Religious Language

Question 1

What is cognitive language?

Answer 1

When you ask if a statement is true or false e.g. dog is asleep in its basket. Factual. Proved true or false by empirical evidence. A triangle has 3 sides.

Question 2

What is non cognitive language?

Answer 2

When you cannot ask if something is true or false e.g. a legal/ military command or a prayer. Expressions of value/opinion/feeling/emotion. Can’t prove true or false.

Question 3

What did philosophers realise in the 20th century?

Answer 3

Language is the way we communicate concepts and make ourselves understood. In the philosophy of religion we are trying to describe concepts that no one physically sees and hears e.g. God.

Question 4

What is univocal language?

Answer 4

The word has exactly the same meaning at all times e.g. Bachelor.

Question 5

What is equivocal language?

Answer 5

The same word is used with 2 or more completely different meanings e.g. mean of these numbers, I am a mean person and what do you mean?

Question 6

Who came up with the concept of language games?

Answer 6

Ludwig Wittengenstein who believed religious language was meaningful. He came from a rich family and both his parents were jewish, the youngest of 8.

Question 7

What did Wittgenstein believe about language being a game?

Answer 7

To use language is to participate, in a game where we know and accept the rules. This is not to say that language is trivial, the analogy of a game best highlights the nature of language. To play the game you need to understand the rules, seems pointless if you don’t understand the rules of the game. When we are using language we are in the game, to use a word you have to first understand how it works.

Question 8

What is a classic example?

Answer 8

A game of chess, you might be told that a piece was called a ‘thing’ without understanding the rules of chess, you could never use the piece. To argue how language used is meaningless, if you want to play the game, you must accept the rules. You cannot play chess if your opponent is trying to play checkers.

Question 9

What did he say about the 2 sides of the game?

Answer 9

Suggested that language and therefore the rules of that language can be seen from both sides, those inside the game and therefore know the rules. His example: if you found yourself standing in the driver’s cabin of a steam train, in the front there would be controls you have no understanding of and the driver would perfectly. The only way to engage controls is to learn through attempting to drive a train.

Question 10

What did DZ Phillips think?

Answer 10

Religious language is meaningful to those who genuinely use it e.g. God is love meaningful in context.

Question 11

Why is studying religious language important?

Answer 11

The problem is that univocal language can leading to humanising God too much, making some view RL as meaningless, as God is perfect. Equivocal language gives different meanings so can be lead to confusion about what God is like and a misconception of him. Language used can be seen as meaningless and it is important to study it to examine if we can find ways of getting round these issues to make RL meaningful.

Question 12

What are the strengths of language games?

Answer 12

It creates barriers for correct use of language,. so we can have a meaningful conversation. It distinguishes from other types of language. Parallels with learning a language, real life and relatable. Highlights non cognitive nature of RL, truth understood as relative and statements judged against their context, not whether or not they’re inherently true.

Question 13

What are the weaknesses of language games?

Answer 13

Rules of the game can’t be changed to allow outsiders in e.g. chess, so alienating and isolating, unproductive. Doesn’t allow for believers claims to be empirically tested, so can’t verify a conclusion. There is no correct definition of everything, so rules may not exist - equivocal language. Impossible to be outside the game, as always make an effort to describe things and get to the point eventually.

Question 14

What is principle does the Via Negativa/ Apothatic way work on?

Answer 14

We can only describe God using negative language by saying what he is not e.g. God is not loving.

Question 15

Why can God not be described using positive language?

Answer 15

God is greater than human comprehension, statements about God can’t be made accurately, as otherwise we are anthropomorphising God, we can make God like a human, but humans aren’t as good as God. It leads to inaccuracy, offense and maybe blasphemous.

Question 16

What type of language is language given to God?

Answer 16

It is equivocal - ‘God is good’ and ‘John is good’ are very different things. We don’t know what God is. We say what God is not instead by making negative statements, we might find knowledge although limited of what God is.

Question 17

Who came up with the Apothatic way? RL as meaningful.

Answer 17

Dionysius- 6th century, using the negative way was the only way to speak truthfully about God, God is beyond human understanding. Maimonides - God’s attributes can be understood through what they are not.

Question 18

What are a strength of the Apothatic way?

Answer 18

Human language is drawn from the ordinary everyday world and to use it to describe God anthropomorphises God, as if he is described as loving, they are using the human concept of God in order to describe this quality of God, which lacks accuracy. If we use nagtive language we aren’t attempting to try and understand God in human terms, just furthering out understanding.

Question 19

What is another strength of the Apothatic way?

Answer 19

We can derive knowledge from stating the opposites of what God is e.g. God is not powerful. Positive language presumes we can describe God in our terminology, blasphemous and foolish to describe omniscient God in our human language.

Question 20

What is a weakness of the Apothatic way?

Answer 20

The Apothatic way couldn’t exist without the Cataphatic way, saying God is not something is dependent on positive language, to say God isn’t visible needs the use of the positive term visible. Negative language is still inaccurate and surely just using anthropomorphic language in a different way not avoiding inaccuracies.

Question 21

What is another weakness of the Apothatic way?

Answer 21

Doesn’t lead us to an understanding of God at all, rejects any knowledge of God. A Christian following the Apothatic way learns nothing of God - Anthony Flew. Negative language more confusing, God is not good, could simply display God is not bad, but not that he is the most loving and good entity imaginable, positive language possibly takes us a step closer to this deeper understanding.

Question 22

What is a final weakness of the Apothatic way?

Answer 22

Human language can be transformed by God’s inspiration. Writers of the Bible use human language, but are guided by God’s wisdom from the holy spirit. God may desire us to use human language to describe him, might help us understand him better. Difficult for believers to agree, as contradictory to many statements in the Bible using positive language - God is wise. The Bible is influenced by God, surely wouldn’t use positive language of this painted an inaccurate picture of God.

Question 23

What is the definition of a myth? RL as meaningful.

Answer 23

Stories designed to resolve philosophical or religious problems or dilemmas. Stories that have an element of truth and meaning, but aren’t factually true. A religious view on a myth isn’t to be taken literally, but nonetheless fundamentally true.

Question 24

What are myths?

Answer 24

Timeless narratives not fixed in historical time frames, understood from all ages. Speak of what believers hold to be most true and meaningful, what they think is eternal and original, what they hope will happen and what they see as real, however pleasant or terrible.

Question 25

What are the common themes in myths?

Answer 25

Existence of chaotic formless state. A God who acts in a void, which means the universe coming into a being, creation of humanity. The relationship between divinity and humanity. Meaningful as teaching us something.

Question 26

What did Sarah Tyler think about myths?

Answer 26

Defines a myth as a literacy form describing otherworldly matters in this wordly terms; myth is a linguistic method of interprets ultimate reality - ultimate truths. Vehicles to convey complex religious truths.

Question 27

What did Macquarrie think about myths?

Answer 27

We shouldn't ignore the meaningfulness of myth. They answer the why questions concerned with human existence, insight into what man's relationship with God might be.

Question 28

What can we take as a message from the myth of Jonah?

Answer 28

That God is merciful as he rescues Jonah and kept him alive. Worshipping other Gods is wrong, we need to keep the covenant. If we repent, God will forgive us and look after us.

Question 29

What did Rudolf Bultmann suggest?

Answer 29

We must understand parts of the Bible as mythological as the world view at the time was mythological infused with spiritual powers and realities; people can be possessed by evil spirits and supernatural powers can intervene in the world.

Question 30

What was his main concept?

Answer 30

Instead of understanding all parts of Bible as literally true we must recognise that certain stories are myths which communicate the values of Christianity e.g the Genesis Creation stories are myths that communicate our relationship with God and the idea of God as creator.

Question 31

What did he conclude about myths?

Answer 31

Myths communicate values and truths, but truths aren't separate from the myth but bound by it.

Question 32

What did Bultmann suggest about the new testament?

Answer 32

We need to demythologise it and re interpret its mythical world view, so we can see the true message. If we take the myth literally it devalues the significance. E.g. birth narrative in Luke - God's purpose is obtained through the lowly and excluded like the birth in the stable and the visit of the shepherds. He thought in the 1st century it was part of the culture to have a myth of a redeemer who is killed and resurrected and for humans this is linked to Jesus.

Question 33

What did Bultmann think about the mythical structure?

Answer 33

It is anachronistic - chronological inconsistency in some arrangement and makes little sense today. If we take the death and resurrection of Jesus literally we miss the resurrection stories as expressions of the transformation of the self through committing in faith. For Bultmann we need to demythologise scripture and get back to the key message of Jesus.

Question 34

What are the strengths of Bultmann's argument?

Answer 34

Explains different interpretations, understanding and different types of Christians as they find different meanings when they demythologise it. Goes away from the supernatural, helping find the true meaning of the story, find core of the Bible in modern times. Not tied up in every word of the Bible. Our interpretation not followed blindly.

Question 35

What are the weaknesses of Bultmann's argument?

Answer 35

Should have demythologised in the first place, however if we did the story wouldn't be as interesting, easy to understand or appeal to younger audiences as a vehicle to explain complex story. Danger in too much interpretation is that the resurrection can be understood as a myth and this is the risk believers have to face when facing challenges of falsification. Verification principle: if myths are a product of emotions they are meaningless and non cognitive.

Question 36

How do fundamental conservatives criticise Bultmann's theory?

Answer 36

They see the religious language contained in the Bible in a more univocal way. Interpreting religious stories as myths is a problem as it undermines their status as true accounts of the event.

Question 37

What is a sign? RL as meaningful

Answer 37

Something which points you in a certain direction or shows you something like a road sign.

Question 38

What is a symbol and who came up with the argument religious language should be symbolic?

Answer 38

A symbol is something used in religious thought to show something which points people to God and also shows God in people. Paul Tillich originated this theory.

Question 39

What did Tillich focus on?

Answer 39

The manner in which symbols may effect humans, we can only talk about God trough the use of symbols, symbols are not signs. Both of these point to something beyond themselves, but symbols 'participate' in what they point to, a road sign just points to a fact about a road, but a cross represents Christianity, serves as a reminder of the sacrificial death of Jesus and their beliefs about God and his plan for the salvation of humanity.

Question 40

What are the 4 key functions of symbol according to Tillich?

Answer 40

1) Something beyond themselves, that tells us more information e.g. poppy compared to fire exist just get out, more than meets the eye. 2) They participate in that to which they point e.g. a dove represents Noah + peace. 3) They open levels of reality that are otherwise closed to us - we can gain new information about the cross constantly. 4) They open up dimensions of the soul, which correspond to those aspects of reality.

Question 41

What did Tillich compare language to?

Answer 41

Language is like poetry or art, a piece of poetry or a picture can give us a new view of life and offer us new meaning, but we often find it difficult to explain the meaning except others who have seen the same work of art or poetry reading.

Question 42

How did J.H. Randall (his pupil) develop this point?

Answer 42

He argued they open up the order of the divine.

Question 43

What are the strengths of Tillich's argument?

Answer 43

Symbols do point towards various levels of knowledge.We can learn about God through the cross suggest symbols are useful and religious language is meaningful. It avoids the use of words to discuss an ineffable God. Avoids being blasphemous and anthropomorphising God as you don't need to compare God to humans when using symbolic language.

Question 44

What are the criticisms of Tillich's argument?

Answer 44

John Hick argued that the idea of 'participating' in a symbol is unclear. Flag - in what sense does it really do something? is there really a big difference from signs here? William Alston symbolism means that " there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false." His symbols aren't literally true, so Alston felt they could have no meaningful impact on us, could not send us to heaven and hell for example. There is no division between religious and non religious symbols, so does this mean religious language has no special significance?

Question 45

What is an analogy(Aquinas)? - RL as meaningful.

Answer 45

An attempt to explain the meaning of something which is complex to understand by using a comparison with something familiar and easier to understand.

Question 46

Why did Aquinas reject univocal and equivocal language when talking about God?

Answer 46

We can't interpret God univocally, as if we speak about God in this way we are anthropomorphising him and we can't do this as God is perfect. If we use equivocal language it can lead to a confusion as words have so many different definitions, especially when applied to God as opposed to a human. Making RL meaningless.

Question 47

What is the only to talk about God properly?

Answer 47

By way of analogy - understanding something complex by understanding how it relates to something familiar and simpler - the brain and computers.

Question 48

What did Aquinas state in analogy of attribution?

Answer 48

If God created the world expect to have things to compare God too. We would be justified in drawing analogies between the world and God. We can learn from God from his creation, but not the full amount.

Question 49

What example did he use as an example to back this?

Answer 49

A bull and its urine, the health of the animal is present in its urine; we cane tell the bull is healthy by studying this. The health of the bull is only complete in the bull itself. What the urine tells us is indirect and incomplete, similarly what the world tells us of God's goodness is meaningful albeit limited.

Question 50

What was his point about order of reference?

Answer 50

God's goodness is the most important as he is the source of this quality. The world has goodness in a secondary respect, We can still learn about God from the world, because good created the world. God is revealed through his creation, we can know from the way he is revealed that he is good.

Question 51

What did Brian Davies state?

Answer 51

The words such as just may be applied to God and humans.

Question 52

What example did BD use?

Answer 52

Bread is good, the baker is good, The word good is used in both cases and has a similar but not the same meaning. Bread can be good soft, tasty,light. Saying the baker is good doesn't make the baker soft and tasty, baker has the qualities necessary to be a good baker.

Question 53

How does this relate to Aquinas theory?

Answer 53

Aquinas thought that as God created the world, God reveals himself through it, so point of comparison. We know what it means for a person to be 'good', ;wise' or 'powerful'. we can use these words to describe God as we can know from the way God is revealed in the world he is good like we can learn about the qualities of the baker from the bread he produces.

Question 54

What was Aquinas' analogy of proportion - The nature of what something is?

Answer 54

He uses the example of 'good' applied to God. This is a good car - you are saying the car measures up to the idea of what a good car should be like. If you say someone is a good person somehow possesses ideals of what a good person is. 'God is good', 'good' used to show God measures up to what it is for God to be God.

Question 55

What did Aquinas think about God?

Answer 55

God was perfectly goof, meaning unchangeable and eternal. God is good states that God is whatever is realised to be God. Aquinas wasn't talking about moral goodness, 'good' refers to the way in which something lives up to what it should be.

Question 56

How did John Hick develop this?

Answer 56

Humans possess God's qualities as we are created in his image, because God is perfect we have these qualities in a lesser proportion.

Question 57

What example did he give?

Answer 57

Faithfulness - humans can be faithful to each other in speech and behaviour etc. Dogs can be faithful, but there is a huge difference in his quality in a person and an animal. Some similarity, as there is a "slim and imperfect likeness" in the dog, as there is between us and God.

Question 58

What did he say about improper proportion?

Answer 58

An analogy that is simply a metaphor and doesn't deal with proportionate qualities would be on of improper proportion - God is a rock, ignores essential differences in qualities for the sake of a loose comparison.

Question 59

What are the strengths of this argument?

Answer 59

Can make easy, plausible comparisons. It accepts and justifies why we can anthropomorphise God. It works around the problem and finds a solution to not being able to use univocal or equivocal language to describe God.

Question 60

What are the weaknesses of this argument?

Answer 60

Criticise proportionate analogy, as humans created in the image of God, challenged by Darwin's theory of evolution and disputed the atheist Richard Dawkins. Richard Swinburne unnecessary theory, he claims we can speak of God and humans as good univocally, humans and God just possess goodness in a different ways. It is the same essential quality, God is perfect and humans aren't. The object we are drawing an analogy to God can't be verified.

Question 61

Who were logical positivists? Verification (RL as meaningless).

Answer 61

A movement in philosophy that believed the aim of philosophers should be the analysis of language, particularly the language of science. Statements have meaning if they can be verified empirically or are tautologies.

Question 62

What are tautologies?

Answer 62

Logical statements that are true by definition.

Question 63

What is the Vienna circle?

Answer 63

A group of philosophers including Schlick and Neurath who gave rise to logical positivism thinking propositions only have meaning if they can be verified empirically.

Question 64

What principle did logical positivists come up with?

Answer 64

A statement is only meaningful if it can be verified by the senses by an experience or tautology, associated with the Vienna Circle and A J Ayer wrote about it in Language, Truth and Logic. When it was first formulated just strong, later weak or strong.

Question 65

What were the first 3 ways Ayer said you could verify statements( strong verification - RL as meaningless)?

Answer 65

1) Mathematical statements ( a priori) pure logic 2+2=4. 2) Tautology - analytic - a priori: a logical statement true by definition ' bachelors are male' illogical to think the opposite. 3) Practical verifiability( synthetic): Statements can be tested in reality e.g Liverpool football club wear red shirts. Verifiable in practice as can go and watch an match.

Question 66

What is weak verification?

Answer 66

It is hard to verify statements like 'the soul is immortal'. Weak verification refers to statements that can be shown to be probable by observation and experience e.g. all humans are mortal. In practice we can't kill all the humans in the world.

Question 67

Why did Ayer come up with weak verification?

Answer 67

Strong verification is very rigid as it doesn't allow for historical statements to be verified - Henry VIII had 6 wives, didn't live in that time or see if he did. Might know things by setting up sensible standards such as eye witnesses, accounts all saying the same thing.

Question 68

What are the 2 types of statements that are meaningful according to the verification principle?

Answer 68

Analytic statements - statements that contain all the information within the statement that we need to verify it, 'blue is a colour'. Synthetic statements, which are statements can be confirmed through the use of the senses 'its sunny today'.

Question 69

What does the verification principle believe about non cognitive statements?

Answer 69

Non cognitive statements about God, life after death etc are meaningless as they can't be verified. Ayer argued that any sentence about God is meaningless, denying and accepting God is meaningless. For a statement to be meaningful it needs to be a tautology ( a priori) or verifiable in principle ( an posteori).

Question 70

What did Ayer say about God?

Answer 70

Since the existence of God can't be rationally demonstrated, it isn't even probable. Since the term God is a metaphysical term - can't prove by science/[physics referring to a transcendent being, can't have any literal significance.

Question 71

What was Ayer also concerned with?

Answer 71

All religious language, including talk of an unverifiable after life. Talk of a soul dismissed as meaningless, because it is a metaphysical assertion. Religious experience dismissed as talk of experience can't be verified empirically; interest psychologically, but doesn't prove religious knowledge.

Question 72

What are the strengths of the verification principle?

Answer 72

It saves time that could be wasted discussing God, straight out meaningless. Can be used to distinguish between sense and nonsense. Supports the design argument for God’s existence because it is based on a posteriori evidence.

Question 73

What are the weaknesses of the verification principle?

Answer 73

The theory doesn't pass the test as a meaningful statement, as it can't be verified by sense experiences and isn't a meaningful synthetic statement. We can't even talk about it as a concept. Many of the claims in science like black hole and can't be verified by sense evidence and problems with historical evidence. Meaningful statements like I love you would have to dismissed, as is no way of testing them using the sense, but these statements have meaning to us.

Question 74

What did logical positivists accept?

Answer 74

They were disallowing too much as meaningless, theory weakened to allow for indirect experience, Still desire to dismiss all meaningless talk of supernatural God. John Hick thought religious claims are eschatological verifiable. after death claims like ' God is love' could be verified.

Question 75

What did Ayer and Flew recognise was wrong and what was developed instead?

Answer 75

Ayer and Flew recognised the verification principle was wrong, so Flew developed the falsification principle.

Question 76

Where does the falsification principle originate from?

Answer 76

Karl Popper's argument philosophy that statements are scientific if our empirical experiences could maybe falsify them. As to improve on limited VP by suggesting a statement is factually meaningless if there is no falsification criteria.

Question 77

What did Karl Popper say?

Answer 77

"Any theory that is impossible to disprove is no valid theory at all."

Question 78

How did Flew use this argument?

Answer 78

He applied this to the principle to the use of religious language, applying Karl Popper's idea that science works by hypotheses that the scientists are trying to prove to be false.

Question 79

What did Flew argue?

Answer 79

Argues that when we say something is true, like tigers have stripes we are stating they have stripes and falsifying the opposite tigers aren't striped. When you claim something, you are also claiming even if unintentionally that there are facts/evidence that might disprove this, so there has to be empirical experience that would count against your claim: I own a tiger with no stripes.

Question 80

What parable did he use to explain this?

Answer 80

He adapted John Wisdom's parable of the gardener. In the parable 2 explorers find a jungle clearing where weeds and flowers grow. 1 explorer thinks there is a gardener and the other doesn't. The gardener isn't found or seen, but the 1 explorer still believes in him. This is comparable to God. 'Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or no gardener at all?

Question 81

What did Flew think about believers?

Answer 81

They are continually trying to qualify their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence e.g. evidence against God is love, but terrorism, he wants to clarify the status of religious sentences. He doesn't necessarily think they are meaningless.

Question 82

What is this concept of death by a thousand qualifications?

Answer 82

Asking what needs to happen for the existence of God to be disproved. When a religious believer is critiqued about the existence of God or God's nature, they modify the way they talk about God to respond to the opposition. Believer end up modifying their statements about God so much that the statements aren't even close to the original claim about God.

Question 83

What was Richard Swinburne's response?

Answer 83

Analogy of the toys in the cupboard to challenge it - doesn't work for all statements, only for some, but they are still meaningful. Although we can't prove or falsify that the toys don't leave the cupboard when unsupervised, the concept of their movement still has enough meaning, because we can understand it, Heisenburg principle - uncertainity - not everything moves as you expect it to.

Question 84

What did Basil Mitchell think about Flew's principle?

Answer 84

Religious statements are meaningful even if not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable. Flew was wrong n assuming that believers never allow anything to count against their beliefs, Religious language can't be verified or falsified, still meaningful.

Question 85

What was his parable of the stranger?

Answer 85

A stranger makes a resistance worker who is on his side. He asks the stranger to trust him, despite that he might see him doing things going against the cause they;re working for. He does see him doing strange things, but still has faith. Flew missed the point that like the resistance worker believers are committed to trusting God based on faith.

Question 86

What did BM conclude?

Answer 86

The believer doesn't allow anything to falsify their belief in God, but still not meaningless as they show that there is a real problem they need to be aware of. Religious belief is based upon facts, but can't be verified or falsified. All the peculiar and problematic parts of religious language will be revealed at the end of time, similarities to John Hick's theory of eschatological verification.

Question 87

What are the criticisms of this?

Answer 87

The parable of the stranger is a weak analogy of faith in God when it comes to the problem of evil, Debatable to what extent it gets over the FP and the fact religious believers won't allow anything to count against their father.

Question 88

What was Hare's parable of the lunatic?

Answer 88

Theory of 'Bliks'. Parable of the lunatic who believed that all dons - university professors even the most kind and gentle were about to murder him. A 'blik' is a particular view about the world may not be based upon reason or fact and can't be verified or falsified, basic belief that isn't altered despite empirical evidence. Still true for the lunatic won't let it be falsified.

Question 89

What did he say about the metal of the car?

Answer 89

Trusting the metal of the car: this 'blik' about the car meant that we would quite happily drive or be driven in a car, because we have the blik that the metal is strong and that it is safe to drive at a high speed. Hare said people either have the right or sane blik or the wrong or insane blik; the lunatic has the wrong 'blik' about dons. Religious belief has to be a particular blik. Bliks are unverifiable and unfalsifiable, we can't prove or disprove religious bliks, can't call them right, wrong, sane or insane.

Question 90

What are the strengths of falsification?

Answer 90

It is sensical and it is true that religious believers do try to dispute any claims made against God. This probably would rebuke the claim religious language is meaningful for non believers, so is convincing for them.

Question 91

What are the weaknesses of falsification?

Answer 91

Swinburne states factual statements can be falsified, not existential ones- toys in the cupboard, supported Hare's bliks. Ayer argued against falsification saying statements can't be conclusively falsified. Religious language possibly shouldn't be compared with scientific statements, as it should be understood as symbolic. Science is limited, constantly disproving theories, changing all the time e.g. World was flat. R.B Braithswaite argued religious language is meaningful as it is prescriptive. God loves me has meaning as it is advising you should live in a loving way.