Religious Language

An Introduction

There have been two main approaches to the problems of religious language. Realists take as their starting point the idea that language corresponds to reality: for every statement we make there is a state of affairs that exists if that statement is true. This is called the correspondence theory.(Or a cognitive theory of meaning). On the other hand, anti-realists consider reality fundamentally separate from language, and insist that meaning is a matter of coherence, not correspondence: a statement achieves meaning and truth through its relationship to other ideas or activities. This is called the coherence theory (or a non-cognitive theory of meaning). Attempts to understand or analyze religious language usually depends upon one or other of these theories.

Basic Feature of Language

Cognitive language -  Conveys factual information

Non-cognitive language -  Language that does not depend on external fact. -  Cannot be observed. -  Conveys emotions (eg. express hopes and fears)

Analytic and Synthetic Statements

�  Analytic statements (tautology- true by definition) - Explains the meaning of its terms - Does not depend on any evidence - True in all cases and all the time- For example: Ice is the solid state of water; bachelors are single   �  Synthetic statements -  Requires reference to external evidence- For example:

There is a cat on the floor. (You need to be able to see a cat on the floor in order for the statement to be true.)

Believing ‘in’ something

�  If you believe something is true, it suggests that, on balance, the statement corresponds to external reality.

�  If you believe in something, it suggests that you are committed to this concept and that you interpret your experience in the light of that commitment.

�  When someone says that they believe in God, they mean far more than simply saying that they believe God exists. But also that they ‘believe’

Verification and Falsification

A key feature regarding the meaning and significance of Religious Language is whether or not religious claims can be VERIFIED or FALSIFIED. According to cognitive theories of meaning, a statement which cannot be verified/ falsified is not able to convey information and therefore is not considered meaningful

Verification- Wittgenstein and early background

Wittgenstein originally proposed a narrow view of what could function as language- he saw the function of language as being ‘to picture the world’. Therefore statements (in order to be considered meaningful) needed to correspond to some information about the world itself. This idea was developed further by a group of philosophers known as the Vienna Circle who produced a theory of meaning known as the Verification Principle.

The Verification Principle (Strong Version)

�  The Verification Principle argues that the meaning of a statement was its method of verification. Simply put- a statement is meaningful if it can be proved true or false through empirical evidence. This is known as STRONG VERIFICATION

�  However; it is not always possible to check evidence for a statement, in which case, it was argued that for a statement to be meaningful- it would be sufficient to be able to say what sort of evidence could count for it. Therefore ….

The Verification Principle- Weak Version

�  This recognition came to be known as the WEAK version of the Verification Principle.

�  Logical Positivism and the ‘weak’ version of this principle was advanced by AJ Ayer in his book Language, Truth and Logic.

�  He argued that the statement- ‘God exists’ could not be considered meaningful because there is no empirical evidence that could prove the matter (in either strong or weak forms). On this basis he rejected most religious and ethical language.

The Falsification Principle

Antony Flew argues that for a statement to be meaningful it must at least be open to falsification – there must be some way of showing it to be false. A statement that fits any imaginable state of affairs doesn’t appear to say anything at all, and is therefore meaningless. Religious statements tend to suffer from ‘death by a thousand qualifications’: the claims they embody are so immune to falsification that they are, in fact, empty.

Falsification

�  Anthony Flew: Interpreted a story which was originally told by John Wisdom. It is based on the idea that there are some people who hold onto their beliefs despite the opposition.

�  The parable tells the story of two explorers who look upon one beautiful clearing. One person believes there is a gardener who looks after clearing; the other does not. They wait for the gardener, but no gardener comes. After a series of checks no evidence for the gardener is found; but one explorer still believes there is one. Second explorer cannot see the difference between a gardener who is invisible and intangible, and no gardener at all.

�  For Flew the gardener dies a death of a thousand qualifications. Every time he fails to be detected, then believer ‘qualifies’ what he means by his gardener, until nothing is left.

Karl Popper and Falsification

�  The idea of using Falsification in this way relates to the work of Karl Popper, who argued that a theory can only be considered scientific if you can specify what would prove it false. In order for a statement (or a theory) to be considered meaningful, people who put forward an argument must be open to the possibility that their belief could be proven wrong.

Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein (his later work) realized that his previous realist approach to language was wrong-headed. He came to recognise that we use language in many different ways: to promise, to command, to act, to joke, to curse, to greet and to name.  In such cases language does not generate meaning through reference to external objects, but through its use in a particular context. In fact, the meaning of any statement depends upon the context in which it is used.

Wittgenstein continued

If a spectator watching a football match has no understanding of the rules of football, then all the actions and commentary will lack meaning and appear pointless. Once the rules are understood, however, everything becomes clear. So it is with all language, Wittgenstein claimed: the words used in any ‘form of life’ only have meaning within that context. To expect these words to make sense in a different context is to send language on holiday. Thus a statement can have meaning to a particular group without requiring verification or falsification.

Essay Question

‘All talk about God is meaningless’- Critically evaluate this statement.