RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

DIFFERENT VIEWS OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE (PART 1):

What purpose does it serve?

INTRODUCTION: COGNITIVE VS NON-COGNITIVE RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

Cognitive religious language

The first half of this module concerned the meaningfulness of religious language –o That believers wanted religious statements to be considered as cognitive language, as conveying facts

and information and God.o But, as the Logical Positivists pointed out, religious language does not really lie within the realm of fact

(such statements are neither true nor false, and are therefore meaningless).

Two particular views on cognitive religious language, given in response to Logical positivism, came from Hick and Mitchell, who wished to retain the meaningfulness of religious language, despite its lack of verifiability or falsification in the way proposed by the principles.

Remember, Mitchell’s Parable of the Partisan and Hick’s Eschatological Verification put forward a cognitive view of religious language, as both argue that religious statements will be verified in the after life. o Mitchell says way all the peculiar and problematic parts of religious belief (e.g. the problem of evil) will be

revealed at the end of time.o Hick says we are unaware of the kind of evidence needed to verify religious statements, but such

knowledge will be provided after death.

Non-Cognitive religious language

In this final half of the module, we will look at various non-cognitive approaches to religious language, to understand: o What purpose philosophers feel religious language serves, despite being unable to convey facts. o And how religious language still holds a meaning of sorts, even if this is not factual meaning.

These non-cognitive views of religious language come from:

A2 Philosophy of Religion – Module 2: Religious Language

In this final section of the module we will be looking at various views on religious language:1. Aquinas – Analogy2. Tillich – Metaphorical and Symbolic3. Bultmann – Myth4. Wittgenstein – Language games5. R.B. Braithwaite – Moral discourse

1. Aquinas – The Analogical View of Religious Language

Believers have always insisted that many things can be said about God using the via affirmitiva approach provided that it is qualified by the via negativa approach. This is due to God’s ineffability. And it is also to recognise that language about God is nearly always by way of analogy.

Thus when a believer says ‘the Lord is my shepherd’ or even ‘God is loving’, or when God is spoken of as a person, allowance is made for the fact that these words are not being applied to God in the way we would apply them to another human being. St. Thomas Aquinas developed an analogical view of religious language. He argued that we only have our day-to-day language to talk about God. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas stated that, ‘We cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not’.

We understand that a word, when applied to God, has a different meaning from its everyday use because we understand God is perfect. We are therefore using analogies.

Aquinas argues that when descriptive terms are applied to God they mean neither the same nor something completely different than when they are applied to humanity. o When we speak about God we use words and images,

Neither univocally – in the same sense as when we apply them to ourselves. Nor equivocally – applying the same terms in a completely different sense.

For example, when we say ‘God is good’ we need to know how we are using the word ‘good’ in that sentence.o If we are speaking univocally, we are claiming that God is good in the same way humans are. Aquinas

rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because of this, imperfect humans cannot be good in the same way that God is.

o Alternatively, if we are speaking equivocally, we mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans. Aquinas rejected this too. He argued that if we speak equivocally about God, we cannot profess to know anything about him as we are saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, does not apply to God.

However, despite Aquinas’ reservations about the adequacy of religious language, we will see how his metaphysics suggest that through analogy we can have cognitive language about God.Aquinas believed that there was a ‘middle way’, a way of talking meaningfully about God: analogy.

AN ANALOGY: is a comparison between two things, when a similarity between two things is suggested by the use of the same word.

In the phrases ‘a good book’ and ‘a good dog’, the word ‘good’ is not used in the same way, but there is a similarity in the way in which it is used. If we understand its meaning in one phrase, its use in the second will also be meaningful.

LINK TO A2 MOD 1: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Anselm’s ontological argument aims to prove it is rational to believe in the existence of God by virtue of the definition of ‘God’: ‘a being than which none greater can be conceived’.

Aquinas critiques Anselm’s ontological argument on the basis that religious statements are to a certain extent equivocal (we have different understandings of the concept of ‘God’) and even if we share the same definition of ‘God’ that Anselm gives, we have no real understanding of what that sequence of words really means.

We can only try to associate the phrase "a being than which none greater can be concieved" with more familiar finite concepts (by analogy), but these finite concepts are so far from being an adequate description of God, that it is fair to say they don't help us to get a detailed idea of God.

Aquinas appears to take a NON-COGNITIVE VIEW OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE; o He suggests the inadequacy of language is to such an extent it does not convey any real facts about God.

o While human love may be seen to be a limited and imperfect shadow of the love God has for humanity, but there are similarities in what the word ‘love’ means in both contexts – which makes this religious

language understandable.

Aquinas distinguished between two forms of analogy, that of attribution and proportion.

1. ANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION:

Aquinas believed it was possible to work out the nature of God by examining his creation. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument was that the world was created and sustained by God (hierarchical causation) and for him, the link between creator and created order was clear.

In the analogy of attribution, Aquinas takes as his starting points the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect. He then goes on to argue that all beings in the universe in some way imitate God according to their mode of existence:

‘God is called wise not only insofar as He produces wisdom, but also because, insofar as we are wise, we imitate to some extent the power by which He makes us wise. On the other hand, God is not called a stone, even though He has made stones, because in the name stone there is understood a determinate mode of being according to which a stone is distinguished from God. But the stone imitates God as its cause in being and goodness.’

So the way the analogy of attribution works is:o We may speak of someone have a ‘sickly’ look because his appearance is the result of sickness. o Aquinas saw human attributes as a reflection of Godly attributes – since God is the cause of them.

CONFLICT OVER THE ANALOGICAL VIEW:

REJECTION: Some philosophers have rejected the use of analogies to describe God. They argue that an analogy has to have some shared understanding, some basis for comparison. o This is not possible when speaking about God, because God is beyond human understanding. o They believe that the use of analogies within religious language is meaningless.

DEFENCE: Aquinas disagreed. He argued that there is a relationship between the world and God. God created the world, and sustains it (i.e. hierarchical causation in the cosmological argument), so there is a point of comparison.

Because we are made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), we can assume some similarity between ourselves and God. o But we are neither exactly the same as God (is God a hermaphrodite if ‘in the image of God he made him: male and

female he made them’?) nor are we completely different from Him. o Again, this is why religious language is neither univocal (literal), nor equivocal (completely dissimilar).

Therefore we can legitimately speak about God using comparisons (analogies) with ourselves.

Analogy of attribution applies when a term, originally used concerning one thing, is applied to a second thing because the one causes the other.

o So human wisdom as a reflection of God’s wisdom. And since God is the source of love and life, therefore it is possible to speak of ‘the Living God’ or say ‘God loves us’.

2. ANALOGY OF PROPORTION:

The basic idea is that we possess qualities like those of God (goodness, wisdom, faithfulness etc) because we were created in his image and likeness, but because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.

AN ILLUSTRATION FROM JOHN HICK: ‘Consider the term ‘faithful’. A man or a woman can be faithful, and this shows in particular patters of speech, behaviour and so on. We can also say that a dog is faithful. Clearly there is a great difference between the faithfulness of a man or woman and that of a dog, yet there is a recognisable similarity or analogy – otherwise, we would not think of the dog as faithful. Further, in the case of the analogy between the human beings and the dog true faithfulness is something we know in ourselves, and a dim and imperfect likeness of this in the dog is known by analogy.’

So the way the analogy of proportion works is:o Just as a dog is loyal in the way in which dogs are loyal, humans are loyal in proportion to the loyalty of

being a human. o Similarly, one can understand God as all-powerful as we have the human idea of power. God is

proportionally more powerful than humans, so although we cannot completely understand the idea of God’s omnipotence we can have an insight into God’s power because of our human experience of power.

o In other words: to some extent we can understand God’s greatness in relation to those parts of ourselves that we know to be great, e.g. strength, love, knowledge etc. All good qualities belong infinitely to God and, in proportion, to humans too.

LINK TO AS / A2 TOPICS: Consider Michelangelo’s ‘God Creates Adam’. How was his depiction of God and Adam communicated via analogy?

AQUINAS’ ILLUSTRATION: The Ox and the Urine

Aquinas uses the example of an ox to illustrate this point. It is possible to determine the health of an animal by examining its urine. Aquinas said that if an ox’ urine is healthy, then we can determine that the ox will be healthy. Obviously however, the health of the ox is more completely and perfectly within the ox itself and is only reflected in the urine produced by the ox.

In the same way God is the source of qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly.

This sets up an order of reference, meaning that these qualities apply to God first and foremost, then to other things secondarily and analogically. Because we are created in the image of God, it is possible to say that we have these attributes (wisdom, goodness etc) analogically: these qualities are attributed to us, whilst God has them perfectly.

In summary: Aquinas uses the analogy, 'The medicine is healthy'; 'The urine is healthy'o The medicine being healthy is the cause of the urine being healthy. o Healthy is used in similar but not quite the same way in both cases. o Urine is only healthy as the health came from the medicine, while the medicine is healthy in itself.o Similarly when we say ‘God is good’: God’s goodness is the cause of human goodness, and is goodness in itself.

Analogy of proportion occurs when a word is employed to refer to a quality that a thing possesses in proportion to the kind of reality it possesses.

IN CONCLUSION:

The purpose of religious language here is to talk meaningfully about God, and gain some understanding of God.

Despite Aquinas’ reservations about the adequacy of religious language to convey facts about God, analogy might be seen as cognitive language due to Aquinas’ metaphysics – since God is creator and sustainer of all things, by referring to objects in this world, we are also talking about God (who is present in all observable things).

Hence analogical language, to some extent, conveys facts about God. Religious language could be seen as cognitive to an extent, then, except not as scientific statements of fact in the Logical Positivist tradition.

DISCUSSION POINTS FOR USE IN (B) QUESTIONS (THINK OF BOTH POINTS OF VIEWS):

Q1. Is analogy inadequate at conveying the greatness of God? Are we making too big a leap from our everyday language to communication about the transcendental?

Q2. Analogy does not provide a clear, precise understanding about God. Do you think analogies allow a meaningful discussion of God and His characteristics?

Q3. Is it not the case that some terms of attributes are applied to God literally? When believers say that God is infinite, perfect, eternal, omnipotent etc, surely this language is being used in a literal sense?

CRITICISMS OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS ANALOGY (USE FOR ‘B’ QUESTIONS):

1. His analogy argument rests on God having created the world: Aquinas based his work upon a number of assumptions that came from his religious belief. o He believed that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of the earth (Cosmological Argument) o He also believed that humans were created ‘in the image and likeness of God’ as is stated in Genesis.

The idea that we were created has been refuted implicitly by Darwin (evolution) and explicitly by Richard Dawkins (‘selfish gene’ – humans as DNA survival machines). If one doesn’t accept his assumptions, one doesn’t have to accept the idea that we can work out what God is like by examining a creation that may or may not be his.

2. Analogy picks some qualities, but not others i.e. the good qualities, ignoring the bad. o The world also comprises evil, does God possess these qualities as well? o Though, this criticism would appear to have been refuted by Augustine, who argues that there is no such thing as

evil, just a falling away from or privation of the good. (But was the idea of privation a strong one? Not really…)

3. Analogy can tell us nothing new about God, as it is based upon things that are already in existence, it is rather like saying that we can work out everything about a car designer from the car that he has designed.o The bridge that Aquinas attempts to create between things known and unknown, is built of imaginary blocks.

4. Richard Swinburne argues we don’t really need analogy at all: When we say ‘God is good’ and ‘humans are good’, we may be using ‘good’ to apply to different things, but we are using it to mean the same thing: i.e. we are using the word good univocally.

5. Analogy cannot be verified– so no cognitive / factual meaning arises from this type of religious language. The object one is trying to illustrate by use of analogy, cannot be empirically verified.DEVELOPMENT OF ANALOGY BY IAN RAMSEY: MODELS AND QUALIFIERS

Ian Ramsey developed the theory of analogy in the 20th century.

Take example of stating: ‘God is good’

The model is the word ‘good’. o We have human understanding of ‘good’, and when applied to God it is a model for understanding God’s

goodness.

Ramsey states that if we want to understand God’s goodness we need to adapt the model, to qualify it, so that we realise that it is not literally what God is like. o To the statement ‘God is good’ we need to add the qualifier that God ‘is infinitely good’.

This will make us think of God’s goodness in greater and greater depth until eventually we have a better insight into God’s goodness, and we will then respond to this insight with awe and wonder.

Note that Ian Ramsey’s view on analogical language is non-cognitive. o This is because he does not employ Aquinas’ metaphysics and instead uses models as symbols (rather

than exemplars of God’s creation).

The model is an image or concept taken from the world of experience acts as a symbol for some aspect of the reality of God. Models can be:o Abstract – such as wisdom, power, goodness;

E.g. ‘God is love.’o Personal – such as king, shepherd, father.

E.g. ‘The Lord is my shepherd’

When accompanied by a qualifier, the model then lights up the nature of God and hopefully evokes a suitable disclosure leading to commitment (i.e. a revelation of the divine worthy of faith).

Here we will be focusing on Paul Tillich and his analysis of religious language as symbols.

*2. Tillich – Religious Language is Metaphorical and Symbolic

Ramsey refers to ‘models’ and ‘qualifiers’:o A model is an analogy to help us express something about God. o The qualifier is what acknowledges that we are not being literal.

Once we move away from describing the attributes of God literally, we then enter the realm of using language and God symbolically.

The use of analogy is one aspect of this. Thus to say that ‘God is my protector and shield’ or ‘The Lord is my rock and fortress’, is to employ the image or metaphor of a shield, rock of fortress, images taken from the world of experience as symbols of God.

PAUL TILLICH ON RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS METAPHOR AND SYMBOL:

Tillich (1886 – 1965) believed that it is possible to speak meaningfully about metaphysical concepts: o Because religious language is symbolic in nature, has a profound effect upon humans. o Through metaphors and symbols that religious language communicates religious experiences.

Religious language tries to interpret religious experience and is therefore:o Closer to poetry and proseo Mythical, heroic and imaginableo Evocative of the experience it seeks to describe

Tillich argued that symbolic language operates in much the same way that a piece of music or a work of art or poetry might. They can have a deep and profound effect upon us that we can only explain in a limited way, and the explanation would only really be understood by someone else who has seen that same work of art. Also, symbols, like works of art, can open up new levels of reality for us and offer a new perspective on life.

Tillich believed religious language is symbolic because it ‘opens up’ new levels of reality. Tillich argued that symbols go beyond the external world to what he described as their ‘internal reality’. Here we will look at the function of symbols in more detail…

FOUR MAIN FUNCTIONS THAT SYMBOLS PERFORM:

.1. They point to something beyond themselves.

o Identifying the concept that they are conveying – for example, the use of water in Christian baptism conveys the concept of cleansing the individual of sin.

2. They participate in that to which they point.

o Sharing in some way in the meaning of that concept – for example, baptism participates in the Christian belief that through the sacrifice of Jesus it is possible to remove original sin.

3. Symbols open up levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us.

KEY TERMS:

Metaphors: figures of speech. A word or phrase is used to denote or describe something entirely different from the object or idea with which it is usually linked in order to suggest a resemblance or analogy.

Symbols: things that stand, or are used, in place of some other thing.

Symbolic: a view of religious language which sees the words representing the reality to which they point, and in which they participate, but which they cannot describe.

1. They point to something beyond themselves.2. They participate in that to which they point.3. Symbols open up levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us.4. They also open up the levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality

o Tillich maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the ultimate reality, the vision of God which he called ‘Being-Itself.’

o Being-Itself is that upon which everything else depends for its being and Tillich believed that we came to knowledge of this through symbols which direct us to it.

4. They open up the levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality.

o Religious symbols take us to ‘being itself’.o For example: the Bible talks of the Kingdom of God- the symbol of a kingdom is concerned with God’s

power and rule. o We can understand the idea of a kingdom on earth, but then go beyond to understand the ultimate reality

of the power in the universe that is God. o Hence, a symbol; “unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul”.

IN CONCLUSION:

For Tillich, the purpose of religious language is to evoke the nature of God, rather than make statements of fact about God; hence religious language is non-cognitive.

ASSESSING RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS METAPHOR AND SYMBOLFOR ‘B’ QUESTIONS

ARGUMENTS OPPOSING RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS SYMBOLIC

LINK TO AS MOD 1 & 2: THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF RELIGIOUS ART

REMEMBER, RELIGIOUS ART IS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR RELIGION; IT IS INTENDED TO BE VISUAL COMMUNICATION OF DIVINE TRUTHS, HENCE A TYPE OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE.

FIRST TWO FUNCTIONS: POINTING BEYOND, YET PARTICIPATINGo Consider how SYMBOLS work in terms of participation: e.g. difference between crucifix and the cross.o Consider the way CRUCIFORM ARCHITECTURE acts as a symbol – in terms of taking the shape of

the body of Christ to structure the liturgy in the way that it is experienced, rather than merely performed, and in the way that the head is always facing the East, where the sun shines - participating in Jesus as the light of the world.

THE LAST TWO FUNCTIONS: POINTING TOWARDS DIMENSIONS, TAKING US INTO DIMENSIONS

o The way Tillich says symbols point towards other levels of reality is EVOCATION – for example, ICONS evoke strong emotions and feelings in a believer, who embraces the holy spirit through their observation of the blessed subjects.

o The way Tillich says symbols take our souls into these other levels of reality is INVOCATION – for example, the way religious art can be used for CHRISTIAN MEDITATION; thought, emotion and imagination, that leads to prayer. E.g. one throws themselves into a scene of the Stations of the Cross.

H/W EXAM QUESTION – DUE IN NEXT WEEK:

(a) ‘Religious language is analogical and symbolic.’ Explain this view. (30 marks)

1. Symbols may not always be appropriate and can lose their value / original meaning over time. o Tillich too acknowledged this problem; that the power of symbols to direct ways of thinking changes through time. o This is because the impact and meaning of words change and the symbol is no longer able to direct us towards

what ‘concerns us ultimately’ as it did in the past.o For example, consider the rainbow symbol from the AS course – once a sign of the covenant between Noah and

God, it is now pretty much considered to mean ‘gay friendly’.

2. How can religious symbols successfully point to something that is beyond human experience?

o If you consider the example of ‘Spiritual Marriage, - St. Teresa of Avila’s fourth (and final) state of mystical prayer – she uses the term for its connotations of unity, oneness, eternal bonding. This is intended to give us an indication of what a mystical experience is like, in terms of our embracing the transcendental nature of God.

o BUT, leading on from the first point – marriage has much less sacred connotations today, and even in its traditional sense this bonding of marriage also connotes many human matters that do not perhaps point to transcendence at all; i.e. loyalty, chores, consummation?

3. It may give the wrong insights about the Ultimate reality. o Symbols, like analogy, work from the basis of the world, and so any insight into transcendental dimensions may be

misleading and a product of our own Earth rooted imaginations.o Consider our discussion of symbols last year – are they univocal or equivocal? o How can we be sure that people gain the same understanding / meaning from a symbol?o How can we possible know which symbols are appropriate to transfer ultimate truth through?

4. Paul Edwards argues symbols do not convey factual knowledge so are meaninglesso Tillich argues symbols direct people to things beyond the symbol and lead people to revelations about one’s faith.

However, the truth of revelation cannot be verified or falsified using empirical evidence. o If symbols cannot be verified or falsified, they do not contain factual knowledge and so are meaningless.

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AS SYMBOLIC:

1. J.R. Randall – The significance of symbolso Religious language is a human activity which makes a special contribution to human cultureo Religious language has a unique function - it is able to stir strong emotion and binds communities together through a

common response to faith.o Think of Psalms, prayers, parables, sermons.

2. Carl Jung – Symbols as innate archetypeso In his book ‘Man and Symbols’, Jung argues that particular symbols have appeared time and time again throughout

history, indicating that we are never far from our basic animal psyche. o He believes that certain archetypes (Image generators) of human experience, which derive from the deepest

unconscious mind, reveal themselves in the universal symbols of dreams, art and religion.o ‘God’ is an archetype, a symbol of wholeness and perfection. o Though remember, Jung is not necessarily saying God actually exists, the point here is that symbols have great

value to humans as they are innate and point beyond their mere depiction.

LINK TO A.S. RSo PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION – Jungian archetypes explain why we are religious: religion helps us deal with

neurosis since God is the ultimate image of wholeness. This archetype of wholeness (‘God’) helps to balance our psychic energies

o RELIGION AND ART – Similarly, we looked at images of wholeness as representing the perfection of God: symmetry in Islamic art (non-figurative, geometric patterns), in early Christian architecture (octagonal, also Rothko’s chapel), and Hindu /Buddhist art (mandalas).