Religious Language

Question 1

Is religious language meaningful?

Answer 1

• we cannot and have by experienced the concept
• need context eg. Wider religious knowledge
• using language to describe concepts that by definition are beyond human understanding
• lack of comparison to explain or translate them
• without the social context of being part of the religious group you won’t have the same meaning eg. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism
• subjective - miracle
• contradictions eg. The trinity
• non sensible - breaks the laws of nature
• giving somethings human attributes anthropomorphises it
• we have different understandings of the same word

Question 2

What are synthetic facts?

Answer 2

Ones that can be verified by sense perceptions

Question 3

Against the statement ‘religious language is meaningless’

Answer 3

• we can gain meaning from antonyms/ synonyms
• we can create from individual concepts a closer understanding
• just because we have never experienced something before doesn’t mean we can’t imagine what is would be like

Question 4

For the statement ‘ religious language is meaningless’

Answer 4

• there is no evidence to prove religious language
• we have no concept of what is (eg.) omnipotent or what the trinity is
• they self contradict and make it more difficult to understand

Question 5

What did Tillich believe?

Answer 5

• Tillich believes that religious language is best understood as symbolic
• both signs and symbols point beyond themselves and refer to the world
• using these concepts could allow people to talk about God meaningfully and thereby overcome a problem of religious language which could exist if we talk about God in literal way.

Question 6

What are the differences between signs and symbols?

Answer 6

Signs

• signs do not participate in the reality they point to
• they are arbitrary representations
• they have no connection to their thing they present

Symbols

• a symbol does become part of what it represents
• the symbol and what it represents become one and the same thing
• religious language is symbolic. The symbol becomes the same thing as what is represents

Question 7

What is univocal language?

Answer 7

When a word is applied to more than one thing and this word has the same meaning when applied to both things eg. Rugby game an da football game

Question 8

What is equivocal language?

Answer 8

When the sane word is used when referring to more than one thing but has an entirely different meaning in each context eg. Football is a game and pheasant is game

Question 9

What is analogically language?

Answer 9

When the same word is used to explain two different things that have a causal link eg. Humans are finitely wise and god is infinitely wise. God caused humans to be wise therefore there is a causal link.

Aquinas said we can talk about God and creatures because of the link between them. A causal link. I his view everything goes back to God. We have wisdom love etc because of what God has cause within us. Can link to the divine command theory and the euthythro dilemma

Question 10

What is the analogy of proportion?

Answer 10

We have the same qualities as God but only a portion of it - telos - human purpose , eudamonia - human flourishing (the afterlife)( in the image of God in earth, imperfect. In the image of God in heaven, perfect) when we go to heaven we turn into the prefect image of God

Question 11

What is the analogy of attribution?

Answer 11

Because we have the attributes God must

- our attribute of goodness is the result of Gods attribute of goodness

Question 12

How does the via negativa work?

Answer 12

Our language is limited and so our understanding of God is limited
- the use of negative language are less limiting as they do not have to remain constructed by our understanding

We don’t limit God to what he is, instead we say what he’s isn’t eg. God isn’t evil
Combing loads of statements of what God isn’t we can get an idea of what God is

Question 13

What did Pseudo- Dionysius say about using negative language?

Answer 13

• he argued that using the negative way was the only way to speak truthfully about God, because God is beyond all human understanding.
• could like to Barth and Bonhoeffer on human corruption

Question 14

What did Moses Maimonides day about the use of negative language to describe God?

Answer 14

He explains that the attributes of God can only be understood through what they are not
- can be seen in the heart of Judaism eg. Yahweh and Elohiem

Question 15

What did Aquinas say about the analogy of proportion?

Answer 15

He understands that through the analogy of proportion we are limited- so he says it is to describe what we do not know
- ‘this is the ultimate in human knowledge of God: to know what we do not know’

Question 16

What did Brian Davies say about the use of negative language to describe God?

Answer 16

He states that simply describing something in terms of what is is not, gives no clue to what it actually is.
- declaring that God is not a wombat doesn’t help you come closer to understanding what God is.

Question 17

Problems with the via negativa?

Answer 17

By using the via negativa you must have a presupposed idea in mind for these statements are trying to make sense of

Question 18

What did Ayer say about verification?

Answer 18

If it cannot be verified analytically or synthetically it is meaningless

He can’t verify his own statement- making it meaningless

His criteria: must be a tautology (a priori), have practical verifiability or be verifiable in principle (a posteriori)

Question 19

What did Hick say about verification?

Answer 19

Eschatological verification - you can prove all religious facts when you die

Question 20

The problems with the verification principle

Answer 20

• with history we cannot verify knowledge as we ca t observe it ourselves or do testing on it

Ayer then developed the ‘weak verification principle’. We might know things by setting up sensible standards for evidence - eye witness testimonies, multiple sources etc
- inspire of the development of the weak verification principle religious language is still meaningless

Question 21

What is the falsification principle?

Answer 21

The philosophical theory that a statement is meaningless if there is no way that is can be disproved
- proposed by Popper

• Blik - Hare’s term for a basic belief that is not altered despite empirical evidence
• the parable of the gardener - metaphor for God, the universe is his creation (his garden) —link to Wittgenstein and context of the statement (it only holds meaning for the person saying the statement - christian- not the one they are talking to - non Christian-)

Question 22

How did Anthony Flew adapt the falsification principle?

Answer 22

Anthony Flew applies this principles to religious language to give it context and meaning

Question 23

What is the parable of the partisan?

Answer 23

The stranger trusts the resistance worker. The meaning is that you should always always have faith because in the future it will all become clear (eschatological verification)

• weak analogy of faith of God when it comes to problem with evil.
• there aren’t facts for religion, only against

Question 24

What are the language games?

Answer 24

• language requires context but not everyone has the context
• to use language is to participate in a game where we know and accept the rules
• when you enter the language game you agree/ accept the rules of the game you are entering
  
  • Wittgenstein used the example of a game of chess. The ‘king’ without understanding the rules of chess, you could never use the piece
• he also stated that to argue how language is used 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 25

How did Philips adapt the language games?

Answer 25

- he takes Language games and applies it to religious language - if you are going to discuss anything around religious language it can only be judged by those who accept the rules

Question 26

What are the strengths of language games?

Answer 26

- highlights non-cognitive nature of religious language - distinguishes it from other types of language - language games provide boundaries for correct use of language - believers can be initialised into the rules of language - defends language against criticism from other forms of life as truth is to be understood as restive and statements judged against their context, not in whether thy are inherently or objectively true or false

Question 27

What are the weaknesses of the language games?

Answer 27

- some thinkers suggest the theory resembles fideism - Phillips claims Wittgenstein’s argument support his view of religion, but arguably this leads to irrationalism and blind faith. Why should believers be allowed to say that the game of religious language requires no justification? This could be used to justify extremism or superstition. - doesn’t allow for believers claims to be empirically tested - religious language alienated those outside the game - rules of game cannot be changed to allow outsiders in

Question 28

What is the apophatic way of understanding God?

Answer 28

The via negativa Using words to describe what God isn’t

Question 29

What is the difference between mysticism and mystical knowledge?

Answer 29

Mysticism - direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth or ultimate reality is revealed. This can be a subjective, personal experience Mystical experience - and experience of something transcendent, beyond ‘moral’ awareness

Question 30

What did FC Happold say about mysticism?

Answer 30

- mysticism is a study and an anthology - there are two types of mysticism: 1- mysticism of love and union - need to be part of something bigger than ourselves 2- mysticism of knowledge and understanding - need to find an answer to the ‘secrets’ of the universe Three aspects of mystical experience: 1- soul mysticism - finding the soul, complete self-fulfilment (not necessarily involving God) 2- nature mysticism - belief that god is everywhere (immanent) 3- god mysticism - souls desire to return to their immortal and infinite ground, which is God

Question 31

What does Feuerbach argue about religion?

Answer 31

- religion is an illusion - humans feel alienated so project their wishes onto God - if people were able to reach potential no need for religion - society will evolve and religion disappears (growth of science and rational belief) - god is an invention of the human mind

Question 32

What does Freud argue about religion?

Answer 32

- religion is purely a psychological phenomenon to cushion us from harsh realities - religion is an ‘obsessional neurosis’ - a neuroses describes problems experiences in life (repressed thoughts and actions) - having a belief is having an obsessive disorder - satisfies our need for something in control

Question 33

Strengths of Freud

Answer 33

- founder of psychoanalysis - fundamental in the development of dreams, mind, and conscious, subconscious and unconscious ideas - clear that parents/ environment affects our morals and ethical ideas

Question 34

Weaknesses of Freud

Answer 34

- flaws in his data collection. Unethical/ unscientific case studies done - little Hans - what about children from single parent families or modern families - Freud implies they are immortal = illogical - don’t people have more control over their actions or decisions

Question 35

What did William of Ockham say?

Answer 35

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one

Question 36

What did Bertrand Russel say about religious experience?

Answer 36

‘If you eat too little, you see visions and if you drink too much, you see snakes’ - in support - delirium tremendous is caused by vitamin B deficiency (eg. Alcohol withdrawal).

Question 37

What did Aston say?

Answer 37

Our sense experience is generally reliable, why should we not believe what our senses tell us, even if what it is telling us is a religious experience - there is no reason to reject an explanation of something just because the explanation is unusual - he isn’t arguing that religious experience proves Gods existence - he is just saying that it’s not fair on the individual to reject it)

Question 38

Arguments for religious experience?

Answer 38

- William James - positive outcome so doesn’t matter is god is the cause or not - doesn’t try to prove gods existence so passes the falsification theory (popper) - can see the effects on people/ the individual - explaining the experience as being from god - Otto- explains the human feeling there is something greater - it is relatively common - not all testimonies can be wrong — Swinburne - we should trust them unless there is a good reason to doubt them (principle of testimony) - people who have had a religious experience are consistent - often experienced by those who are not mentally ill, on drugs, who are rational and intelligent - religious experience is God taking an involvement in human affairs. But can’t do it frequently as would jeopardise our freewill

Question 39

Arguments against religious experience?

Answer 39

- it is a psychological illusion - there are certain scientific explanation that are more rational - because it is subjective it is difficult to scientifically measure - there is not necessarily consistency around the description of god - could be the influence of drugs - it is most often individuals not groups - religious experience based on emotion - it’s personal = empirical testing is useless - spontaneous so can never be verified - non- physical/private/ individual so not easy to verify. How can we verify something we cannot fully understand/ communicate or discuss properly?