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

Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

Extracts from this document...


"Religious language is meaningless." Discuss. Religious language is the communication of ideas about God, faith, belief and practice. The problem with religious language is that individuals have different interpretations of these concepts and will result in a difference in the use of everyday language. For some it is deemed meaningless because it is equivocal and the meaning is unclear. Yet, for some philosophers, religious language is meaningful and serves a purpose. Some deem religious language meaningless as there is no way of verifying the language. Others see the language from a different perspective to religious believers, and this allows non believers to have an open mind about religious language. There are several different types of language related to religion; cognitive and non cognitive, synthetic and analytical, univocal and equivocal. Synthetic, non cognitive and equivocal apply to religious language as everyone has a different opinion on things and we can gain a better knowledge to say what God is not rather than saying he is everything. Religious language is meaningful because we don't know how to falsify it. John Hick mentioned religious language was seen as believing in something and experiencing something. The logical positivists formulated the verification principle and they were concerned with the meaning of words and the way we use them in the context of God. They believe God's talk was meaningless as they are metaphysical statements. They believed for a statement to be deemed meaningful we had to be able to verify the truth hood through our empirical senses. ...read more.


He said Flew missed the point that believers have a commitment to trust in God based on their faith, and for this reason they do not allow evidence to undermine their faith. Mitchell says they look for answers to prove to themselves God exists. He also mentioned the death of a thousand qualifications. R. 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. The student was convinced dons were going to kill him and he wouldn't accept any evidence against them not wanting to kill him. Even though he wouldn't accept any evidence against his belief, it is meaningful to him because of what he thought. Hare also went on to say that looking at the world in this way is seen as a "blik." Religious beliefs are bliks because of the impact they have on every individual's life and the way believers look at their lives that is different to somebody else's. R. B. Braithwaite wanted to prove religious language has a purpose because it has the function of conveying ideas and in itself makes it meaningful. He said the errors of the Verification and Falsification Principles had been to treat religious language as cognitive language when it is actually non cognitive. As it is based on our emotions, it can be very hard to prove something meaningful based on emotions as everyone's emotions are different. ...read more.


Language games exist within all forms of human activities and lives. He said people who are not in the game will not understand the use of the language and will find it meaningless to them. Religious belief has its own language and non believers will find religious language meaningless as they are not in the religious "game." Problems develop when the language "goes on holiday." This is when words are used outside of their context and we use ordinary language to describe God. This should never happen. Wittgenstein has acquired some critics to his theory. The first is that different faiths have a different language game and it is extremely difficult to share those differences between the religions. Secondly, all religious believers are involved in different language games in one way or another. Religious language has not become totally isolated so there must be a common ground between religious language and other language games. If there is a common ground, non believers are able to understand religious language and decide whether or not it has a meaning for them. Thirdly, non believers might be able to understand the language better than a religious believer as they have an objective view on the use of the religious language. Believers take the language for what it is and cannot be subject to anything else. In conclusion, believers would agree it is difficult to talk about God. The meaning of the word God applies to a being beyond human understanding. Believers recognise that any discussion of God is limited, but they would argue religious language does have meaning and purpose. ?? ?? ?? ?? Caryl Williams 13E 1 ...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.

    Flew seems to have overlooked this. Most responses to logical positivism are developed by the theologians creating parables to back up their beliefs. However, personal beliefs and language shown in these parables can only be meaningful if they are consistent with the facts about the world, if there is no

  2. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    A main critic was John Hick. He said the principle itself is not meaningful because it cannot be verified using the verification principle. Hick argued when we die the truth of God's existence will be verified either true or false.

  1. Free essay

    Language game

    It doesn't require a believer to argue that their assertion 'God exists', or 'God loves me', is meant to be more that a symbolic statement or an ethical claim about their lifestyle. God may be transcendent, but for the believer he is also experienced in the real world, and there is cognitive meaning in their claims about him.

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

    However, strong verification has been widely criticised for excluding many areas of knowledge. Eg- it is not possible to talk meaningfully about history using the strong verification principles as no sense observations can confirm historical events. Swinburne has argued that strong verification excludes universal statements of any sort.

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

    To what extent are these solutions successful? (9) Just by looking at the general overview of these 2 completely different arguments, it is hard to tell with one out of the two is the most successful, so the only way to determine this is by looking at both sides pro's and con's.

  2. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    For example, the statement ?Euthanasia is right,? you could argue that it ends the suffering of the individual and therefore it is right. According to ethical naturalism, religious language is meaningful because are ethical statements can be proved to be true or false.

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

    ?you can now travel at the national speed limit?, they have no other effect. Symbols are powerful and they actually take part in the power and meaning of what they are symbolising. The cross is the symbol for Christianity. Not only is it a marker for that religion, but it also makes a powerful statement.

  2. Discuss the study of Religious Language

    He argued we could reason about god by using words in a non-literal way. Analogies use human terms but when applied to god they mean a similar but not identical thing. Aquinas called this ?Gradation to be found in things?.

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