Weebly



Religious Language Mandems Cognitive and Meaningful Non-Cognitive and meaninglessNon-Cognitive and meaningful Vienna Circle Parable of Gardener Anthony Flew Basil MitchellReligious Language: Key Points In the 20th century, philosophers became pre-occupied with meaning in language. The problem of religious language is whether we finite humans can speak of the infinite God. There are three approaches to religious language:Religious Language is cognitive (factual) and meaningful. Religious Language on non-cognitive (non factual) and meaningless. Religious Language is non cognitive (non-factual) but still meaningful.You use different theories to criticise other theories. Religious Language as cognitive (factual) and meaningful Here there are four theories – via negativa, analogy, myth and symbol. The via negativa or negative way was the traditional way of talking about God before Aquinas. It is also called the apophatic way as opposed to the positive or cataphatic way. It states that all language is equivocal. God is utterly different to anything we can comprehend and so we make negative statements to avoid anthropomorphism. God is invisible, timeless, inaccessible, for example. Language collapses in the infinite. Yes, we can call God the Light but this is very provisional and limited. ? Plotinus, a follower of Plato in the 3rd century , used this to describe the form of the good. Pseudo-Dionysius or Dionysius the Areopagite (a 6th century thinker) stated that the transcendent God was being beyond our human description and imagination and that we must enter a cloud of unknowing allowing God to speak to our silence. God was too great to be described by logic and argument he said. Maimonides (in Judaism) said that making positive statements about God was disrespectful. He gave the example of a ship. We know what the ship is because of what it is not Buddhists sometimes use theory this to describe Enlightenment. On the one hand, this respects God's otherness and is respectful. It avoids anthropomorphism. Critics argue that the via negativa presents a very limited view of God. They say the theory does not work for everyday objects let alone God. They say that it is not a true reflection of how religious people think. To say white is the opposite to black does not help those who don't know what white is. Finally, to point out a negative implies a positive. Analogy: Thomas Aquinas was very much influenced by the Via Negativa and saw it as an introduction to understanding God. He forwarded his theory of analogy where a complex thing can be explained by comparing it with a simpler thing. The familr is described using the unfamiliar. Religious Language is not univocal where a word means exactly the same in two contrasting contexts (eg green). How can our goodness be the same as God’s goodness? But neither can the word mean something completely different (cricket bat, flying bat) for then we would say nothing about God at all. Aquinas advocates analogy as a middle ground. Aquinas calls this the via eminentiae? (way of eminence)?and is respectful of God. There are two types of analogy. In Analogy of Attribution, qualities we ascribe to one another reflect creator the God which causes us. A good baker makes good bread. A healthy bull producing healthy urine. In Analogy of Proportion, types of properties are relative to that being. The meaning changes in proportion. Hick gives the example of faithfulness in a dog and in a person. We could also use the example of Andy Murray being a good tennis player and a nine year old being a good tennis player. The good is proportionate or relative to their natures. Aquinas was successful in producing a system which allowed a method of expressing the human understanding of God. Critics argued whether we could use the word good of God when we only have our understanding of good. It also assumes the existence of God and a similarity between us and God. Symbolic: Some people think religious language is cognitive or factual but that it is symbolic. Religious symbols communicate the most significant beliefs and values of humanity. All language is symbolic in that we use words to stand for other things. Symbols point to something beyond themselves, open up new levels of reality and the soul and participate in that which they point. They are different than signs (eg road signs) which are literal. Religious language is symbolic but not literal and yet still communicates to us about God. So, symbols, for example the poppy standing for sacrifice and justice, represent more than their physical materials. A symbol is different from a sign which is more one dimensional. Tillich gives the example of the flag standing for patriotism. A further example of a symbol is light which is a? symbol of truth, knowledge and purity.? Paul Tillich argued religious language symbolises and pointed to something higher he called Being Itself? or the ground of our being or God. Music, art, the cross, the bread and wine at Holy Communion open up new levels of reality to the believer. Religious people say God walks with them or God hears their prayers when God has no body.? "The Lord is my shepherd" is a popular hymn. These symbols unlock something deep within our soul but can never fully capture God. Tillich believed symbols have positive and negative aspects because they could never really capture that being symbolised.? They affirm and negate that to which they point, stated Tillich. Tillich stated that symbols could change over time. Critics have thought this theory too vague. They do not say anything literal. Believers would say language was symbolic not literal. put difficult concepts into words we are most successful when we use symbols. However it is important to keep in mind that the meaning attached to symbols is culturally dependant. A myth is a story with symbolic language in it. Like symbols, myths point to a higher reality.? They are a deeper way of understanding reality. In religious terms, myths may not be historically accurate but convey wider truths. Plato argued that myths, although fictitious, should be as close to the truth as possible. Myths use the terms of this world to express the other worldly. A myth draws people in to create a response. Stories can be vivid and memorable. There is a close connection between symbol and myth. Myths communicate cognitive or factual information about God. Myths use symbols, analogies and metaphors to communicate the beliefs and values of communities. The creation stories are examples of myths whereas Bultmann believed the creation stories need demythologised which would remove the unfactual supernatural element and return to Jesus' key moral teachings. Critics say myths are open to interpretation and that this theory goes against religious teaching. Religious Language is Non-Cognitive (Non-Factual) And Meaningless1. Verification Principle: In the 20th century, philosophy became concerned about language. Theories suggested that religious language was not factual or non-cognitive and therefore meaningless. The first theory was advocated by the Vienna Circle. This group of Logical Positivists proposed the Strong Verification Principle. There were interested in meaning in language. This was also known as Verification in practice. Meaningful statements were either true by definition (analytic statements eg all bachelors are male) or true by experience (synthetic statements all bachelors are happy). This theory was based on the empiricism of Hume. What emerged was the Strong Verification Principle where statements are true because they can be directly verified by sense experience. Only scientific propositions were meaningful. If they could not be verified, they were meaningless. Religion and ethics were considered meaningless. In their evaluation candidates may assess the underlying assumption of Logical Positivism. The problem with this theory was that it required direct verification. It was too rigid. Not everything could be directly verified. For example, how do we actually know that all ravens are black or the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066. So, AJ Ayer? proposed the weak verification principle where he said we need only to suggest terms/conditions of verification. Religion was still meaningless on this analysis . Critics have asked whether the verification principle can itself be verified. They have also questioned whether a Shakespeare poem is meaningless (as this theory seems to suggest). Finally, John Hick believed in eschatological verification after death. 2. The Falsification Principle A further challenge is provided by The Falsification Principle,? True statements assert something and deny something else. Saying X is Y is also saying X is not Z. Any theory that cannot be proved wrong is no theory at all . Science works like this and this influenced The Falsification Principle. Science works by saying statements are scientific if our empirical experience could falsify it. Religious beliefs were meaningless because religious believers do not accept the conditions in which they were false. Anthony Flew proposed this theory . He said that when we say tigers have stripes we are saying that there are denying the opposite at the same time. Flew told the? Parable of explorers in jungle who find clearing and debate whether there is a gardener. They test for a gardener using electric barbed wire fences and bloodhounds. But they still disagree with the believer advocating an intangible and invisible gardener . The sceptic asks whether there is a difference between such a gardener and no Gardner at all. Flew believed religious believers move the goalposts. They die a death of a thousand qualifications. What would need to occur for God to be proved false in their eyes? They are guilty of meaninglessness. The Falsification Principle has been criticised. First, is R. M. Hare’s idea of bliks. Bliks are beliefs that are not necessarily verifiable or falsifiable but are still meaningful. We all have these. Maybe religion is one such example. He gives the example of the student who thinks all the University lecturers are out to kill him. Second, Basil Mitchell tates that religious believers do consider arguments against religion, they just do not allow these objections to count decisively. He tells the story of the resistance fighter and the stranger. The resistance fighter trusts the stranger even though the stranger is seen consorting with the enemy. The resistance fighter considers arguments against but they do not count decisively. Religious Language As Non Cognitive (Factual) And Meaningful Ludwig Wittgenstein was the greatest philosopher of 20th century. Initially he influenced logical positivism with his picture theory of meaning and language. This idea stated that when we use language we picture a certain verifiable state of affairs. Wittgenstein changed his view as he thought this theory too narrow.? His later or second theory advocated language games whereby languages were used in different ways or settings. We cannot get out of the game to find the real meaning of words. Language makes the game. The meaning of language depended on its context or use. Meaning was not fixed but depended on use. He used the metaphor or chess - the meaning of the piece was its role in the game. He felt religious language must be seen in this context. He gave the example of rain dances and the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus. Wittgenstein stated that we needed to understand the way language worked .? He did not see either of these as necessarily literal but thought that people needed to understand the language. Wittgenstein influenced the atheist priest Don Cupitt. for Wittgenstein there are only the games.Past Paper Questions Critically assess the views of Paul Tillich on religious language. (Introduction to RL / Tillich/ For / Against use critics of RL /you) Evaluate the claim that analogy can be used to express the human understanding of God.(Explain Aquinas / Reaction to Via Negativa/ Arguments for/arguments against/ your views). Critically compare the use of myth with the use of analogy to express the human understanding of God. (What is myth? What is analogy? Refer to human understanding of God. Myths about deeper reality eg creation. Aquinas. Similarities. Differences. Criticisms) Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless. [(What is Logical Positivism? Why do some people think RL meaningless? How would some people stick up for RL – bring in theories. Wittgenstein and language games) The falsification principle offers no real challenge to religious belief. Discuss. (What is FP. Parable of Gardener. Arguments for. Arguments against – Hare and Mitchell). Critically assess Wittgenstein’s belief that language games allow religious statements to have meaning (Explain Wittgenstein’s second theory. Strengths. Bring in Cupitt. Use first theory, VP and FP to criticise plus other theories. Your view)To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God. (Explain Via Negativa. Yes it is – positives. No it is not negatives. Other ways. You) Symbolic language is the best way to talk about God. Discuss. (Explain symbol/Strengths?/ Best way? – other theories of RL/ Critics/Your view) Myths are more useful for talking about God than symbols. Discuss (Define myths/symbols / Yes – strengths of myth, weakness of symbols/ No Symbols are – strengths/ Both flawed – VP and FF and analogy or via negative better. You)Critically compare the use of symbol with the use of analogy to express human understanding of God. (What is symbol? What is analogy? Similarities? Differences? Strengths? Weaknesses? Your View) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download