Review: Religious Language
Mr. DeZilva
March 18th, 2014.
March 24th, 2014.
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.
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
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 NonCognitive nature of much religious language.
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.
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.

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
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
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)
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.
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.

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.
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?

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.”

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: …

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.
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.

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
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
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

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.
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, not fun

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.
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.
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
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
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
The FP and Bliks (critique
to 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).
 Bliks are 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
The FP critique continued
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
The Use of Analogy to express
understanding of God
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
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?
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.
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.

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

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.
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.


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.
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.
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.
Critique of Analogy

Darwin & Dawkins
◦ Were humans 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.
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
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
Use of Symbol to express human
understanding of God
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”
Symbol cont’d
Paul Tillich spoke about
symbols

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
Symbols cont’d
Tillich gives 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
Symbols cont’d
We could think of a Christian
Cross, 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

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.
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
The use of Myth to express the
human understanding of God
What is Myth?
A story that tries to communicate
fundamental issues/values about a culture
or a society (in this case)
 It incorporates symbols, metaphors, and
models
 A myth may or may not be historically
accurate, but it conveys important truths
that might be difficult to express in other
ways.

Myth continued…


Stories such as that of Hercules or Hera and
Zeus tell about the value system of the ancient
Greek culture
In the case of Religious Language, myths
communicate the values of Christianity
◦ The Creation Story communicates a deep and real
awareness of God as Creator and of human being’s
place in creation
◦ Myths are important because they preserve cultural
identity of a group in story form
◦ Myths may point to and reveal something about God
(similar to that of a symbol)
◦ Examples of myth include various Old Testament
stories (Genesis, Job, Parting of the Red Sea)
Critique of Myth (not necessarily
support or challenge)

Rudolph Bultmann
◦ Attempted to remove the supernatural view of
the world of the New Testament (miracles,
religious experiences), as they conflicted with
modern science discoveries
◦ However, Bultmann argued that the writers of the
New Testament were never trying to make a
record of accurate historical fact, but they
expressed their beliefs through myth.
◦ The real point of the gospel message was the
need for people to reach a personal decision
about the direction they wanted their lives to
take in relation to God
Critique of Myth (not necessarily
support or a challenge)

John Hick
◦ Suggested that Jesus was not God in human
form, but that the idea of Jesus as God
incarnate was a myth
◦ Hick still recognises and argues for the
importance of Jesus to God and the
expressing of Jesus’ godliness – but not
literally true i.e. “God was in Christ”
 Many would argue against Hick and say
that there is some Biblical scripture that
needs/should be taken literally
Ludwig Wittgenstein & Language
Games
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Years after he had influenced the
Logical Positivists, Ludwig
changed his views on how language “Don’t ask me for
the meaning, ask for
works
the use.”
 Focused on the uses of language
 Less concerned with the truth or
falsity of language
 Words have no objective
reference points; they simply
reflect systems of behaviour

Wittgenstein continued


For Religious Language, he thought that
function might be more important than
meaning.
Argued that language works through a series
of “language games”
◦ This means meaning only comes out of context;
we have to know what “game” that our terms are
participating in.

The problem  Issues in Philosophy may
occur through a misunderstanding of the
words, which can be used in different
language games.
Wittgenstein continued
Meaning is all about observing what the
“right way” and the “wrong way” to do
things is like (similar to that of a game)
 With religion – there may be conventional
ways or unconventional ways to talk about
God
 LG connects with the Coherence theory
of truth

◦ This is the view that statements are true if they
fit with other statements and beliefs which are
internally consistent.
The Game of Religious Language

It could be argued that the “game” of religious
language cannot be criticised because internally
it is coherent and intelligible.
◦ Religious views fit with other religious views
◦ Religion is a Language Game and it makes more
sense if you are participating in it
However  This allows any claim to be equally
valid to another because it is a relativist concept
 Important to note – Wittgenstein talks very little
about Religion as a language game, and never
clearly states that Religion is a language game.

Support to Language Games
D.Z Phillips
 Extends the idea that religion is a language
game and thus, cannot be either grounded
or criticised since it is a system all of its own
 The “reality” of God or religion does not lie
in the abstract issue of if God exists, but
instead it is located in the words and
practice of the religion
◦ Therefore  God is defined by the language
game of faith
◦ To understand what God is, you need to take
part, participate and play the game.
Phillips continued
“If a philosopher wants to give an account of
religion, he must pay attention to what religious
believers do and say … It is not the task of a
philosopher to decide whether there is a God
or not, but to ask what it means to affirm or
deny the existence of God.”
Criticisms of Language Games

LG reject the popular view that language can be
objective and scientific
◦ With this view of Religious language our language can
never convey truth in an absolute sense

There could be no progress in philosophical
debates, (because they are based on
misunderstandings of language).
◦ Any debate held would be an issue of language, as
opposed to the actual content

Wittgenstein’s LG (alongside Phillips) leads to
irrationalism and blind faith.
◦ This denotes any ideas of justification (and make it okay)
Questions

Critically assess the views of Paul Tillich
on Religious Language

Evaluate the claim that analogy can
successfully be used to express the
human understanding of God.

Critically compare the use of myth with
the use of analogy to express the human
understanding of God.

Critically assess the claim that religious
language is meaningless.

The falsification principle presents no real
challenge to religious belief. Discuss

Critically assess Wittgenstein’s belief that
language games allow religious statements
to have meaning.

To what extent is the Via Negativa the
only way to talk about God?