Religious Language AO1
Examine the inherent problems with the use of religious language [20]:
Introduction - RL: statements about G, existence, nature, about afterlife, about G's
commands, moral values, sin etc
- Issues with discussing a transcendent God (G) with human language
- Issues with sacred text and pronouncements
- Issues with shared common understanding
- Paragraph 1: RL discussing G's nature: difficult to talk of G as infinite + timeless being
using human lang
- 2 ways of understand lang: univocal + equivocal (both fail according to Aq)
- univocal: when words have 1 meaning
- issue bcs when say G loving, 'loving' means same thing when say humans loving
- ∴ can't apply same words to G as do humans bcs transcendent + brings G down to our lvl
- equivocal: words have diff meaning
- issue bcs when say G loving, 'loving' has diff meaning when say humans loving
- don't know what G is so equivocal lang w G meaningless bcs don't know what means when
applied to G
- issues w talking about transcendent G
- VP: statements only meaningful in conveying truth value/fact through direct observation/
logical proof (Ayer + Vienna Circle)
- if G transcendent, statements about G unverified by empirical evidence bcs beyond phys
world
- Paragraph 2: sacred texts + religious pronouncements
- scared texts key source of RL as comm beliefs about G, world + doctrine
- science contradicts pronouncements in sacred texts so Qs about truth/meaning
- also science falsifiable but RL not (Ayer)
- eg creationism saying universe 10k yrs old but science says 13.8 billion yrs
- factually incorrect if taken literally so RL invalid way of understanding world
- if RL not literal truth + symbolic, leads to issues of diff interpretation
- can't know what interpretation correct so Qs about reliability
- some doctrines logically contradictory eg notion of Trinity
- if RL contradicts science/laws of nature, can be confusing/misleading so difficult to use
- Paragraph 3: RL not common shared base + exp
- normal lang based on shared exp/social contexts: eg when say table is green, other person
understands lang bcs exp of green + tables etc
- however faith not universal exp so when discuss trad concept of G, no shared exp where
both ppl w faith + w out can understand
- ∴ non-christians can't understand true meaning of RL bcs lack exp of ✝
, - eg Incarnation: G became human in J meaningful for christians but for non-christians,
unintelligible bcs no exp of divine becoming human
- language games: meaning of words comes from use w/ in form of life (Lebensform) +
social context
- LGs require ppt to understand rules + contexts to get meaning
- Wittgenstein: to understand RL, need to be part of comm + practice ✝
- ∴ only meaningful to certain group + can't function as universally meaningful lang
Examine why religious language may be understood to be meaningless according to the
verification principle [20]
Introduction - RL: statements about G, existence, nature, about afterlife, about G's
commands, moral values, sin etc
- logical positivism: movement sought to apply logic of science to philosophical claims
(Vienna Circle)
- VP: statements meaningful in conveying truth value/ factual content if verifiable thru
observation/proof
- Paragraph 1: when RL seen as cog, meaningless
- cog lang: express factual info telling us smth about how world is/isn't + either true/false so
empirically demonstrated
- for cog statement meaningful, must be true by def: tautological statements (eg △ is shape w
3 sides)
- analytic statements = tautologies (statement necessarily true so not dependent on
empiricism)
- empirical verification: synthetic statements must be verified by sense exps + if statement
expresses empirical prop, meaning of. prop established by empirical verifiability
- Ayer: existence of G can't be demonstratively proven
- can't be proven deductively: premises must be certain for conc to be 100% true but premises
for G empirical so can never be certain + only probable
- only a priori props (independent of exp) log certain but are tautologies + not claims about
real existence
- ∴ G's existence can't be log demonstrated so OA meaningless
- Paragraph 2: RL proving G exists a posteriori meaningless (CA/TA)
- if G existence probable,, 'G exists' = empirical hypo + should be able to verify by
observation
- however no experiential evidence found for claim
- TA argues regularity in nature = evidence but only proves G = order + rejected by ✝ bcs G
transcendent not description of natural order
- however issues w G being transcendent
Examine the inherent problems with the use of religious language [20]:
Introduction - RL: statements about G, existence, nature, about afterlife, about G's
commands, moral values, sin etc
- Issues with discussing a transcendent God (G) with human language
- Issues with sacred text and pronouncements
- Issues with shared common understanding
- Paragraph 1: RL discussing G's nature: difficult to talk of G as infinite + timeless being
using human lang
- 2 ways of understand lang: univocal + equivocal (both fail according to Aq)
- univocal: when words have 1 meaning
- issue bcs when say G loving, 'loving' means same thing when say humans loving
- ∴ can't apply same words to G as do humans bcs transcendent + brings G down to our lvl
- equivocal: words have diff meaning
- issue bcs when say G loving, 'loving' has diff meaning when say humans loving
- don't know what G is so equivocal lang w G meaningless bcs don't know what means when
applied to G
- issues w talking about transcendent G
- VP: statements only meaningful in conveying truth value/fact through direct observation/
logical proof (Ayer + Vienna Circle)
- if G transcendent, statements about G unverified by empirical evidence bcs beyond phys
world
- Paragraph 2: sacred texts + religious pronouncements
- scared texts key source of RL as comm beliefs about G, world + doctrine
- science contradicts pronouncements in sacred texts so Qs about truth/meaning
- also science falsifiable but RL not (Ayer)
- eg creationism saying universe 10k yrs old but science says 13.8 billion yrs
- factually incorrect if taken literally so RL invalid way of understanding world
- if RL not literal truth + symbolic, leads to issues of diff interpretation
- can't know what interpretation correct so Qs about reliability
- some doctrines logically contradictory eg notion of Trinity
- if RL contradicts science/laws of nature, can be confusing/misleading so difficult to use
- Paragraph 3: RL not common shared base + exp
- normal lang based on shared exp/social contexts: eg when say table is green, other person
understands lang bcs exp of green + tables etc
- however faith not universal exp so when discuss trad concept of G, no shared exp where
both ppl w faith + w out can understand
- ∴ non-christians can't understand true meaning of RL bcs lack exp of ✝
, - eg Incarnation: G became human in J meaningful for christians but for non-christians,
unintelligible bcs no exp of divine becoming human
- language games: meaning of words comes from use w/ in form of life (Lebensform) +
social context
- LGs require ppt to understand rules + contexts to get meaning
- Wittgenstein: to understand RL, need to be part of comm + practice ✝
- ∴ only meaningful to certain group + can't function as universally meaningful lang
Examine why religious language may be understood to be meaningless according to the
verification principle [20]
Introduction - RL: statements about G, existence, nature, about afterlife, about G's
commands, moral values, sin etc
- logical positivism: movement sought to apply logic of science to philosophical claims
(Vienna Circle)
- VP: statements meaningful in conveying truth value/ factual content if verifiable thru
observation/proof
- Paragraph 1: when RL seen as cog, meaningless
- cog lang: express factual info telling us smth about how world is/isn't + either true/false so
empirically demonstrated
- for cog statement meaningful, must be true by def: tautological statements (eg △ is shape w
3 sides)
- analytic statements = tautologies (statement necessarily true so not dependent on
empiricism)
- empirical verification: synthetic statements must be verified by sense exps + if statement
expresses empirical prop, meaning of. prop established by empirical verifiability
- Ayer: existence of G can't be demonstratively proven
- can't be proven deductively: premises must be certain for conc to be 100% true but premises
for G empirical so can never be certain + only probable
- only a priori props (independent of exp) log certain but are tautologies + not claims about
real existence
- ∴ G's existence can't be log demonstrated so OA meaningless
- Paragraph 2: RL proving G exists a posteriori meaningless (CA/TA)
- if G existence probable,, 'G exists' = empirical hypo + should be able to verify by
observation
- however no experiential evidence found for claim
- TA argues regularity in nature = evidence but only proves G = order + rejected by ✝ bcs G
transcendent not description of natural order
- however issues w G being transcendent
