4. Evaluate this statement: 'Religious Language is meaningful'
In this essay, I will examine whether religious language is meaningful through examining
different ways of using religious language, as well as examining key criticisms of each way.
Religious Language is an area of Philosophy concerned with the properties and meaning of
expressions referring to religion or God. In linguistics, syntax is a set of rules and
arrangements that sentences should follow in order to be meaningful. Sentences should also
follow all conditions of meaning to be considered meaningful. The conditions of meaning
explain that a sentence must use recognisable words, follow grammatical rules and
communicate something. There are two philosophical approaches to whether a statement is
meaningful or not: cognitivism states a statement is meaningful if it expresses a fact and is
based on empirical observation, whereas non-cognitivism states that, as well as factual
statements having meaning, statements that are based on feelings and interpretation also
have meaning. Moreover, there are two different types of words used in religious language:
univocal words only have one meaning in any context, however equivocal words have
different meanings depending on the context they were used in. Religious language can also
be classed as realist, meaning the terminology used in a religious statement is to be
understood the same way as in ordinary non-religious statements; anti-realist opposes this
and it is argued that terminology cannot be understood in a way that exists in reality.
Religious language can link to Ethics as Divine Command Theory is a normative ethical
theory where it is stated that what is good is what God commands. To understand God, we
must use religious language, hence assessing the meaningfulness of this religious language
and how it is best used is important to better understand the normative ethical theory. There
are different methods offered for making religious statements in a meaningful way, through
Via Negativa and through Analogy, proposed by Aquinas. In this essay, these methods will
be examined in order to evaluate whether religious language is meaningful.
One method of using religious language is through Via Negativa. Literally translated from
Latin to mean ‘the negative way’, it is an apophatic way to talk about God. It focuses on
describing God by what He is not, rather than what He is, for example, ‘God is not evil’. This
is done to emphasise the difference between God and humanity. This method of using
religious language in an attempt to make religious language meaningful is supported by
different theologians. Firstly, Pseudo-Dionysius, a 6th Century Christian Theologian,
supported via negativa and claimed it was the only way to talk about God. This is because
he explains how God is ‘beyond all being and knowledge’, supporting how we cannot talk
about God through what he is and we do not encompass such knowledge. Instead, by using
what we know, we can identify what God is not. This is emphasised by Moses Maimonides,
a Jewish philosopher, who, due to his faith, believed we could not comprehend God. He
reiterated that human language and terminology is only useful when explaining concepts in
the finite world, hence showing how we cannot describe God for what he is. Maimonides
claimed that by understanding God through what he is not, we move closer to approaching
what God is. Therefore, Via Negativa may make Religious Language meaningful as by
understanding that our terminology cannot explain God, but by using it to understand what
he is not, we gain a truer understanding of what God is, contributing to the overall
meaningfulness of religious language.
However, a criticism of Via Negativa is that the use of it as a way of using religious language
is questioned as a whole. This is because the Holy Books are not apophatic; the holy books
of classical theism all use positive statements of God, such as the 99 names of God in Islam
being positive statements only. This poses the question of if God Himself did not use
negative statements to describe Himself, why must we? However, defenders of Via Negative
would argue that God only uses positive statements about Himself for us to understand him
better, but it should not be used long term. This is because it may lead to anthropomorphism
In this essay, I will examine whether religious language is meaningful through examining
different ways of using religious language, as well as examining key criticisms of each way.
Religious Language is an area of Philosophy concerned with the properties and meaning of
expressions referring to religion or God. In linguistics, syntax is a set of rules and
arrangements that sentences should follow in order to be meaningful. Sentences should also
follow all conditions of meaning to be considered meaningful. The conditions of meaning
explain that a sentence must use recognisable words, follow grammatical rules and
communicate something. There are two philosophical approaches to whether a statement is
meaningful or not: cognitivism states a statement is meaningful if it expresses a fact and is
based on empirical observation, whereas non-cognitivism states that, as well as factual
statements having meaning, statements that are based on feelings and interpretation also
have meaning. Moreover, there are two different types of words used in religious language:
univocal words only have one meaning in any context, however equivocal words have
different meanings depending on the context they were used in. Religious language can also
be classed as realist, meaning the terminology used in a religious statement is to be
understood the same way as in ordinary non-religious statements; anti-realist opposes this
and it is argued that terminology cannot be understood in a way that exists in reality.
Religious language can link to Ethics as Divine Command Theory is a normative ethical
theory where it is stated that what is good is what God commands. To understand God, we
must use religious language, hence assessing the meaningfulness of this religious language
and how it is best used is important to better understand the normative ethical theory. There
are different methods offered for making religious statements in a meaningful way, through
Via Negativa and through Analogy, proposed by Aquinas. In this essay, these methods will
be examined in order to evaluate whether religious language is meaningful.
One method of using religious language is through Via Negativa. Literally translated from
Latin to mean ‘the negative way’, it is an apophatic way to talk about God. It focuses on
describing God by what He is not, rather than what He is, for example, ‘God is not evil’. This
is done to emphasise the difference between God and humanity. This method of using
religious language in an attempt to make religious language meaningful is supported by
different theologians. Firstly, Pseudo-Dionysius, a 6th Century Christian Theologian,
supported via negativa and claimed it was the only way to talk about God. This is because
he explains how God is ‘beyond all being and knowledge’, supporting how we cannot talk
about God through what he is and we do not encompass such knowledge. Instead, by using
what we know, we can identify what God is not. This is emphasised by Moses Maimonides,
a Jewish philosopher, who, due to his faith, believed we could not comprehend God. He
reiterated that human language and terminology is only useful when explaining concepts in
the finite world, hence showing how we cannot describe God for what he is. Maimonides
claimed that by understanding God through what he is not, we move closer to approaching
what God is. Therefore, Via Negativa may make Religious Language meaningful as by
understanding that our terminology cannot explain God, but by using it to understand what
he is not, we gain a truer understanding of what God is, contributing to the overall
meaningfulness of religious language.
However, a criticism of Via Negativa is that the use of it as a way of using religious language
is questioned as a whole. This is because the Holy Books are not apophatic; the holy books
of classical theism all use positive statements of God, such as the 99 names of God in Islam
being positive statements only. This poses the question of if God Himself did not use
negative statements to describe Himself, why must we? However, defenders of Via Negative
would argue that God only uses positive statements about Himself for us to understand him
better, but it should not be used long term. This is because it may lead to anthropomorphism
