Religious Language
AQA Requirements:
1. Issue of whether religious language should be viewed cognitively or non-cognitively
2. The challenges of the verification and falsification principles to the meaningfulness of religious
language
3. Eschatological verification with reference to Hick
4. Language as an expression of a Blik with reference to R.M.Hare
5. Religious language as a language game with reference to Wittgenstein
6. Religious language as symbolic with reference to Tillich
7. Religious language as analogical with reference to Aquinas
8. The Via Negativa
9. Strengths & weaknesses of the differing understandings of religious language
1. Issue of whether religious language should be viewed cognitively or non-cognitively
Religious language = communication of ideas about God, faith, belief and practice.
• Cognitive Language - Realism - conveys factual information. Most cognitive language consists of
statements that may also be described as synthetic - they can be shown to be true or false de-
pending on evidence e.g. the houses of parliament are in Westminster - this is cognitive as it
gives factual information - it is also synthetic as it’s truth depends on evidence - if you go to
Westminster you are going to fine HoP or you are not.
• Non-cognitive Language - Anti-realism - may convey emotion, give an order, expresses hopes
and fears, give insight - but it does not depend on external facts. It may be relevant to facts, but
its truth does not depend upon its correspondence to empirical facts e.g. ‘I am happy because I
love this place and I find it beautiful’ this contains three non-cognitive statements.
The two problems of religious language:
1. How can words be used accurately to describe God?
- How can we do this when God is unlike anything or anyone that we actually experience?
How do the meanings of words change when applied to God?
- Is it univocal (same meaning - words mean the same when applied to God - anthropomor-
phism?)
- Is it equivocal (different meaning - words mean completely different things when applied to
God) - but if it is a completely different meaning what does a word mean when applied to
God?
10. Is religious language meaningless?
- The above idea assumes when we speak of God we are speaking cognitively - in other
words, we are assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that
it is able to describe an existent being, God.
- However, some philosophers dispute this and say that statements about God are non-cog-
nitive - not statements that are true or false - subjective.
- This has led to a strong challenge to religious faith - some philosophers claim that religious
belief is literally meaningless.
- Religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
Key problems of religious language:
1. Metaphysical (concerned with abstract thought or subjects, scubas existence, causality or
truth) and theological language faces the difficulties of speaking intelligently about that which is
ultimate, transcendent or perfect.
11. God is ineffable.
12. Does the religious language correspond to any truth.
13. If it cannot be verified, is it still meaningful?
AQA Requirements:
1. Issue of whether religious language should be viewed cognitively or non-cognitively
2. The challenges of the verification and falsification principles to the meaningfulness of religious
language
3. Eschatological verification with reference to Hick
4. Language as an expression of a Blik with reference to R.M.Hare
5. Religious language as a language game with reference to Wittgenstein
6. Religious language as symbolic with reference to Tillich
7. Religious language as analogical with reference to Aquinas
8. The Via Negativa
9. Strengths & weaknesses of the differing understandings of religious language
1. Issue of whether religious language should be viewed cognitively or non-cognitively
Religious language = communication of ideas about God, faith, belief and practice.
• Cognitive Language - Realism - conveys factual information. Most cognitive language consists of
statements that may also be described as synthetic - they can be shown to be true or false de-
pending on evidence e.g. the houses of parliament are in Westminster - this is cognitive as it
gives factual information - it is also synthetic as it’s truth depends on evidence - if you go to
Westminster you are going to fine HoP or you are not.
• Non-cognitive Language - Anti-realism - may convey emotion, give an order, expresses hopes
and fears, give insight - but it does not depend on external facts. It may be relevant to facts, but
its truth does not depend upon its correspondence to empirical facts e.g. ‘I am happy because I
love this place and I find it beautiful’ this contains three non-cognitive statements.
The two problems of religious language:
1. How can words be used accurately to describe God?
- How can we do this when God is unlike anything or anyone that we actually experience?
How do the meanings of words change when applied to God?
- Is it univocal (same meaning - words mean the same when applied to God - anthropomor-
phism?)
- Is it equivocal (different meaning - words mean completely different things when applied to
God) - but if it is a completely different meaning what does a word mean when applied to
God?
10. Is religious language meaningless?
- The above idea assumes when we speak of God we are speaking cognitively - in other
words, we are assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that
it is able to describe an existent being, God.
- However, some philosophers dispute this and say that statements about God are non-cog-
nitive - not statements that are true or false - subjective.
- This has led to a strong challenge to religious faith - some philosophers claim that religious
belief is literally meaningless.
- Religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
Key problems of religious language:
1. Metaphysical (concerned with abstract thought or subjects, scubas existence, causality or
truth) and theological language faces the difficulties of speaking intelligently about that which is
ultimate, transcendent or perfect.
11. God is ineffable.
12. Does the religious language correspond to any truth.
13. If it cannot be verified, is it still meaningful?
