The second type of religious language that I will be looking at is the use of symbol. Symbols, essentially symbolise something. They are signs that are adopted to represent something and become linked to that which they symbolise. They can put forward a whole host of complex ideas in one very simple drawing/word etc. The scholar Tillich said that ‘Symbolic language alone is unable to express the ultimate because it transcends the capacity of any finite reality’. He thought that because symbols and symbolic language is outside the ‘finite reality’ of this world and the everyday language within it, it can be used to actually describe the ‘ultimate’ (e.g. God). Tillich also posited six ways to identify a symbol. These were:
- The symbol must participate in the reality to which it points.
- The symbol must have an intrinsic relationship with that to which it points.
- Symbols ‘open up levels of reality which are otherwise closed to us.
- Symbols open up reality within ourselves.
- Symbols arise from an individual or collective unconscious.
- Symbols grow when the situation is right for them and die when the situation changes.
In relation to the claim that all talk about religious language is meaningless, symbols are only meaningful to those who interpret them in such a way for them to be considered a symbol. For example, to a remote group of tribesmen in Indonesia a cross (with or without Jesus on) may just be an attractive piece of wood, perhaps even fuel for a fire! But to most Christians all round the world a cross symbolises the sacrifice Jesus made to save mankind and the subsequent resurrection – this symbolising the chance for us to be reborn into Heaven (or Hell). Therefore symbols are only meaningful or meaningless depending on how people interpret things; one man’s symbol is another’s non-symbol.
Analogy is described as ‘Parallelism, similarity; reasoning from similar cases’ in the Oxford dictionary. Stiver describes analogy as ‘a creative innovation involving the interaction of two fields of meaning.’ This means that a similar theme/idea is presented and then relates to whatever is in question (God). An example of a famous analogy, though not specifically linked to religious language, is Plato’s Cave Analogy where prisoners in a cave are used to represent humanity trapped in a world of false perception. Aquinas was key in developing analogy in relation to religious language. As I mentioned earlier Aquinas had problems with everyday language in relation to describing God. As well as using Via Negativa Aquinas thought analogy was an important way to talk about God. However this raised a further problem of the fact that analogies are based on comparisons and it is impossible to compare anything to God as that would imply human qualities and limit God. Aquinas then worked out two types of analogy: Analogy of Proportion and Analogy of Attribution. Analogy of Proportion involves qualities being attributed to God in proportion. For example we can understand a dog’s loyalty to us and so we have an idea (in proportion) of God’s loyalty to us. Analogy of attribution is where qualities are attributed indirectly. There is a relation between what we are describing and how you describe them. For example, ‘saving a ball in a game of football’ and ‘God saving our souls from hell’. We have an idea of the idea of saving and this can be indirectly applied to God. Both the Analogy of Proportion and of Attribution can be further divided into two other parts. Analogy of Proportion into Real and Metaphorical. Real proportionality is where we can imply real characteristics e.g. God is good, Bob is good. Metaphorical proportionality is where we describe God in such a way that it doesn’t make literal sense – in a metaphor e.g. God is a rock of ages/light of the world etc. Analogy of attribution can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic attribution. External attribution is where the attribute is external to the object being used in the analogy. For example ‘Oranges are healthy’. Oranges themselves aren’t actually healthy but can result in healthiness. Intrinsic attribution is where the attribute causes the quality in it’s effect. For example ‘Oranges are healthy in humans’. There is a caused relationship.
Analogical language can be considered meaningful if we are willing to accept that by learning something that is in proportion or indirectly related to God then we are actually learning anything. It is similar to the problems of Via Negativa – by forming vague ideas about God are we developing our knowledge or just finding clever ways to express our ignorance? One could say that analogical language only reinforces the fact that we can’t truly describe God and therefore thought of as meaningless. On the other side of the argument anything that allows us to form greater knowledge of God could be considered to be meaningful as it boosts what we know by even a small amount. In conclusion it is again, up to the individual to decide whether or not analogical language is meaningful as it can be interpreted both ways.
The last type of religious I will be addressing in this essay is Myth. Myth is described by Joan A. Anderson as something that: ‘explains or validates a truth which cannot be proved but is accepted on faith’. A myth is basically a story with a meaning. The story need not be literally true but it demonstrates a strong meaning or message. Examples of Myth’s are the Creation story and the Garden of Eden in the Bible. These examples need not necessarily have to be accepted as true for the meaning to come across. There are many meanings in the Garden of Eden myth; such as God is merciful, God is the creator of all and that we, as God’s creation, should obey his laws. Rudolph Baultmann said that: ‘The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character.’ He thought that Jesus Christ wasn’t a historical character but a mythical one, symbolising God’s mercy and goodness. David Jenkins thought that the New Testament was mythical and that the story of Jesus had be added to by Christians to express there faith in Him as a Messiah. Millar Burrows thought that myths are a ‘symbolic, approximate expression of truth’. This meaning that they contain truths but are not literally true.
In a similar fashion to Symbols, Myths are only meaningful to those who choose to interpret them in such a way as for them to possess meaning. Such meanings may not always be obviously apparent and so sometimes one will have to search for the meaning. Just like one man’s symbol is another’s non-symbol, one man’s myth can be another’s story. A myth is meaningful to those who want it to be so and not so to those who don’t.
Having considered four main types of religious language I will now look at the Verification and Falsification principles. The verification principle was developed by A.J Ayer. Ayer was a logical positivist, believing that propositions can only be proved via empirical means. For example, the statement ‘There’s an apple tree in my garden’ can be empirically proved by going into my garden and seeing that there is an apple tree. On the other hand, the statement ‘God exists’ could only be proven (or verified) if we can empirically show that God exists, which we cannot. Ayer said that: ‘No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess any literal significance.’ We can describe ‘literal’ things (things inside our world) but not non-literal beings such as God. Ayer would therefore agree with the claim tat all talk about religion is meaningless as it cannot be verified empirically (by the senses).
The falsification principle was developed by Flew. He postulated that God suffers ‘death by a thousand qualifications’. He used the parable of wisdom’s gardener to exemplify this. The parable essentially states that there is no difference between an invisible/undetected/mysterious/unknown gardener and nothing at all. Flew thought that religious language reveals that God’s literal existence is not provable. However this can be criticised because if God existed in a literal sense then He would be limited and cease to be God. Flew would also agree with the claim that all talk about religion is meaningless as, to him, it revealed that God’s existence is not provable.
In summary I have examined the main areas of religious language and how they would react to the claim that all talk about religion is meaningless. I will now give a few examples of why people think that all talk about religion is meaningless. Firstly, for those who don’t believe in a God or any ‘religious’ entity, all religious talk will be meaningless. These views may be held for a variety of reasons, Freud, for example, believed that God was a ‘neurosis of the mind’ caused by man’s fear of the unknown and to act as a ‘comfort blanket’ to such fears. Another reason people might feel that all talk about religion is meaningless could arise from the epistemic distance many believe exists between us and God. Such a distance could be interpreted as meaning that we can have no comprehension whatsoever of God and all talk of Him is meaningless as a result.
Overall I think that there are strong arguments to support why people might claim that all talk about religion is meaningless. However there also exists strong arguments to support a belief in the meaningfulness of religious language and this leads me to make a rather mid-ground conclusion that the meaningfulness of religious language is largely dependent on the creed of the individual of whom it concerns.
