"Is religious language meaningful?"
Other philosophers have wanted to show that religious language has a purpose. Religious language in analogical.
Analogy is the compromise between the other two positions. God is not a being like other beings but we can reason about Him. Aquinas argued that all such words about God are non-literal but are analogical.
Aquinas developed two forms of analogy to talk about God.
Analogy of proportion and
Analogy of attribution
Analogy of proportion states that the attributes of God are in the same way proportional to His nature. Vegetables have life, we have life, God has life. There is a proportionate relationship. In the case of God the proportion is extended.
It occurs when a word is employed to refer to a quality that a thing possesses in proportion to the kind of reality it possesses. E.g. a dog is loyal in the way which dogs are loyal and humans are loyal in proportion to the loyalty of being a human. Similarly one can understand God as all-powerful as we have the human idea of power. God is proportionally more powerful than humans, so although we cannot completely understand God's omnipotence, we can have an insight into God's power because of our human experience.
Analogy of attribution contains the concept of derivation. There is a casual relationship e.g. human wisdom is a reflection of God's wisdom. Hick goes further and discriminates between "downwards," and, "upwards."
Analogy of attribution applies when a term, originally used with reference to one thing is applied to a second thing because the one causes the other. E.g. We may speak of someone having a, "sickly," look because his or her appearance is the result of sickness. Aquinas saw human wisdom as a reflection of God's wisdom. God is the source of love and life, and therefore it is possible to speak of, "the living God," or say, "God loves us."
Ian Ramsey developed the theory of analogy in the twentieth century. Ramsey refers to models and qualifiers. A model is an analogy to help us express something about God. For example, if we say God is good, then model is the word, "good." We have human understanding of good, and when applied to God, it’s a model for understanding God's goodness. Ramsey states that if we want to understand God's goodness we need to adapt the model, to qualify it so that we realise that it is not literally what God is like. To the statement God is good, we need to add the qualifier that God is infinitely good. This will make us think of God's goodness in greater and greater depth until eventually we have an insight into God's goodness, and we will then respond to this insight with awe and wonder.
(A)ii) Ludwig Wittgenstein had supported the logical positivists, but he came to reject the Verification principle. He decided that the meaning of words is in their use; the function they perform as agreed by the particular group or society using them. Each activity has its own language. He believed that language’s function was to name objects and the meaning of language was found in the objects for which it stands. He later rejected this and centred on how language works and is used, believing that problems of religious language come from misunderstanding its usage. Wittgenstein was no longer concerned with the truth or falsity of language but the way it is used and the functions that it performs, as he said ‘Don’t ask for the meaning ask for the use.’
Wittgenstein recognised that language is equivocal as words have many different meanings, such as the word ‘pen’ whose meaning changes in different contexts.
He saw language as a game, which like all games had its own set of rules. Different contexts or ‘forms of life’ are like different language games with their own self-contained rules. Those not involved in a particular language game effectively become ‘non-players’ and so the language holds no meaning for them, however, this does not give the non-believer the right to dismiss religious language as meaningless.
Wittgenstein used the example of ‘soul’ to illustrate the problems of trying to use words in the wrong language ‘game’. He felt that the problems stemming from the word ‘soul’ are caused because people try to see it as a physical object. Such problems would disappear if people realised that the ‘physical object game’ didn’t apply in this case.
It was argued that language is a social product, therefore individuals could not have their own private language, as one could not be certain that language was being used correctly. Wittgenstein therefore rejected Descartes view that he had proved his existence because of his private thoughts ‘I think therefore I am’.
Wittgenstein believed that only solutions to language were possible. The term ‘language games’ implies that it is part of an activity. He argued that is usage and meaning is dependent upon its function and society uses language in a specific and agreed way. Wittgenstein called these rules ‘grammar’, for example, to say that ‘God has big feet’ is not playing to the rules of the game because a convention says it is inappropriate to God.
Wittgenstein said that ‘philosophy may in no way interfere with the usage of language only describe it’. However, to change the description of a language game can have dramatic effects. D.Z. Phillips used the example of ‘God is love’, which he argued was not a description but a rule for how the word ‘God’ is to be used. Statements about religious belief are actually descriptions of the grammar of the religious game.
This implies that something cannot be both a rule of grammar and at the same time a description of reality. This approach leaves the religious language game forever defining its own rules. The question is then prompted that if religious language does not get beyond itself to explore reality, how did it get started at all.
B) Wittgenstein’s idea of seeing language as a ‘game’ has been criticised. It is suggested that people of different faith traditions would be caught in their own respective language games and so theoretically should not be able to communicate. However, it is very apparent that they can. Also people of different denominations could be seen to have slightly different rules, akin to the differences between rugby leagues and union. This would imply that they would also not be able to, or have great difficulty in communicating, but they can.
Religious believers are also involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. This means that religious language is not totally isolated and there will be some common ground with other ‘language games’. This may suggest that the non-believer may be able to understand religious language and decide if it holds any meaning for them. It is also argued that if anything, non-believers may be able to understand religious language better than a believer, as they can be more objective about it.
It seems that Wittgenstein was mistaken as seeing religious language only being intelligible in the context of religious belief. Many religious statements entail a truth which is not dependent upon context, but statements such as ‘Jesus died to bring salvation’ are though of as true for everyone.
Also Non-believers might be able to understand religious language better than believers. This is because non-believers have an objective view of the use of religious language.
Felicity McCutcheon drew some parallels between games and language. This led some to the view that each language games is immune from charges of incoherence and irrationality because it has its own internal criteria of coherence and intelligibility. This presents the danger that each area of life develops its own unique criteria of truth and meaning. McCutcheon illustrates this with the question ‘Was Jesus God?’, for Neo-Wittgensteinians this cannot be given a yes/no answer but depends on which language ‘game’ you are in, for instance either the Jewish or Christian game.
Fideism (associates with Luther and Kierkegaard) argues that faith is immune to rational investigation and can be internally justified.
In addition the Neo-Wittgensteinian account of religious language has made the controversial claims that it cannot be understood as reality depicting. It should be noted that Wittgenstein never made this judgement. However, many feel that religious statements do entail a truth that is not entirely dependent on the context. Indeed many religious claims are claims that are believed to be true for everyone, for example, the claim in Christianity that Jesus died in order to bring salvation.
