Religious Language Speaking about God Part 1

Why Religious language? The concept of a God is: Something other Something timeless We talk of things using our knowledge that is acquired through our experience If something is ‘other’ and ‘timeless’ it is by definition not part of our experience How then can we talk of something that does not belong in our world?

True or False? Cognitive Statements that are either true or false Used of God in theistic proofs Non-Cognitive Statements that are neither true nor false Used by philosophers who generally do not seek theistic proof

What does a word mean? Univocal Words that have only one meaning E.g. sky, tree Words about God must have same meaning as in our world Equivocal Words that have more than one meaning E.g. mouse, web Via negative

Thomas Aquinas Language as Analogical Middle position God not like us But we can reason about Him Means of comparing what we know to God e.g. father, love, good

Analogy Of attribution Contains idea of origin E.g. Human wisdom is a reflection of God’s wisdom Of proportionality Attributes of God are proportional to his nature Just as attributes of humans is proportional to their nature

Putting it all together Answer the following exam question in groups Aquinas provides the solution to talking about God through the concept of analogy. Discuss.

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Explain concept of God Consider Cognitive and Non-cognitive language Introduce Univocal and equivocal - examples Aquinas’s answer – Analogy – explain, give example What do you think and why? Conclusion

Religious Language Speaking about God Part 2

Logical Positivism Empiricism Knowledge is based on experience The Vienna Circle 1920s & 1930s What is meaning of ‘meaning’? Philosophers Schlick and Carnap

Verification Principle By the Logical Positivists Logical principle about meaning of words For a statement to be meaningful it had to be verifiable by sense experience

Verification Principle Wittgenstein A major influence due to his theory that language had to be about objects But misunderstood as he believed in the mystical VP excluded statements such as ‘Julius Caesar landed at Deal in 55BC’

Verification Principle A J Ayer Book, 1936, Language, Truth and Logic Strong verification Verify by sense experience and observation Weak verification Verified by others

Problems with VP Principle itself is not verifiable and therefore is not meaningful Keith Ward – religious statements not excluded If I were God I could check the truth of my own existence

Problems with VP John Hick Eschatological verification Theological statements meaningful by weak verification ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ = historical statement Ayer later admitted inadequacy of the principle

Falsification Principle Anthony Flew – 1950s Statement is meaningless if no sense experience cannot count against it Parable of John Wisdom The invisible gardener ‘Death by a thousand qualifications’

Problems with FP Hare Religious beliefs are ‘Bliks’ Parable of lunatic who thought dons were trying to murder him Mitchell Religious statements can be falsified in principle but not in practice Parable of resistance leader Hare and Mitchell accept falsification principle to an extent

Problems with VP Richard Swinburne The coherence of Theism 1977 Claimed that statements can have meaning although they are not falsifiable Toys play at night John Hick – Celestial City Verifiable but not falsifiable, yet is meaningful FP fails it’s own test just as VP does

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Explain empiricism Introduce the Vienna Circle VP – what does it say – example Who has challenged it and how What do you think and why? FP – what does it say – example Who has challenged it and how What do you think and why? Conclusion

Religious Language Speaking about God Part 3

Symbolic Language Signs Provide information Symbols Impact on feelings and emotion Have the power to evoke participation

Symbol Paul Tillich – “Symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate because it transcends the capacity of any finite reality to express it directly” (Dynamics of Faith, 1958) God is not ‘a Being’ but Being itself God is personal but not a person

Symbol Don Cupitt (Taking leave of God, 1980) Religious language is not about the transcendent or metaphysical It is about our experiences, our psychology and feelings Therefore the problems of religious language disappear Not everyone agrees though, Keith Ward maintains the idea that God is transcendent (Holding Fast to God,1982)

Metaphors Metaphor creates participation Janet Soskice (Metaphor and Religious Language, 1985) Language reveals something about God E.g. Brain = Computer

Metaphors Sallie McFague (Models of God in Religious Language, 1982) Not only religious language but theology is metaphorical Root metaphors = Father, Son, Kingdom Wants new metaphors, e.g. mother, lover, friend

Something to think about Do you think a symbol can represent that which is beyond our experience? How can we be sure that a symbol does not give the wrong insights about the ultimate?

Myths A myth was seen as something that was not true Now seen as giving insight into human existence Need to be deciphered. language used is symbolic

Models Ian Ramsey (Religious language, 1957) A model helps us to understand the original ‘Models’ need to be qualified ‘Qualifiers’ point to how we should understand the original in relation to the model

Models Infinitely good Model Qualifier

Language games Wittgenstein ( ) Early ideas of ‘Picture theory of meaning’ Words name objects Therefore objects are meaning of words Latter claimed he was wrong Unrealistic to assume that all words are based on pictures

Language games Put forward idea of language-games Meanings depend on the context in which a word is used E.g.: problems with the concept of the ‘soul’ would disappear if people realised that the physical language game does not apply to the soul

Putting it all together Answer the following exam question in groups ‘All talk about God is both without meaning and without purpose.’ Discuss.

How to answer Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? Pick out the salient points – ‘talk of God – without meaning – without purpose. Define God Consider the arguments against the idea of God – verification and falsification Include criticism of above Refer to the various ideas of symbolism, showing how religious language could be valid. What do you think and why? Conclusion