• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Mythological language raises very difficult if not impossible problems. Discuss this statement by examining both verification and falsification.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Mythological language raises very difficult if not impossible problems." Discuss this statement by examining both verification and falsification. "A myth is a symbolic approximate expression of truth, which the human mind cannot perceive sharply and completely, but can only glimpse vaguely, and therefore cannot adequately or accurately express." - Millar Burrows. In the context of religion, myths can be taken to mean stories about God which have vital meanings for an individual, a community, a nation or the cosmos. Myths embody and express claims which cannot be expressed in any other way. Myth is the most complex type of symbolic language because it uses symbols, metaphors and imagery. They use them to explain the unexplainable and to give insights into human existence. Mythology does not convey information that isn't true. They convey concepts that go way beyond the true/false descriptors. They express stories that are "other worldly". They allow humans to gain insight into two very important questions; the cosmological question about the meaning of life and the existential question about emotions, feelings, believing etc. ...read more.

Middle

"the world is a few thousand years old," could just simply be saying God made it. So referring to the statement, "mythological language raises very difficult if not impossible problems" It is clear that even more than symbols, myths seem outdated. In the 19th century, D.F. Strauss suggested that we need to shift the focus of myth from "the story of a miraculous occurrence, to the story of a miraculous occurrence." This basically means in the first case, it is assumed that an objective true narrative about a miracle is being expressed, in the second, that an embodied religious truth is being conveyed in a story form and isn't necessarily true. Another critic of the use of mythological language was Rudolph Bultmann who said that we must not take myths literally. The Bible should be seen as a myth and only by reading the Bible as mythological text can we fully understand it. The Bible was written in a pre-scientific age when mythological language had a lot of meaning, i.e. ...read more.

Conclusion

He could also have added that this was put together during the course of many centuries. Significantly the difference between Bultmann and Dawkins is that Bultmann still maintained that there was truth to be extracted from the mythological narrative once the myth was stripped away. However, those who are in support of myth, claim that, since religious language is anti-realist, it is not concerned with making true or false statements. J.W. Rogerson wrote: "Because myths have their birth not in logic but in intuitions of transcendence, they are of value to traditions that seek to describe the action of the other worldly in the present world." So in conclusion, it is important to understand how myths should be interpreted rather than being concerned to establish what the facts of the matter actually are. We have to remember how these stories were heard, i.e. in the context of simple people. This was a language they could understand and images and pictures that related to ordinary readers and listeners to religious works. This allowed the underlying meanings to be absorbed without needing a great education. ?? ?? ?? ?? Natalie Limbrey 13D ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    Therefore the statements are meaningful as we know how to falsify them. Basil Mitchell wanted to show how religious statements are meaningful even if they are not straight forward to verify or falsify.

  2. The verification principle offers no real challenge to religious belief. Discuss

    The two explorers set a watch; they even use dogs to hunt for the gardener and put up an electric fence to detect anyone entering. No one is ever detected. One of the explorers says "there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no

  1. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    M. Hare stated falsification can be used for cognitive statements but it cannot be used for non cognitive statements because religious language cannot be falsified but it doesn't mean it has no meaning. He used the example of the student.

  2. An embodied life in heaven is entirely possible. Discuss.

    The belief in the resurrection of the soul is the idea that the immortal soul leaves the body and goes to God, who either accepts or rejects the soul. In this essay I will examine different theories of an embodied afterlife and attempt to evaluate these with reference to other material.

  1. "Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

    To him, even when they were nice to him, he believed that they were being devious and hypocritical." This shows the unshakeable nature that religious believers hold. A "Blick" is meaningful even if it cannot be falsified. It affects a person's attitudes or emotions.

  2. In what ways may suffering create philosophical problems for religious believers? Outline two solutions ...

    completely different as being in the image of God, according to Irenaeus, is to be able to reason, be intelligent as well as knowing morality; but being in God's likeness is basically being exactly like God in all of his ways.

  1. Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful. Discuss

    For example, if we speak of ?God is good?, the model of the word is ?good?. There is a human understanding of ?good?, when applied to God it?s a model for understanding God?s goodness. Ramsey states that if we are to understand God?s goodness then we need to adapt the

  2. Reductive physicalist accounts of the mind fail to fully explain the nature of mental ...

    Since we have a first person view into what we are thinking and feeling, it would seem that there is no need to observe ourselves in order to understand what is going on inside me right now.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work