define eschatological verification

Answer 20

Hick’s view that the facts of Christianity will be verified/falsified at death.

Question 21

Define blik.

Answer 21

A term used by Hare.

A fixed and unalterable view of the world that is not an assertion but is non-cognitive and non-falsifiable.

Question 22

What are Hick’s claims of religious language?

Answer 22

• Cognitive

- Therefore, subject to verification

Question 23

What does Hick conclude of the “Parable of the Celestial City”?

Answer 23

• There is no evidence for whether or not the road leads to a celestial city
• Their views on this dictate the way they travel along it
• At the end of the journey, all will be made clear: one will be right and the other will be wrong.

Question 24

Evaluation of Hick’s EV 1)

Answer 24

+ Heaven is a possibility

• This does not mean it is true or a possibility. Atheists would dismiss the parable

C.A. There is evidence for life after death:

1) Near-death experiences
2) Memories of reincarnation

Question 25

Evaluation of Hick’s EV 2)

Answer 25

+ Strong support for religious claims being cognitive

• It can be verified but can never be falsified because of its nature, non-cognitive.

C.A. 1 Hick pointed to the fact that mathematical statements cannot be falsified.

C.A. 2 Atheists claiming that there is no life after death can be falsified but never verified, non-cognitive.

Question 26

Evaluation of Hick’s EV 3)

Answer 26

+ Hick claims that whenever we describe an experience, we are interpreting it. This supports that religious claims are cognitive.

• This might provide a basis for an argument that religious language is non-cognitive along the lines of Hare and his bliks.

Question 27

Is religious language cognitive or non-cognitive, according to R.M. Hare?

Answer 27

Non-cognitive.

Question 28

What does Hare’s “Parable of the Lunatic” illustrate?

Answer 28

All beliefs, religious and otherwise, are bliks.

Question 29

What are bliks?

Answer 29

Interpretations of the world that are not falsifiable.

They are deeply held, life-changing and therefore, crucial.

Question 30

Evaluation of R.M. Hare’s argument.

Answer 30

+ Explains why there is different factual claims between religions.

They are bliks, not cognitive statements. This explains why people are not convinced by evidence that seems to falsify their convictions.

+ Supports the view that religion gives a view that is used to interpret the whole of life in a range of distinctive ways.

• Makes religion very subjective as it depends on your view.

Flew pointed out that most theists regard their statements as cognitive. If there are no factual truths, then Christianity’s significance is simply the psychological and sociological benefits it may have.

Question 31

What is a language game?

Answer 31

Wittgensteins name for the idea that language has meaning within a particular (social) context.

Each context is governed by different rules, in the same way that each game is governed with different rules.

The meaning of a statement is nothing to do with vp/fp but with the context in which it occurs.

Each context has it’s own rules.

Question 32

Explain what makes religious language meaningful using language games.

Answer 32

Words do not indicate an object, but perform an action.

• Like playing games (rules and contexts)
• Wittgenstein said we should not ask for the meaning of a word but for it’s use

Language games are connected to a ‘form of (social) behaviour’
- speaking is an activity in which words gain their sense

Language is something that is learned from others
- the tone we learn it in indicates significance

The word “God” is not an object

• It’s meaning is in the context in which it is used
• The question should be “In what context should the word be used?”, instead of “What is God?”

Only those belonging to a religious tradition can fully understand and appreciate the emotion and aura surrounding religious statements such as “God loves me.”

This means that it is not a single language game, given the number off widely varying religious statements.

Religious language cannot be claimed true or false
- It’s meaning is defined by the used within their religious language game

Question 33

Giev 2 strengths of Wittgenstein’s Language Games.

Answer 33

+ Allows a range of meaning for language, rather than putting it into a ‘box’

+ Allows for religious statements to be believed in

Question 34

Give 2 weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s Language Games

Answer 34

• It is virtually impossible to enter a debate with those coming from another language game i.e theists vs atheists
• Religious believers think that religious claims are cognitive

Question 35

Concluding the cognitive / non-cognitive debate

Answer 35

• Most religious believers regard their faith statements as cognitive and open to investigation
• N-C Approaches of Hare & Wittgenstein reflect the different interpretations between religious believers
• These approaches may not be mutually exclusive:
  The central faith claims could be cognitive
  The interpretations/developments of the claims could be non-cognitive

Question 36

Give 3 approaches to the nature and meaning of religious language which are based on a religious context.

Answer 36

• Analogical approach (Aquinas)
• The Via Negativa (Pseudo-Dionysius, Maimonides)
• Symbolic approach (Tillich)

Question 37

Define analogy.

Answer 37

Explaining the meaning of that which is difficult to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference-frame.

Question 38

What is the Via Negativa?

Answer 38

“The negative way”. An approach to religious language that describes God in terms of what he is not.

Question 39

What is apophatic language?

Answer 39

The negative language used in the Via Negativa used to describe God. Talking about God in terms of what he is not.

God’s total otherness means that anything in the universe, including ourselves cannot be used to refer to him.

Question 40

What is kataphatic language?

Answer 40

The positive terms used to describe God. “Via positiva”. Talking of God in terms of what he is.

Characteristics found in humans and in the universe cannot be mirrored but can be meaningfully projected onto him.

Question 41

What 2 qualities does Aquinas assign to God in the Summa Theologica?

Answer 41

• Spaceless
• Timeless

Other qualities:
wholly simple, perfect, good, limitless, omnipresent, changeless.

Question 42

What does Aquinas think about language used to refer to God?

Answer 42

• He rejects the use of univocal language as it is limiting
• He rejects the use of equivocal language as it is meaningless

He adopts the language of analogy.

Question 43

What two forms of analogy does Aquinas apply to language which refers to God?

Answer 43

• The analogy of attribution

- The analogy of proportionality

Question 44

Explain the analogy of attribution.

Answer 44

Despite God’s essential difference from the universe, it is possible to say something about him.

When God created humans, he created them with the capacity for goodness, wisdom, etc.

These qualities are not identical to God’s nature but we can we can say that God is good, wise, etc.

That is to say, God possesses the qualities necessary to facilitate goodness, wisdom, etc. in Humans.

Question 45

Explain the analogy of proportionality.

Answer 45

This starts from the idea that created things have qualities proportionate to their nature.
- so Humans have goodness, wisdom, etc proportionate to their nature as human beings.

God is totally different from created things

In ascribing these qualities to God, Humans cannot know what it means for God. Their goodness, wisdom, etc. is a remote approximation to his.

God’s goodness is proportionate to the absolute perfection of his nature.

Question 46

What example does John Hick give of the analogy of proportionality?

Answer 46

The faithfulness of dogs is compared with that of Humans, which is not the same but totally different.

Question 47

Explain Ian Ramsey’s models, qualifiers, and disclosure situation.

Answer 47

• A 20th-century attempt to present Aquinas’ theory in a contemporary way
• A model is a term from our experience that can be applied to Good e.g. ‘good’
• A qualifier results from the recognition of God’s essential difference for us e.g. the adverb ‘infinitely’
• A disclosure situation is twofold:
  The use of the model together with the qualifier encourages in the person concerned an attitude of adoration and commitment
  God’s corresponding disclosure means that everyday experiences take on a new meaning

Question 48

Strengths of using analogy to talk about God.

Answer 48

+ Avoids the issues caused by the use of univocal and equivocal language.

+ Its use of observable experience makes the language cognitive

+ It encourages the believer to push beyond the limited meaning of goodness, wisdom, etc. that relates to everyday experience.

Question 49

Weaknesses of using analogy to talk about God.

Answer 49

• What can be said about God is limited, since God is essentially unknowable.
• Hick’s analogy does not work because neither dog nor human contains the idea of infinity.
• The same approach could be used to argue for negative language about God e.g. God is evil.
• Many do not agree with Aquinas’ view that evil is negative, a defect, so a counter-response on these lines would not work.

Question 50

Pseudo-Dionysius and his relationship to the Via Negativa.

Answer 50

He developed the via negativa to emphasise God as beyond human understanding to ensure that no language can limit God.

• He was a mystic, this fits with the Via Negativa
• Humans don’t know what good means so can’t use it to describe God
• God is “beyond assertion” and “beyond denial”
• Pseudo-dionysius claimed that God is nameless yet at the same time “has the names of everything that is”
• The above expresses the idea of God being imminent and omnipresent

Question 51

Who developed the Via Negativa?

Answer 51

Pseudo-dionysius

Question 52

Which Jewish scholar supported the Via Negativa?

Answer 52

Maimonides

Question 53

Why did Maimonides support the Via Negativa?

Answer 53

• Humans can know that God exists, but that is all
• He believed that to use positive aspects of God could limit and reduce God
• Accumulated negatives to be used. To illustrate this, he described the nature of a ship using only the negative statements.

Question 54

3 strengths and 3 weaknesses of the Via Negativa

Answer 54

+ It avoids making God a “thing”

• Most theists prefer talking positively of God’s qualities. It is difficult to worship a being referred to entirely in negatives

+ It avoids anthropomorphism and focuses on God’s transcendence instead

• The end result of such language might not be the God of theism Brian Davies showed that Maimonides’ use of a bank of negatives to describe a ship might equally describe a wardrobe

+ It is true to the mystical experience as God as infallible

• This language might be helpful to mystics, but for most people, it is too remote
• Stating that an experience cannot be described suggests that the experience is a product of the mind

Question 55

Tillich’s key points of symbolic religious language

Answer 55

• Signs are forms of communication, pointing to something, but symbols go deeper
• Symbols can die or change their meaning, and they may not be meaningful to everyone
• God is the meaning behind all that exists
• Religious symbols ‘speak’ to a believer and arouse emotions like art and music
• As with secular symbols, religious symbols don’t have a meaning for all believers
• Symbols both affirm and negate God

Question 56

Evaluation of Tillich’s use of symbolic language to talk about God.

Answer 56

+ Avoids anthropomorphism while allowing believers to experience meaningfulness through the symbol

• Tillich’s idea of symbols participating, in reality, is not clear to some philosophers, let alone ordinary people

+ Permits the use of one literal statement about what is meant by ‘God’ without the need for metaphysical concepts

• The abstract concept of God as ‘Being-itself’ is not held by most Christians, who think in terms of God as a seperate and transcendent being. This is true for deism and process theodicy also.

+ It reflects what is known through religious experience and so helps us to undertand what is meant by sin, salvation, the Kingdom of God, etc. Symbols surface from the unconscious mind, not from conscious thought.

• Many of the most important things that people want to say about God come from the rational thought and debate of philosophers