The philosophical inquiry into religious language scrutinises the capacity of human language to discuss the divine and assesses the significance and truthfulness of religious statements within human discourse.
The Inadequacy of Human Language for the Divine
The Nature of Divine Language
- Ineffability of the Divine: Central to the issue is that the divine, by nature, is often deemed beyond human comprehension and articulation. The ineffability thesis holds that no human language can adequately describe God’s wholly other nature.
- Metaphorical Language: Given this limitation, religious language frequently resorts to metaphors. Terms like “God is my rock” are not literal but attempt to convey some truth about the nature of God through human concepts.
William Alston's Perspective
- Alston asserts that religious language is not about conveying factual information like empirical descriptions but rather about expressing a type of spiritual recognition or awareness.
- Divine Attributes: He delves into the problematic nature of ascribing human attributes to God, questioning how terms like wisdom or love apply when referring to a divine being.
Analogical Use of Language
- Analogies serve a pivotal role in religious discourse, making the ineffable somewhat comprehensible.
- Thomas Aquinas' View: For Aquinas, God's attributes are analogous to human qualities; they are not identical but have a proportionate relationship, allowing for a partial understanding of the divine through human concepts.
Verificationism and Religious Statements
A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism
- Ayer's verification principle was a foundational aspect of logical positivism, suggesting that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be empirically verifiable or analytically true.
- Impact on Religious Language: This principle dismissed much of religious language as cognitively meaningless since God cannot be empirically verified.
Critiques of Verificationism
- The verification principle faced criticism for being self-refuting, as the principle itself is not empirically verifiable.
- D.Z. Phillips: He argues that religious language has its own internal criteria for meaning and should not be judged by empirical standards.
Wittgenstein and Religious Language as a Language Game
Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Language
- Wittgenstein introduced the concept of language games, arguing that the meaning of language derives from its use within specific life forms.
- Language Games: He posited that each form of life has distinct language games with their own rules of language use, making religious language meaningful within its own game.
Religious Language as a Language Game
- Wittgenstein’s perspective suggests that religious language is a distinct form of discourse with its own rules and should be understood in its own context.
- Criticism and Defence: Some critics argue that this view isolates religious language, while supporters maintain that it recognises the unique framework within which religious language operates.
The Role of Practice in Understanding
- Wittgenstein placed significant emphasis on the role of practice in grasping the meaning of religious language, suggesting a non-literal understanding can emerge from participation in religious practices.
The Meaningfulness of Religious Language
The Cognitive and Non-cognitive Divide
- Cognitive Statements: These are propositional and can be said to be true or false.
- Non-cognitive Statements: These include utterances like expressions of emotion or commands, which are not about truth but about behavioural disposition or attitude.
The Challenge to Cognitive Meaning
- The debate extends to whether religious language is cognitive, making factual claims about the universe, or non-cognitive, expressing something other than propositions.
Realism vs. Non-realism
- Realism: This stance upholds that religious statements correspond to an objective reality.
- Non-realism: Contrary to realism, this viewpoint sees religious statements as symbolic narratives that reflect human culture rather than any external truth.
The Verification Debate and Its Evolution
The Falsification Challenge
- Antony Flew challenged religious statements with the falsification principle, suggesting that for a statement to be meaningful, one must know what empirical evidence would count against it.
- Parable of the Gardener: This analogy demonstrates how religious believers often do not accept any empirical situation that would falsify their beliefs, questioning the meaningfulness of religious claims.
Post-Verificationist Approaches
- Following the critique of verificationism, some philosophers like John Hick suggested that religious statements could be subject to verification after death.
- Reformed Epistemology: Alvin Plantinga and others in this field suggest that certain religious beliefs may be 'properly basic', known through experience without the need for evidence.
Language and Experience in Religion
Mystical Language
- Language used to describe mystical experiences often fails to convey their full meaning due to their deeply personal and transcendent nature.
- Transcendent and Ineffable: Such language stresses the elements of religious experience that defy empirical observation and verification.
The Role of Symbols and Myths
- Religious symbols and myths convey meanings that transcend their surface-level interpretation, often communicating profound truths in a non-literal fashion.
- Paul Tillich's Theory of Symbols: Tillich believed symbols contain an element of the truth they signify, thus participating in the reality they represent, which provides them with a sense of depth and richness beyond the literal.
FAQ
The doctrine of analogy is a theological and philosophical approach that seeks to navigate between the pitfalls of equivocation (where words mean the same when applied to God and creation) and univocation (where words mean completely different things), when speaking about God. This doctrine posits that while human language cannot fully capture the essence of God, it can still meaningfully refer to the divine by using analogies. For instance, when we say God is "good," the doctrine of analogy suggests that God's goodness is analogous to human goodness, but infinitely greater and without imperfection. This allows for a meaningful, albeit indirect, conversation about the divine attributes without reducing God to human terms or inflating human concepts to the level of the divine.
Apophatic theology, or negative theology, confronts the problem of religious language by asserting that one can only speak about the divine in terms of what it is not. This approach is grounded in the belief that the essence of God is beyond human comprehension and language. Thus, apophatic theologians use negative terms to strip away human conceptions of God, which are seen as inadequate or misleading. For instance, they would argue that God is not evil, not ignorant, and not finite. In doing so, apophatic theology emphasises the transcendence of God and the limitations of human language, fostering a sense of mystery and humility in religious discourse.
Theories of myth illuminate the role of storytelling and narrative in conveying religious truths that might be inaccessible through propositional language. Myths are seen not merely as false stories but as symbolic narratives that express complex truths about human existence, the nature of the world, and the divine. In this light, religious language becomes a medium for conveying deeper meanings that resonate with the human psyche and communal identity, offering insights into existential questions and ethical norms. Myths function to bind communities together with a shared language that encapsulates their most profound experiences and beliefs.
Religious non-realism is a perspective within the philosophy of religion that interprets religious language as not referring to an objective, external divine reality but rather as expressing human inner experiences, moral values, or community practices. Non-realists argue that religious language should be understood symbolically or metaphorically, providing a narrative framework for expressing the human condition rather than factual claims about the cosmos. This view impacts the interpretation of religious language by emphasising the function of religious discourse in life rather than its truth-conditions, thus shifting the focus from ontological claims to practical implications.
The cataphatic (or positive) approach in theology asserts that we can speak meaningfully about God by affirming certain qualities that are considered divine. This approach does not shy away from using human language to attribute positive characteristics to God, such as goodness or wisdom, based on human understanding of these traits. However, it's recognised that such descriptions are limited and can only offer an analogy of the divine attributes, not a complete representation. While this approach allows for a more direct discourse about God, it still acknowledges the gap between finite human understanding and the infinite nature of the divine.
Practice Questions
Wittgenstein’s language game theory recognises the contextual meaning of religious language, respecting its unique grammar and use within a form of life. This avoids categorising religious statements as universally meaningless if they don’t meet empirical standards. However, a weakness lies in the theory’s potential relativism, suggesting that religious language is only valid within its own game, thus isolating it from secular discourse and potentially leading to a form of fideism where religious claims are immune to rational critique and outside argumentation.
The verification principle profoundly impacted debates around religious language by labelling non-empirically verifiable religious statements as meaningless, shifting focus onto the cognitive content of these statements. However, it doesn’t present an insurmountable challenge, as it has faced significant criticisms, particularly its self-referential inconsistency. Moreover, the principle overlooks the pragmatic, emotive, and ethical uses of language that are central to religious discourse. Thus, while influential, the verification principle isn’t the final word on the meaningfulness of religious language, as subsequent philosophical discourse has shown.
