Name:
Philosophy of Religion
Religious Language and Worldviews
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Introduction
The Questions
World Views and Conceptual Frameworks
Relationship of Faith to Reason
Pragmatic Approach
Fideism
Role of Reason
Final Questions
I.
Introduction
The relationship of religious faith to reason is a very complex issue.
It is also one of
the most important issues in Philosophy of Religion and an issue that focuses on the core
of the religious phenomena. There are several possible views. In the course of
examining religious phenomena, specifically religious faith, with critical analysis there
arise several different possible explanations for what religious language is and what it is
meant to convey. The relation of reason to faith is a matter of the relation of religious
language through which the religious faith is described and the faculties of reasoning and
critical analysis. To explore this issue is to examine or search for the very core of
religion itself!
II.






The Questions
Are religious people to be expected to believe in things that make no sense?
Are religious people expected to believe in things being true which are impossible?
Are religious people to be expected to believe in contradictory reports all being true at
the same time?
What exactly is the relation of Religious Faith to Reasoning?
Are Faith and Reason compatible or not?
What is going on when religious people express their belief in unbelievable events or
claims?
1
III. World Views and Conceptual Frameworks








Worldview
Conceptual Framework
Blik
Linguistic Framework
Form of Life or Language Games
Basic Beliefs- Foundational Beliefs
Evidentialist Position on Basic Belief Systems
Coherentist Position on Basic Belief Systems
In order to examine these issues and to enter into a serious dialogue with others who have
considered these questions it is important to understand the meaning of certain important
concepts that become involved in the ongoing discussion.
Since the issues involve the basic ways in which people experience and think about their
world the very concept of a basic and global perspective on life and experience must be
examined. What is it? Where does it come from? How does it function? What is its
importance?
As each person interacts with others in a given environment they learn not only about
things, (their names and features) but they learn from others the basic framework in
which it is believed that those things are set. People learn a number of basic ideas
through the very language that they learn to speak. These ideas are imbedded in the
language itself. As long as all the users of the language use it in a similar fashion there
is little reason for any one of them to begin to think about the underlying assumptions or
basic ideas that are imbedded in that language.
The use of ordinary language to express religious ideas about what is most important or
most basic often leads others to begin the examination of the imbedded assumptions of
ordinary language itself.
For example, when people grow up hearing and speaking about such things as: having a
“mind”, “losing my mind”, “what’s on your mind?”, “are you out of your mind?”
The result is that people in that culture that uses language this way have a belief that
humans have something called a “mind” and that it is important and may be occupying a
space in their body but is not part of it. These ideas about the existence and nature of the
mind are imbedded in the language. There is not a sufficient amount of evidence to
actually support these ideas and the evidence can be interpreted differently depending on
whether or not one begins the examination of the evidence already with the belief in the
existence of the mind.
2
Worldview
People hold different views of various matters. The difference in those views is of
different orders. Two or more people can view the same event from different physical
perspectives or with different attitudes towards what they have viewed. Over and above
those differences, people can view matters with very different ideas about what things
mean what is valued, and what it takes to prove something, even what constitutes reality.
When people share a common set of basic beliefs about what is real, true, known, valued
and how one comes to know things then they share in what is known as a worldview.
Conceptual Framework
This is a set of ideas which establish a manner of viewing either all of reality or some
well-defined portion of it. For example, physicists may view events using the framework
of quantum mechanics or that of relativity theory. Their findings and explanations will
differ accordingly.
Blik
A set of profoundly unfalsifiable assumptions that govern all of a person’s other beliefs.
Each person has such bliks and no one can escape having them. Some claim that these
bliks can not be subjected to rational scrutiny. Others claim that they can and should be
appraised rationally; that a gradual accumulation of evidence and reasoning can count
against a blik and lead to its abandonment. For example, someone who believes in alien
visitations to earth and government conspiracies to cover them up will experience official
government reports and independent investigations of such phenomena and claims much
differently from someone who does not hold those beliefs concerning extraterrestrials and
government officials.
Linguistic Framework
Wittgenstein has observed that the limits of my language are the limits of my world. If a
person does not have the words with which to think of something then it may be
impossible for that person to think that the object of that thought even exists. On the
other hand a person may live in a culture that has many words with which to think of
things and so that person has more objects in the world than those people from cultures
without the words. For example, Eskimos have many more words for “snow” than do
other peoples. They experience snow differently. For them there are a far greater
number of different forms of snow than the non-Eskimo experiences. Chinese languages
use gerunds (action words) for nouns. Their view of reality is one which has a much
greater amount of activity in it and less isolation of objects from one another than those
people who are not raised with Chinese as their first or basic language.
3
Form of Life or Language Games
Wittgenstein has observed that humans enter into different uses of language in which the
words take on different meanings. There are in life different situations or contexts in
which the language usage and meaning may vary and these are repeatable and
organized. They are referred to as language games or forms of life. A person could
enter into several different language games during a lifetime. For example, there is the
ordinary form of life and then the sports form of life. There is the scientific form of life
and language game and there is the religious form of life and language game. To “steal”
is wrong ordinarily but to “steal” a base is acceptable and commendable in baseball and
to “steal“ the opponent’s game plan or signals is acceptable in basketball or football. To
“ kill” one’s opponent means one thing on the streets and another in an athletic contest.
Basic Beliefs- Foundational Beliefs
Whether it be religion or science or athletics or commerce there are certain basic beliefs
upon which an entire set of ideas are built or constructed or rest. These basic ideas are
not tested for their truthfulness or accuracy. They are not verified. They are not capable
of being verified. Yet, the entire system of ideas rests upon them. For example, in
science the idea of uniformity of nature is a “given” or basic idea and so is the very
existence of an external universe that is separate and apart from the knower or
experiencer. Likewise the process of reasoning known as Induction is accepted as a
form of reasoning and verification. Yet there are no “proofs” that such ideas are “true”.
Evidentialist Position on Basic Belief Systems
Some theorists hold that any and all basic belief systems must be and are subject to a
method of verification that utilizes physical evidence and phenomenal evidence. This
requires that there be physical events, objects and experiences that confirm the basic
beliefs or at least a substantial number of them.
Coherentist Position on Basic Belief Systems
In this view the basic belief systems can not be verified or confirmed using actual
evidence. It is enough for the believers to subject their belief systems to a rational
examination utilizing the criteria of coherency. What is required for a believer is that the
basic ideas be consistent with one another and make sense in reference to one another.
4
IV. Relationship of Faith to Reason
There are several possible views of the relationship of Faith to Reason. They are:
A. Commensurable
It is rational to believe in God and spirits and other religious claims.
Compatible (Aquinas)
The basic religious beliefs are compatible with reason. There are rational supports for
those beliefs. Other beliefs may be strictly matters of faith resting upon the basic beliefs.
Complete Harmony (Kant)
Religious belief and Reason are in complete harmony with one another.
B. Incommensurable
It is NOT rational to believe in God, spirits and other religious claims.
Irrational (Hume, Kierkegaard)
Faith is opposed to reason and is firmly n the realm of the irrational.
Transrational (Calvin, Barth)
Religious faith is over and above reason and is not to be subject to criteria generally used
by reasoning beings. To use reason on matters of faith is not only inappropriate but
irreverent and faithless.
For many of those who hold the transrational position religious faith may be rested upon
revelation which is self-authenticating.
Anthony Flew
Dr. Flew maintains that serious truth claims must be capable of rational scrutiny. For
such claims to be meaningful there must exist conditions that would count against the
claim being true. If there are none then the claim is meaningless and belief in it is not
rational. Flew presents religious beliefs as resting upon meaningless claims because
those claims can not be falsified.
R.M Hare
Hare maintains that Flew’s criteria for rationality should not apply to religious beliefs.
Such beliefs are based upon and constitute a blik, which is a set of profoundly
5
unfalsifiable assumptions, which people use to order their lives. There are a variety of
such bliks. Science operates with its own blik and so religion is to be treated no
differently.
Basil Mitchell
Professor Mitchell takes a compromise position between hare and Flew. He argues that
bliks exist but he holds that a gradual accumulation of evidence should be able to
overturn or remove a blik. Religious beliefs are either:
1. provisional hypotheses
2. significant articles of faith
3. empty or meaningless statements that make no difference in experience or to
life.
The religious person can not accept position (1) and must avoid slipping into (3) which
leaves only (2) and continued belief.
Michael Scriven
Professor Scriven argues for atheism on rational grounds. He holds that one should hold
a belief based upon reason. There is not a rational argument to compel belief in a deity,
therefore there are only two choices: agnosticism and atheism. One can be an agnostic if
there is as much evidence for a position as against it. There being no compelling rational
argument for belief in a deity, Scriven concludes that agnosticism must be rejected and
atheism is the position which reason obliges one to take in the absence of any evidence
and compelling arguments to the contrary. There being no compelling proof for the
existence of a deity, atheism is the rational conclusion.
C.S. Lewis
Dr. Lewis maintains that there is an accumulation of evidence in the life of a believer that
becomes self-authenticating.
V.
Pragmatic Approach
In this view whether the ideas or claims of a religion are true or not or make sense or not
is not that important as those questions may not be resolvable. What is important is
whether or not there are reasons for a person to be a believer and what difference it
makes in the world to be a believer.
6
Whether or not to believe becomes a matter for reasoning and calculating in terms of its
consequences and not the veracity of the claims or the coherency of the set of religious
beliefs.
Pascal’s Wager
This French thinker held that one should use reason to determine whether or not to
believe in the existence of God. He utilized a rationalization as the basis for belief. He
thought that a person should conduct an evaluation of the advantages of belief and weigh
them against the disadvantages; a cost-benefit analysis. The result of his “calculations”
was that he thought it far more reasonable to believe than not to for the rewards are
greater and the possible disadvantages are far less if one is mistaken and it turns out that
there is no deity at all.
Table of possible consequences:
Believe in God
Don’t Believe in God
God Exists
Rewards are great
Eternal suffering
God does not exist
Loss of a finite amount of pleasure
Gain a finite amount of pleasure
Therefore , it is better to believe!!!
W.K. Clifford
British philosopher, W. K. Clifford holds that there is an ethics to belief that makes it
immoral to hold a belief without a sufficient reason. He disagrees with the entire
approach of Pascal and the pragmatists. Clifford rejects the pragmatic justifications as
not being genuine. He holds that such justifications are counterfeits or pseudo
justifications. Believers have an obligation to believe in propositions only upon
sufficient evidence, which they must seek. It is wrong to believe without sufficient
evidence.
William James’ Will to Believe
The American philosopher William James held that people have and should have a will to
believe. People must live by faith or cease to act. Religious beliefs, such as the belief in
a Supreme Being are living, forced and momentous. Humans can not avoid them.
Humans must act. People should go with their passionate nature and decide among the
genuine options what to believe. In the absence of a clearly persuasive argument one has
the right to choose the better option rather than the worse. Humans can choose to believe
when the evidence in inconclusive or inadequate to support the belief. Humans can
decide to believe and live with faith in the hopes of knowing what the truth is and
avoiding error.
7
VI. Fideism
This is a view of religious belief that faith must be held without the use of reason or even
against reason. Faith does not need reason. Faith creates its own justification. Ther are
two possible variations of fideism.
1. faith as against reason
2. faith as above reason
Soren Kierkegaard
For Kierkegaard faith is the highest human virtue. Faith is necessary for human
fulfillment. It is above reason. Genuine faith is beyond the end of reason. Faith is
higher than reason. Faith is the result of human striving. Faith should be the result of a
subjective experience. The only way to know God is through such an experience that is
extremely subjective and personal.
Robert Adams
Professor Adams argues against Kierkegaard’s approach to faith. He argues against the
approximation, postponement and passion arguments. For Adams, A person is justified
in believing in a set of claims (S) if that person is willing to sacrifice everything else to
obtain it even if there is but a small chance of success.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
For the British Philosopher, Wittgenstein, the religious believer is participating in a
unique form of language or language game when speaking of religious matters. The
ideas, concepts and claims of the religious believer can not be fully understood by
someone who is not participating in the same language game or form of life as the
religious believers. The claims of the religious language game can not be subjected to the
rules of another language game, such as science. To attempt to do so would be absurd.
Norman Malcolm
The American philosopher, Norman Malcolm shared in Wittgenstein’s view. He held
that religious beliefs are not to be treated as hypotheses as in science. Religious beliefs
participate in another language game and form of life. Malcolm held that religious
beliefs are groundless beliefs. Just as science has a set of basic beliefs that are not
capable of verification upon which others are built or depend, so too does religion have
such beliefs. Such beliefs can not and should not be rationally justified. They do not
8
need such support. Science proceeds with the beliefs that (1) things don’t just vanish, (2)
the uniformity of nature and (3) self-knowledge of our own intentions.
Science and religion are two different language games and one should not submit the
claims of one system of thought to the criteria or rules of another language game or
system of thought. Neither is in any greater need for justification or support than the
other is.
Michael Martin
This American holds that while Wittgenstein and Malcolm may be correct concerning the
variety of language games there must be some common conceptual framework with
which the various forms of life or language games can be evaluated. He holds that there
must be some criteria for rational assessment. Therefore, analysis and evaluation of all
worldviews is possible and ought to be performed by rational beings. This is based on
the following:
1. It is possible to distinguish one form of life from another
2. Each form of life has its own standards
3. External criticism is possible and does exist
e.g., the argument for the existence of god may be considered as compelling
within the religious form of life but not compelling or invalid external to the
religious form of life.
Martin concludes that fideism is no more successful than the traditional or existential and
pragmatic approaches to religious faith.
VII. Role of Reason
What might the role of reason be in the life of a religious person? How can a religious
person use reason within the religious life? How can a person use reason with religious
beliefs?
John Hick
For Hick religious experiences generate religious beliefs. These beliefs are natural
beliefs. They are overwhelmingly evident to the believer.
Alvin Plantinga
Professor Plantinga opposes the view of religious beliefs that subjects them to
verification to the need for evidence to support claims. Plantinga holds that religious
9
beliefs are foundational beliefs or basic beliefs. Belief in the existence of God is a proper
and basic belief that is part of the set of foundational beliefs.
Michael Martin
Martin opposes Plantinga’s view. Martin hold claims that Plantinga’s view leads to
radical and absurd relativism wherein any beliefs may become basic and called rational
simply because one chooses to hold them. Martin thinks that on Plantinga’s view
anyone could justify any belief system.
Louis Pojman
Pojman rejects the foundationalist view of religious beliefs and in its place he prefers a
coherentist view. In this view religious belief systems, indeed all such systems, are
subject to reason. A belief system is a web or network of mutually supportive beliefs.
Some beliefs in the set are more privileged than others because they are more self evident
to the believer. Few of the beliefs are sustained outside of the system. All believers
access the beliefs within the system (world view) from personal interpretive perspectives.
The goal of the use of rational processes upon such systems of beliefs is a set of
optimally rational positions. Pojman holds that that it is difficult but not impossible to be
critically rational about religious belief and experiences.
All religious experiences must be scrutinized rationally, honestly.
All religious belief must be justified.
All religious belief systems should be coherent.
Louis Pojman
Faith without Belief?
Is it possible to have faith without belief? Pojman thinks that it is. He substitutes an
interim assent with hope.
Importance of Belief as a religious attitude
a. intellectual and emotional end to doubt
b. guides action
Faith as Hope
1.
2.
3.
4.
the object of desire may not obtain
hope precludes certainty
hope entails desire for a state of affairs
hope disposes one to bring about a state of affairs
10
Hope does not entail belief but a more proactive attitude favoring the desired state
of affairs.
Pojman recommends that people live imaginatively in hope. Religious believers
can give interim assent with honest doubt. Decisive assent (firm belief) should
not be a requirement for religious participation and for salvation. Interim assent
and hope should be enough. It is a position which reason can support.
VIII. Final Questions
After examining this issue from a variety of perspectives and examining a variety of
positions on the basic questions what questions are left unresolved? All the original
issues and questions have been considered from a number of different perspectives and
with a few different set of initial assumptions or worldviews and conceptual frameworks.
What then is the result? The following questions remain:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Are religious beliefs subject to rational analysis and evaluation?
Are religious beliefs subject to scientific investigation for veracity?
Must religious beliefs satisfy the criteria of reasoning?
Is belief to be based upon a suspension of reasoning?
Are religious beliefs above reason or at least separate from reason?
If religious beliefs are not to be subject to reasoning or to scientific verification , how
are humans who are rational beings to deal with them?
11