Review: Religious Language

1. Review: Religious Language Mr.DeZilva March 18th, 2014. March 24th, 2014.

3. What is Religious Language • Religious language refers to specialist vocabulary and terms that religious people would use • Furthermore, it is used in the context of truth claims – statements used about what something is or is not. • i.e. Jesus is alive today • RL can also be used to express feelings and emotions, particularly if you are of a certain faith.

4. What is RL continued… • RL can be used performatively • i.e. “I now pronounce you husband and wife together” • RL is used to announce that something has happened or will happen • RL can be used prescriptively • i.e. “Honour your father and your mother” • Encourages people to act in certain ways

5. Key Terms • Cognitive Statements expresses facts and knowledge (e.g. Tollbar is a school). • Non-Cognitive Statements expresses things which we could never know: feelings, values, and (perhaps) metaphysical claims (e.g. Tollbar is the best, most compassionate school in the world). Critics of religion might emphasise the Non-Cognitive nature of much religious language.

6. The problem with RL • Basically, the problem is one of meaning. If we are to believe in God or some other aspect of religion, we can only do this if we can use language to talk about it in a meaningful way. If talk of God is nonsense then the idea of God is potentially nonsense. • The debate is ages old. The religious have always claimed that the divine is difficult to express in terms of limited human language. In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah found himself in God’s presence and said, “woe is me, a man of unclean lips!” This connects with the idea that God is transcendent – beyond us. Yet, the opposite point has also long been recognised: if God cannot be described then there may be little scope for belief.

7. The Via Negativa • Via Negativa means (negative way) and is sometimes called the Apophatic Way • This involves speaking of God using only negatives to emphasise the difference between God and humanity • As soon as we speak of God in positive terms and suggest that God has attributes which we recognise from the physical world, we are making inaccurate statements.

8. Via Negativa Continued • Pseudo-Dionysius (6th Century) argued that the via negativa was the only way in which we can speak truthfully about God • God is beyond human understanding • We need to go beyond the realms of sense perception and rationality in order to become unified with God; “a cloud of unknowing” • It was only through the recognition of the limits of humanity that spiritual progress could be made

9. Via Negativa Continued • Moses Maimonides (12th Century) argued that attributes of God could be expressed in negative terms • We come to understand what God is not, and therefore, move closer to appreciating what God is. • Ship example • Buddhism would also support the via negativa in order to describe the nature of reality • i.e. to understand nirvana, one must know that it is absolutely NOT what you can know with sense

10. Challenges to the Via Negativa • Brian Davies “Only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, and if one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all.” • There are endless possibilities in terms of what one could be thinking of even if all negations are “crossed off” • Anthony Flew • There is little separating the definition of nothingness and the definition of God (i.e. soundless, invisible, etc)

11. Further Challenges • If God is out of our experience, then we cannot reach God • i.e. “white is the opposite of black” only makes sense to someone who has seen white • Many holy scriptures make positive references about God • i.e. The Bible says that God is a king, judge, father, shepherd, etc.

12. Support to the Via Negativa • Via negativa does not place a limit on God by giving it a point of reference within the physical world • Contributes to the mystery and mysticism of God  Conveying the belief that God is not like us • Via negativa applies well in different cultures and periods of history since we can say something about God, which can be true and not need interpretation.

13. Practice Exam Question • “The only way in which meaningful statements can be made about God is the Via Negativa.” Discuss • For this question, the via negativa needs to be compared with other ways of making statements about God, so it would be useful to consider discussion on Falsification, Analogy, etc. Regardless, you would still be required to explain the via negativa and include examples of different thinkers who have supported it. Criticisms of the via negativa should also be explained and evaluated and to what extent are these claims valid? Alternative ways of talking about God using positive terms could be explored, but should not take up the bulk of the paper. Aim to present an argument, as opposed to a display of various perspectives.

14. The Vienna Circle & Logical Positivism • The Vienna Circle was a group of Philosophers who met after the first world war. They held the belief that theological interpretations of events and experiences belonged in the past. • Developed a more “positivist” approach. • The first problem or criticism of RL originates from a group of philosophers called the Logical Positivists. • They were concerned with the relationship between the use of language and knowledge, rejecting as meaningless what they saw as non-cognitive (fact free) claims • Logical Positivist and The Vienna Circle were inspired by Ludwig Wittengstein(1889 – 1951) • Wittgenstein suggested that meaningful language is connected with the things we know from our senses. • Logical Positivists said: how could religious language link with sense experience?

15. The Verification Principle: AJ Ayer • Ayer became influenced by developments in Vienna and developed the idea of a Verification Principle • Verification means checking a statement to see if it’s true. • The VP states that… “A statement which cannot be conclusively verified … is simply devoid of meaning.”

16. The VP: Ayer (continued) • The VP was a way in which statements could be tested to see whether there was any point in talking about them. • Verificationists like Ayer hold that statements can only be meaningful if they can be demonstrated, and these can be divided into two types: …

17. The VP – Ayer (continued) • Analytic Statements: true by definition • e.g. ‘this circle is not a square’, or ‘2+2=4’ • Synthetic Statements: true by confirmation of the sense • e.g. ‘I can see that it’s ham for lunch on Thursday’ • Verificationists hold that statements can only be meaningful if they can be demonstrated, and these can be divided into the two above statements.

18. The VP: Ayer (continued) • Ayer thought that religious claims are Non-Cognitive and impossible to verify, so they are meaningless. • He does not say that they are just false; it is more that they cannot really tell us anything at all.

19. The VP continued… • Denotation: • When the word stands for something, acts a labels for something • i.e. The word window stands for the part of the wall that has glass in it • Connotation • When the word carries other associations • i.e. the word window might stand for opportunity • The word carries meaning beyond the literal

20. Further Support to the VP John Hick • “Eschatologically verifiable” • Religious truth-claims are verifiable after death (eschatos = last) • Convincing evidence is not available now, but will be • Weak Verification (Ayer) • Answers the problem of the senses (next slide) • Suggests that we might know things by setting up sensible standards for evidence i.e. eye-witness accounts, multiple sources, etc. • Strong Verification: Opposes Weak; Can be directly verified by empirical observation

21. Challenges to the VP • The verifiability of the theory cannot be verified by sense experience • We cannot tell with our senses if something has or has not happened, thus it is not a meaningful synthetic statement • Historical and Scientific statements would never have any meaning Anthony Flew • Instead of a statement needing to be verifiable, it should be falsifiable

22. The Falsification Principle by Anthony Flew • Referred to a parable from John Wisdom’s “Gods” article (invisible gardener) • Draws similarities between The Believer and a religious person who makes claims such as “God loves us as a father loves his children” • Every time the religious believer is faced with a challenge to their religion, they modify their beliefs • Religious believers make claims about the nature of God, but modify them so much that in the end they eventually have no meaning.

23. The FP – Flew continued • Any positive claim we make also assumes that we deny its negation. • I.e. If I say that College work is fun, I am also saying that College work is not,notfun • Language is only meaningful if we can conceive of some evidence which might count against it. • I.e. It’s only meaningful to say that College work is fun because students might be able to show contradictory information: boring research projects, tedious routines.

24. The FP – In a nutshell The problem with ‘God talk’ is that it often implies that it could never by falsified: “I know that God loves me in a special and mysterious way which no-one may question or disprove”. If God is just a mystery, then we are not using language in a constructive, meaningful way  If asked, “Under what circumstances would your statement that God loves us be false” religious believers would not be able to think of any – they would still stick with their original assertion/claim, but for Flew, the claim needs also to be falsified.

25. The Falsification Principle “Claims religious believers make about the nature and activity of God die a death by a thousand qualifications” - Flew In the end, religious believers are saying nothing meaningful at all

26. Challenges to The FP • Via Positiva(Cataphatic Way) • The way of speaking of all of the positive attributes of God so that one can merge with or become imbued with these Godlike characteristics • i.e. “God is Love” • Richard Swinburne • We do not have to be able to specify what would count against a statement in order for that statement to be meaningful

27. Support to the FP • Karl Popper • “One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or testability” • I.e. Einstein’s theory of gravity was scientific because it was potentially falsifiable • Its truth could be tested against empirical observations • Falsification is a way to demarcate (establish) scientific statements which are supported by some form of empirical evidence from other statements which are unscientific

28. The FP and Bliks(critiqueto Falsification) • Hare took up the idea of falsification and used it to describe certain beliefs which he called ‘bliks’. • A blik is a non-rational belief which could never be falsified (disproved). • Bliksare not necessarily untrue (some are sane and some insane), but they are groundless. • An insane blik vs. a sane blik religious statements are an interpretation of the world, which could be seen as “sane” or “insane” • An unfalsifiable conviction • Parable of the Lunatic and the University Staff example John Hick responds by saying that religious statements have reasons, statements, scripture, etc • The judgement that religious beliefs are insane is still arbitrary and has no observational evidence. R.M. Hare

29. The FP critiquecontinued Basil Mitchell • Objects to the idea that religious claims are groundless ‘bliks’ • Argues that religious claims are grounded in some facts • The Partisan and the Stranger • A stranger supports a revolutionary fight but sometimes seems to help the enemy. This is similar to i.e. the problem of evil and belief in God

30. The Use of Analogy to express understanding of God

31. What is Analogy? • Analogy is a comparison that attempts to show how two or more things are similar • We cannot say anything positive that is literally true of God, because the use of ordinary human language automatically limits God. The Analogy of Paley’s Watchmaker helps explains the teleology of the universe to compare the design of the world to that of a watch – this helps express God in human language

32. Key Terms • Univocal: The same word is used with the exact same meaning • I.e. “A green hat” & “A green ball” • Green has the same meaning • Equivocal: The same word is used with a different meaning (or ambiguous) • i.e. “Fruit punch” & “Hole punch” • Punch has different meanings. How do you think these two terms relate to Religious Language?

33. Problems - Univocal • Black cat, black hat, black mat: for all these, ‘black’ means the same thing. Problem: If we say ‘that lesson was good’ then ‘good’ means something different from saying ‘God is good’, since God is perfect and infinite. • So, Aquinas argues, we cannot speak of God univocally.

34. Problems - Equivocal • Gay can mean very different things: ‘happy’, ‘homosexual’, or (among some students) ‘not very good’. • Problem: If we say that ‘God is good’ means something completely different from any other ‘good’ then God would be unintelligible (we couldn’t understand him). • So, Aquinas argues, we cannot speak of God equivocally.

35. St. Thomas Aquinas & Analogy • We could make positive claims about God and convey positive ideas, but we need to understand that we are speaking analogically, not literally. Two Types of Analogy: • Analogy of Attribution • Analogy of Proportionality

36. Analogy of Attribution • Where there is a causal relation between the two things being described • I.e. A sticky cake might be called “sickly” because of the effect it has on the person eating it • I.e A seaside town might be called “healthy” because it causes the people who live there to be healthy.

37. Analogy of Attribution cont’d • Aquinas thought that we could gain understanding of God by considering his role as creator. • Simply, if God made the world then we could expect the world to reflect God in some way. Therefore we would be justified in drawing analogies between the world and God; the world is an order of reference • The example of a bull and its urine.

38. Analogy of Proportionality: • Where the words relate to objects which are different in proportion • I.e. A clever dog and A clever scientist, with clever being used proportionality – however, the Dog is clever as far as dogs go. The scientist is clever as far as scientist and other people go Therefore When we use terms like “loving” or “faithful” when describing God, we can understand them, however, realise that for God, it is used in an infinitely larger scale.

39. Analogy of Proportion cont’d • It follows the basic idea is that humans possess God’s qualities because we are created in his image (Genesis 2). • However, because God is perfect, we have his qualities in a lesser proportion. • It is important to remember that God cannot be wholly understood and that we never will reach a clear understanding of what exactly God is • But, there is “a dim and imperfect likeness” amongst two comparatives, as there is between us and God.

40. Analogy of Proportion cont’d • An analogy which is just a metaphor and does not really deal with proportionate qualities would be one of improper proportion. • For instance, ‘God is a rock’. This ignores essential differences in qualities for the sake of a loose comparison.

41. Critique of Analogy • Darwin & Dawkins • Werehumans actually created in the image and likeness of God? Evolution would disagree – and if Evolution is fact, then the comparisons of proportion mean very little • The Problem of Evil • Is evil also analogical for God? If so, this makes a perfectly good God impossible • Swinburne • Analogy is an unnecessary theory. We can speaks of God and humans as “good” univocally, but they both possess goodness in different ways. But it is still the same essential quality.

42. Critique of Analogy cont’d • William Blackstone • We have to translate the analogies into univocal language before they mean anything • i.e. We have to understand how God’s love relates to human love before we even begin our understanding

43. Support to Analogy • C. Stephen Evans • It is okay to accept that God is mysterious and that our knowledge of Him is limited • There is an otherness (Otto) of God – a fearful and fascinating mystery, that our language ought to convey, not disguise • Ian Ramsey • Religious Language function as models • Models  something that represents something else and helps us to understand the original • These words are used as a reference point from our human experiences that we can apply

44. Use of Symbol to express human understanding of God

45. What is Symbol? (In terms of RL) • Language can be used figuratively and people recognise it right away • i.e. “I’m going to kill my husband when I get home” is understood as actually not killing • Religious language is used symbolically when talking about their relationship with God • i.e. “God listened to their prayers”

46. Symbol cont’d Paul Tillich spoke aboutsymbols • Symbols are not signs. Symbols participate in what they point towards • I.e. Road signs just point to a fact about a road, but a symbolic flag participates in the power of the nation, idea, or king

47. Symbols cont’d Tillichgives four key features of symbols: • 1) They point to something beyond themselves, • 2) They participate in that to which they point • 3) They open up levels of reality which otherwise are closed to us, • 4) They open up dimensions of the soul which correspond to those aspects of reality. For point (3) (4), the person needs to be familiar with the religion/religious language for meaning - this allows for a personal participation that is essentially for religious symbols

48. Symbols cont’d • We could think of a ChristianCross, for example. • It is a marker for Christianity, but it also makes a powerful statement and draws Christians in to participate in what they see as the reality of the messiah • It represents Jesus’ sacrifice and the redemption he brings. • It is a prompt from prayer, worship, and meditation

49. Criticisms of Tillich and Symbol • John Hick • Participating’ in a symbol is unclear • The flag example; in what sense does the flag really do something? Is there really a big difference from signs here? • William Alston • Objects that symbolism means that “there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false” • Tillich’s symbols are not literally true, Alston feels that they could have no meaningful impact on us. • They could not send us to heaven or hell, for example.

50. Criticisms of Tillich and Symbols cont’d • John Macquarrie • Symbols provoke an existential response • Remind us of feelings (loyalty, awe) and then we can recognise that we should have the same response to God • Symbols prove an understanding in terms of similarity to relation • Similar (if not the same) as analogies • Relate “light to the world” to God’s relationship and affect on humans. • Ludwig Wittgenstein • Language Games