Discuss the study of Religious Language

by helenfreer7gmailcom (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

(bi) EXAMINE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT TWO OF THE FOLLOWING MAY MAKE TO A STUDY OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE:

ANALOGY
MYTH AND SYMBOL
LANGUAGE GAMES

Religious Language is about the way in which we speak about God and religious belief. Religious Language is about the way that we speak about God and religious belief. It is concerned with what people believe and why they believe and why they believe it. It includes worship, morality, dogma and practice. Religious language includes descriptions of the nature of God, descriptions of religious belief, technical religious terms and ordinary words that have a special religious meaning. The main problems with the use of Religious Language are that it is difficult to use human words to describe a transcendent God who is above and beyond all human experience. Human words are inadequate and this can cause misunderstandings. To use human language to talk about God is to anthropomorphize him. Some people believe that it is impossible to speak meaningfully about God. God is a metaphysical being, beyond the laws of science, which make him difficult to discuss. These cause some people to believe that religious language is meaningless and cannot be used as proof of Gods existence.

St Thomas Aquinas argued that we cannot speak literally about and argued that we therefore can only use religious language as analogies. He argued that univocal language couldn’t be used to speak about god, as univocal language is language where a word has exactly the same meaning at all times. When talking about god however, this anthropomorphizes him, as human language cannot be used to describe god as he is beyond human understanding. Aquinas argued “no name belongs to God in the same sense as it belongs to humans;” Aquinas also argued that we couldn’t use equivocal language to describe God. Equivocal language is language where the same word has different meanings. For example ‘my watch is broken’ and ‘I watch the television’ the word watch here has two different meanings. In terms of God this means that the word we use to describe him have no real meaning as the nature of god is so different from the nature of humanity. Aquinas argued therefore that we couldn’t use univocal or equivocal language to talk about god only analogy can be used. He argued that analogy is a compromise and a way to solve the problem caused by univocal and equivocal language as it enables people to speak meaningfully about the transient God. 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”. Aquinas argued that there are two types of analogy. The analogy of proportionality and the analogy of attribution. The analogy of proportionality is that all good qualities belong infinitely to god and, in proportion to humans. The analogy of attribution is that, God is the cause of all good things in humans and therefore God’s attributes are at a higher level than ours. For example human love is a pale reflection of God’s love.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Ian Ramsey introduced a modern argument of analogy known as ‘models and qualifiers’. A model is an analogy that helps us to express something about God such as God is good, this is the model. We understand what good means in human terms and when we apply it god, it gives us a model to understand the goodness of God. We can qualify this model to improve our understanding of God’s attributes on a higher level. For example the qualifier God is infinitely good.

The argument from analogy contributes significantly to the study of religious language. It/ shows that depending ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The argument from analogy contributes significantly to the study of religious language. It/ shows that depending on the type of language used we can interpret God’s attributes in more detail. It also is trying not to anthropomorphize God but to explain him as a metaphysical being.

In contrast, Wittgenstein’s Language Games theory suggested a postmodern approach to language. He argued that all language is a game in every form of life words are used within the context of the subject or the game. All forms of life have their own language and have their own rules concerning the words meaning. For example medical language is understood by doctors, but not by bakers. The language game is not about making true statements for everyone, but about communicating with others in the same game. Therefore, religious language is meaningful for those within the religious language game. Even though it may appear meaningless for those not in the game. Each game has its own criteria of coherence, which can only be understood by playing the right game by the right rules. He applied the same argument to the understanding and use of Religious language. He argued that when religious language misinterpreted outside of the game it is a ‘category mistake’ as the language is only meaningful within the game.

The argument of Language games contributes significantly to the study of religious language as it defends religious language for believers against those who don’t believe that religious language is meaningful. It is also very relatable as it is true of other games as well making us be able to see how it works in relation to religious language.

(bii) DISCUSS THE VIEW THAT RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE IS DEVOID OF MEANING.

Religious Language and its meaning are arguments that in many cases people believe need verification. Even if a statement makes sense if it meaningful even if you don’t agree with it. When applied to religious language the term meaningful argues for whether the person believes the statement makes sense.

The verification principle argues that Religious language is meaningless. It derived from the logical positivists in particular the Vienna Circle, philosophers who applied the principles of science and maths to language. They suggested that language is only meaningful if it can be defined in terms of the real world and it must be, analytic, mathematical or synthetic. The Vienna Circle believed that because the basis is that they do not satisfy any of the three criteria as they are synthetic and cannot be tested.

A J Ayer observed that since the existence of God could not be rationally demonstrated. The term god is a metaphysical term referring to a transient being that cannot be proved. He therefore argued that any language referring to god is meaningless, as it cannot be verified. He also argued for strong and weak verification. He said that strong verification occurs when there is no doubt that a statement is true for example 2+2=4. A weak verification is occurs when there is no absolute certainty but a strong likelihood of truth for example Henry V won the battle of Agincourt.

However philosophers like Ward and Hick argued against the Verification principle and that Religious Language is meaningful. Hick argues that many religious claims are historical and so verifiable in principle for example Jesus rose from the dead. In the parable of the Celestial City, Hick argues we will know if there is life after death this is eschatological verification. Ward argued that God’s existence could be verified in principle since ‘if I were God I would be able to check the truth of my own existence’. They argued that as god could be verified in principle, religious language is meaningful.

The falsification principle asks what would be needed to prove religious language to be meaningless. Flew argues that to check the truth of something means to check the falseness of it as well. Religious believers often do not allow evidence against the existence of God and instead hide behind vague answers when they cannot explain things. Flew uses John Wisdoms parable of the secret gardener to argue that religious believers similarly avoid the evidence by hiding behind phrases like ‘God works in mysterious ways’. Therefore, religious language they use is meaningless as it is not falsifiable. He said that Religious language ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications.’

Mitchell’s parable of the partisan and the stranger argues against the falsification principle and for religious language as meaningful. His parable highlights the fact that religious believers do question their faith especially when faced with evidence against their religious belief however ‘significant articles of faith’ allow them to continue to believe in God. These are based on their personal experiences and relationship with God.

Swinburne also argued against the falsification principle and for religious language as meaningful. He argued that ‘there are plenty of examples of statements which people judge to be factual which are not apparently confirmable or discomfirmable through observation.’ For example in his example of toys in the cupboard, having a life when humans aren’t there, his view is that many such religious statements still have real meaning.

Braithwaite argued that religious language is about the way in which people should behave towards each other and that; therefore, religious statements are meaningful because they express an intention to follow a certain code of behavior.

Hare claimed that when religious believers use religious language they use it in a unique, special way. This he called a blik, a unique way of seeing the world, which cannot be proved true of false. Religious believers use religious language to express their believes which are important to them and make a difference to their lives in a way which can be empirically observed. Religious language he argued therefore is meaningful as it expresses an intention to follow a certain code of conduct.

I believe that Hare’s argument of bliks is a good argument as it explains that although religious language is not meaningful to others to the believer it is extremely meaningful as it shows their intention to live their lives according to God’s teachings.

In my critical analysis I believe that Religious statements should be taken in a anti-realist manner, they should not be taken literally but understood in other ways such as metaphors, symbols, or myths. The statements are meaningful for the group that are saying them however for non-believers they are meaningless. However, religious language is a way for believers to express their faith and therefore should be taken as meaningful to them. But, religious language as proof of God’s existence is meaningless.