Philosophy of Religion
Theme 4: Religious Language
A. Inherent problems of religious language:
Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless;
A. Timeless: existing outside of time and not experiencing time or change.
B. In time: time passes for God as it does for humans.
C.Brian Davies Argument one can only make sense of things existing in time if one thinks of them as being part
of the universe.
o God is a person, but nothing timeless can be a person (things in time occupy space but God
does not).
o God is living and acting: must be in time.
o God exists necessarily, God is essentially temporal, then time exists necessarily.
Statements become understandable and meaningful when a common understanding in agreed.
HOWEVER: language about our emotions, ideas etc. is outside physical reality (AKA
metaphysical) and thus is often dismissed.
Language used to express the ‘Ultimate’ (God) within a religious tradition encounters the same
problems.
E.g. God as infinite and timeless appear like more abstract claims than they do realities.
THUS: religious language about God is unverifiable in relation to our common base of
experiences that give language its meaning.
David Hume: ‘If we take in our hand any volume of divinity, we must commit it to flames for it
can contain nothing but illusion.’
Challenge to sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible;
A. All three faiths proclaim truths about God written in texts, commentary traditions and oral teachings.
B. Speech about God is essential to personal and organized celebration.
C.Language is understandable and relatable as it deals with the observable and experienced empirical world.
D. Without ability to speak about God and to understand the meaning, the Abrahamic faiths are vulnerable to
the criticism that their sacred texts and teachings are unintelligible.
E.Why is religious language a problem?
o Religious language consists of making claims about the unknown, unseen and wholly other.
o Believers usually intending to express something of importance to them.
If it is meaningless, it does not credit to their faith.
Some religious language (i.e. talking about religious things: writings, buildings.) are
understandable as they deal with the observable and experience empirical world.
HOWEVER: when they begin to discuss divinities, what is being communicated may not be
understandable.
E.g. how does a non-believer know what it means when they are greeted in a Pentecostal church
with the question, ‘Have you been washed in the blood?’
Challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience;
A. When talking about the traditional conceptions of God, there is no common experience universally
applicable to those with a faith commitment and those without.
B. When talking about something expressed in abstract terms (God) the empirical understanding of language
breaks down.
C.All language is specific to the individual or community that describe it:
o Immediately removes it from the possibility of universal verification.
o Therefore, it is the inherent problem of religious language.
Some philosophers consider religious language as inherently problematic as it cannot have an
empirically knowable ‘truth’.
No common or shared experience when talking about God.
Language is experience based and our experiences are time limited.
To talk about things beyond time means to talk about ideas that can only ever be expressed in
abstract terms.
Theme 4: Religious Language
A. Inherent problems of religious language:
Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless;
A. Timeless: existing outside of time and not experiencing time or change.
B. In time: time passes for God as it does for humans.
C.Brian Davies Argument one can only make sense of things existing in time if one thinks of them as being part
of the universe.
o God is a person, but nothing timeless can be a person (things in time occupy space but God
does not).
o God is living and acting: must be in time.
o God exists necessarily, God is essentially temporal, then time exists necessarily.
Statements become understandable and meaningful when a common understanding in agreed.
HOWEVER: language about our emotions, ideas etc. is outside physical reality (AKA
metaphysical) and thus is often dismissed.
Language used to express the ‘Ultimate’ (God) within a religious tradition encounters the same
problems.
E.g. God as infinite and timeless appear like more abstract claims than they do realities.
THUS: religious language about God is unverifiable in relation to our common base of
experiences that give language its meaning.
David Hume: ‘If we take in our hand any volume of divinity, we must commit it to flames for it
can contain nothing but illusion.’
Challenge to sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible;
A. All three faiths proclaim truths about God written in texts, commentary traditions and oral teachings.
B. Speech about God is essential to personal and organized celebration.
C.Language is understandable and relatable as it deals with the observable and experienced empirical world.
D. Without ability to speak about God and to understand the meaning, the Abrahamic faiths are vulnerable to
the criticism that their sacred texts and teachings are unintelligible.
E.Why is religious language a problem?
o Religious language consists of making claims about the unknown, unseen and wholly other.
o Believers usually intending to express something of importance to them.
If it is meaningless, it does not credit to their faith.
Some religious language (i.e. talking about religious things: writings, buildings.) are
understandable as they deal with the observable and experience empirical world.
HOWEVER: when they begin to discuss divinities, what is being communicated may not be
understandable.
E.g. how does a non-believer know what it means when they are greeted in a Pentecostal church
with the question, ‘Have you been washed in the blood?’
Challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience;
A. When talking about the traditional conceptions of God, there is no common experience universally
applicable to those with a faith commitment and those without.
B. When talking about something expressed in abstract terms (God) the empirical understanding of language
breaks down.
C.All language is specific to the individual or community that describe it:
o Immediately removes it from the possibility of universal verification.
o Therefore, it is the inherent problem of religious language.
Some philosophers consider religious language as inherently problematic as it cannot have an
empirically knowable ‘truth’.
No common or shared experience when talking about God.
Language is experience based and our experiences are time limited.
To talk about things beyond time means to talk about ideas that can only ever be expressed in
abstract terms.
