Religious language is a term that describes the attempts to deal with theological matters,

such as Gods existence and belief. It concerns the manner in which people speak about
what they believe, including unique descriptions of God, such as Omnipotent, Omniscient,
and Omnibenevolent; descriptions of religious belief like the second coming; technical
terms such as sin and everyday terms that are given religious meaning, such as love.
Religious language is difficult because our words are not adequate to speak of a
transcendent God who is above and beyond human comprehension and experience.
Some scholars, therefore, have argued that it is impossible to speak of God; Bertrand
Russell was among those. The religious language debate, however, is not concerned with
Gods existence, only with whether it is meaningful to speak of God. The debate surrounds
areas such as analogy, symbolic language and the verification principle.

Analogy

The argument from analogy- a figure of speech involving comparison, Platos Cave being
exemplary- is one of the cardinal debates surrounding religious language. It was mainly
presented by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed that God is pure actuality and that
humans are potentiality. God is outside of time and space and is purely simple- he is
ineffable. Since God is immutable, simple and unchangeable then he transcends human
experience. Furthermore, Aquinas argued that we cannot speak of God using everyday
language because that is all we have- we are, in essence, imperfect being using imperfect
language to describe a perfect God.

Some religious writers have expressed that the human inability to speak of God
meaningfully means that there should be a via negativa. This describes what God is not.
Mystics such as Pseudo-Dionysius maintained that human language was helplessly
inadequate when it came to describing and ineffable God. However, Aquinas rejected this
via negativa because he believed that positive things can be said about God. He followed
Aristotle in constructing three forms of language: Univocal, meaning words mean the same
thing in differing situations, such as green grass and green bat. This language is finite
and as such limits its subject. Secondly, equivocal language, meaning that the definition
of a word is dependent upon its context, such as fruit bat and cricket bat. This use of
language makes no connection between contexts. Thirdly, analogical language , meaning
that the definition of a word is pointed to by its meaning in another, such as Emily is good
and God is good. The use of language in one context is understood- it points on to the
meaning in another context.

Aquinas maintained that univocal language was applicable to God since it limits its
subject, and God cannot be limited. He also argued that equivocal language was equally
inapplicable as it would communicate nothing about God as there is no connection
between the language uses. Therefore, Aquinas argued, religious language should be
analogical. Yet, he stated, this must then be split into two groups: Attribution and
proportion. Attribution being when we ascribe a quality to one thing because it is caused
by another. In this case, God is the cause of all things in the world and therefore his
attributes are just on a higher level than our own. Aquinas used the example of the bull to
illustrate this: the health of the bull is present in its urine; we can tell that the bull is healthy
by studying this. However, the health of the bull is only complete in the bull itself. So, what
the urine tells us is indirect and incomplete. This is true with God: what the world tells us of
his goodness is meaningful, but it is also limited. Secondly, proportion is when we
ascribe a quality to one thing because it points toward another thing which has that quality


( Human love points beyond itself into divine love). In terms of Aquinas argument, all good
qualities belong to God in proportion to humans. This is because we are created in Gods
image (Genesis 2).
Strengths

Obviously, the criticisms of people like AJ Ayer are difficult to reject and of course, an
analogical statement referring to God is impossible to verify. However, analogy is
incredibly valuable for people who are already in the religious language game, that is,
people who already believe. It can help them to make sense of a concept that really is
beyond human comprehension and would work as a great aid to faith. This was the
perspective that Aquinas was working from.

Challenges the verification principle by explaining the complexity of religious language
Avoids anthropomorphising God because words are not meant to be taken literally
Avoids agnosticism because it conveys the knowledge of God
Helps to explain difficult concepts, such as Gods agapeic love

Weaknesses

1. Aquinas based his work from assumptions that came from his religious belief. He
believed that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of the earth (as shown in his
5 Ways) and 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 and explicitly by Richard Dawkins. If one doesnt accept his assumptions, one
doesnt 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. The world also
comprises evil, does God possess these qualities as well? 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.
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.
4. The bridge that Aquinas attempts to create between things known and unknown, is built
of imaginary blocks. But, some scholars would argue that it is possible to speak of life on
Mars meaningfully without empirical experience of it, also, eschatological verification can
be suggested against this criticism.
5. Analogy does not stand up to verification, because the object one is trying to illustrate
by use of analogy, cannot be empirically verified. Another criticism, is from Richard
Swinburne, who argues that we dont 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

Symbolic Language

Symbolic language often becomes powerful when it is read literally in that the language
participates in the thing that it represents. There is a fundamental difference between a
symbol and a sign; a sign communicates a message by pointing beyond itself (a person
wanting to attract someone may wave a cloth) while a symbol is a pattern or object which


points to an imisible metaphysical reality and participates in it- Schubert. This includes the
non-cognitive (non-literal) such as metaphors, similes, signs and myths. There are
abstract symbols (the cross), pictorial symbols (a national flag), active symbols (praying),
and linguistic symbols (the lord is my shepherd).

Paul Tillich believes that religious language communicates through symbol it is poetic and
evocative. It is religious because it demonstrates a persons ultimate concern. It points
toward God, being itself. Symbolic language serves to open up new levels of reality. The
language used is understandable to humans, but points beyond itself to an ultimate reality.
From this, Tillich maintains, a quasi religious experience almost occurs.

The symbolism is beyond the physical phenomena of this world; the experience is more
than the phenomena that could be captured in a photograph. The religious element is
subjective, however. A person may gain a feeling of phenomena from symbolic language,
but a second person may interpret it as a perfectly normal event. A person who feels a
numinous feeling from observing a cross, for example, may contrast the feeling that of
another person who may see it is a simple cross. For it to be religious it must be an
experience of being itself or ultimate reality. It is an experience of ultimate concern and
significance. Religious language that symbolically points to this, it may be argued.

Hick has argued that the idea of participating in a symbol is unclear. Take the flag
example; in what sense does this really do something? Is there really a big difference from
signs here?

William Alston has objected that symbolism means that there is no point trying to
determine whether the statement is true or false. Since Tillichs symbols are not literally
true, Alston feels that they could have no meaningful impact on us. They could not send us
to heaven or hell, for example.

It could be objected that there is no specific religious content in symbolic language, as
Tillich provides no clear distinction between religious and non-religious symbols. Does this
mean that religious language has no special significance?

Symbols can be trivialised and their original image lost or distorted. An example of this is
Keep the Sabbath holy however Sunday is now a normal working day.
Also symbols can become the focus or worship themselves and an object of veneration
e.g. the wailing wall

Verification Principle

Indeed, the Verification Principle plays a major role in the religious language debate. The
Verification Principle can perhaps be summarised through the David Hume: Does it
contain any abstract reasoning...Does it contain any experimental reasoning...Commit it to
the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophisty and illusion. Hume was expressing the
view that unless a statement is analytical (self-evidently true, or axiomatic) or synthetic
(can be empirically verified) then it is meaningless.



The main instigator of this view was AJ Ayer. Ayer belonged to the Logical Positivist
movement. The Logical Positivists believed that empirical evidence must be used to make
a statement meaningful. For example, while a scientists statement may be based upon
experiments, the religious statement is not predicated on any such empiricism, and
therefore cannot be meaningful. A statement is only meaningful if it can assessed by an
appeal (directly or indirectly) to either the meaning of the words and the grammatical
structures that constitute them, or some form of sensory experience. The meaning of the
words regards the analytical (all bachelors are single) while sensory experience regards
the synthetic (Michael is a bachelor). In both of these cases, we have everything that is
need to prove whether the statement is true or false. Provability is everything. Religious
language is neither analytic and synthetic and is thus impossible to prove as meaningful

Logical Positivists reject all talk about God as there is no way of verifying such talk. For
instance God exists, God loves me or Jesus rose from the dead are meaningless
statements as there is no way of verifying them. They are not saying these statements are
false; they are saying that they are meaningless. It is as if someone were to say, Square
circles are green. This statement is clearly meaningless and the Logical Positivists
maintain that the same applies to most religious statements including Ayer added
atheistic and agnostic statements. It was not only religious statements that the Logical
Positivists rejected (such as There is a heaven and a hell) but also many statements
made by philosophers such as All human beings are determined or I am a brain in a vat.

However, there were a myriad of problems with the original form of the verification
principle; problems that Ayer sought to address. For example, under the principle, such as
Hitler lost the war, are made meaningless in that they are neither analytic or synthetic.
Following this revelation, which cut into reality itself, eventually- I am alive- Ayer made
some adjustments. He distinguished between strong verification (no doubt as to the truth
of the statement; experimentation and reason show its meaning) and weak verification
(observation at the time counts to make the statement verifiable- Hitler could have verified
that he had lost the war). The weak form could be used to verify historical statements
about Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha, however. Indeed, some theologians and
philosophers point out that though the statement cannot be verified presently, it can in
time: this is eschatological verification, meaning that God could be verified after death).
The verification principle, while taking into account meaningfulness, does not take itself
into account. I have yellow hair) is meaningful, even is untrue, as it can be verified, yet the
principle of verification itself cannot be proved.



Falsification Principle

Continually, there is also debate surrounding the falsification principle- if there is no
opportunity to prove something wrong, then it is meaningless- within religious language.
Antony Flew was a main supporter of this view. He was influenced by Sir KArl Popper.
Popper argued that scientific methodology was predicated upon the falsification principle
as opposed to the verification principle. For example, if a scientist proposes a hypothesis,
which he then sets out to test, then he needs to know how to show that his hypothesis
might be false (i.e what evidence would he need to count against it). If he can do this,
then his statement is synthetic and therefore meaningful.



Flew further substantiated this further through John Wisdoms Parable of the Gardner.
Essentially, the parable states that two jungle explorers find a garden within this jungle.
One of the explorers believes that an unseen gardner is responsible, while the other
argues that there is no proof for such a postulation. They test the believers hypothesis in a
myriad of ways, but every test fails to provide evidence of an existing gardner. Despite the
scarcity of evidence, the believer persists with his beliefs and continually adjust the
conditions of his hypothesis to usurp the lack of evidence, thus qualifying the gardners
nature (arguing he is invisible at one point). Therefore Flew believes that religious
language is meaningless as religious believers have a picture preference and wont let
anything count against their beliefs. A further comparison could be made through another
analogy: if a person states It is raining outside, then to treat the statement as meaningful
we must know what observation to make in order to falsify it. As we can simply look out of
the window, there is an innate falsification mechanism that makes it meaningful. Whereas
God is love does not, and thus God dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

As with the Verification Principle, there a multitude of problems with the falsification
principle. One such criticism arises from Richard Swinburne, who argues that religious
statements are not cognitive (realist) and therefore should not be treated as falsifiable.
Statements can be meaningful without the means to falsify them. For example, the
statement A cupboard is full of toys that come to life at night is meaningful because we
understand what it is to suggest that toys can move, even though there is no evidence to
falsify the statement.

Continually, R.B Braithwaite believed that religious language is non-cognitive (not literal).
The Verifcation Principle, Falsification, treat it as cognitive. A religious claim is essentially
a moral statement, expressed in term of symbolic language; there is no need for the
religious belieevr to believe that the stories within the bible, such as that of Job, are true.

Within an essay The Philosophy of Religion, Mitchell have the story of a resistance
leader who acted extremely enigmatically on both sides. Although there was evidence
agaisnt the stranger as a baddie, there is still a belief in him. Mitchell was contending that
religious believers allow things to count against their beliefs, as they view it non-
cognitively. Not actively dogmatically.

Indeed, RM Hare also wrote in Philosophy of Religion that statements are non-cognitive.
This is because religious language cannot make factual claims- but it still can have
influence on the way people view the world. Hare called this way of looking at the world a
blik. Religious beliefs are bliks. Hare used the example of the paranoid Don who always
thinks that the dons are going to murder him to substantiate this.

Language Games

Language GAmes alos play alrge role in the religious language debate. In Tractatus,
Ludwig Wittgenstein propsed a model of language which was based on the diea that
meaning in language is bsed on the objects that words refer to. Language is primarily a
tool used to picture the world. Each word is like a picture.



Wittgenstein came to reject his earlier Logical Positivist approach to language because
he realised that cognitive approach to language was too limiting. He began to consider the
way in which language is defined by the functions that it performs. For one person,
languages function is communication, for the other it is to express the ineffable.
Wittgenstein also recognised the problems that religious language faced in terms of
meaningfulness.

Though, rather than look at its meaningfulness, He proposed the concept of language
games. With language games he argued that different uses of language have different
rules. When learning a language requires the understanding of grammar, or rules of use. A
person studying French must understand a working understanding of cases, vocabulary,
tenses in order to fully understand this language. For example, learning to use language is
similar to learning the rules of a different game. Games have nothing in common except
for their purpose and having rules. One game may involve gambling, the other may involve
a ball or jogging.

For Wittgenstein, each form of language is a self-contained game with its own rules and
customs. Language cannot exist in isolation, for it is a community activity. It has rules of
engagement, conventions of use. Religious language is a language game, and its rules
apply within its system, but may be unintelligible to outsiders. Being aware of a religions
language game will help in understanding the faith statements of that religion. However,
there is common ground between different games, such as religion and football. A non-
believer may be able to understand most of the rules. The language game reflects the fact
that language is a human construct. Therefore, to assess the meaning of language, the
activity it refers to must be studied. The meaning is derived from the games grammar,
and inappropriate language breaks the rules of the language game. It could be argued that
the use of the pronoun He, relating to Go, is breaking the rules of the language game as
it is ascribing gender to the concept of God, which is not acceptable.

Some philosophers have argued that language games can become exclusive clubs,
whereas language is a community property. It cannot be used as a secret code by one
group. Religions also make claims of universal application of their language; their belief in
God is not subject community context.

Myth

Myth embodies and expresses claims that cant be expressed in another way makes use
of symbol, metaphor + imagery in a narrative context. A myth is the most complex type of
symbolic language because it uses symbol, metaphor, and imagery. They express true
information when it is not certain what actually happened. Myths have concepts that go
beyond basic true/false to express other. Example Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve, The
Creation story.

Some theologians have chosen to interpret religious statements and texts as myths.
There are many examples of religious myths: Egyptian Gods, Roman Gods, Greek Gods,
Viking Gods. There are three senses in which the word myth could be applied to religious
texts and religious statements: The myth could be a story that is not true but has some
other value for example Braithwaite argued that religious stories are inspirational to us,
and they provide us with the motivation to lead a moral life. The myth could literary device


that enables us to talk about things that are ineffable i.e. beyond language. The myth
could be a method of interpreting ultimate reality. So myths have a symbolic meaning in
the sense that they open up new levels of reality or as Randall argues their purpose is to
bind communities together and urge us to take action.



Myth is open to fundamental criticism that is outdated dealing with anachronistic concepts.
In the 19th century D. F. Strauss suggested we should shift the focus of myths from the
story of a miraculous occurrence to the story of a miraculous occurrence. By this he
meant that in the first case we are assuming that a true narrative about a miracle is being
communicated, however in the second case the religious truth which is not necessarily
true is being conveyed in story form.

Bultmann claimed myth made it harder for the 21st mind to grasp the truth of the biblical
message. Mythical language is so deeply engrained in theological discourse that it may be
impossible to dispense with it. He believed we can access the truth or kerygma which is
the real part of creating faith but to do with we must demythologise.
If religious language is non-cognitive and not concerned with making true or false
statements then it should not be a burden to communicate. Myths are part of the religious
language game and should be interpreted correctly rather than being concerned with
what really happened.

One advantage of interpreting religious language as mythological is that biblical stories,
which seem strange to the scientifically minded, become more palatable.
There is a further advantage of not taking a literal view of religious language.
If we interpret the bible in a mythological sense then the stories of the old and new
testament can not be proved wrong by scientific of historical evidence.

There is a further advantage of not taking a literal view of religious language.
If we interpret the bible in a mythological sense then the stories of the old and new
testament can not be proved wrong by scientific of historical evidence

A fundamental difficulty with interpreting religious stories as myths is that it undermines
their status as true accounts of the events. Alvin Plantinga argues that to claim that god
exists is to make an existential assertion. It is not to talk symbolically of mythological of to
adopt a certain attitude. Plantinga maintains that when a Christian speaks of the existence
of God they are claiming first that their exists a person of a certain sort a being who, acts,
holds beliefs, and has aims and purposes. This person, secondly, is immaterial, is perfect
in goodness, knowledge, and power, and is such that the world depends on him for
existence. In other word, it must be capable of treating religious concepts, such as God, as
if they refer to something real.

Concerning religious language there is no single theory that satisfies everyone. Religious
language is a highly complex and although it gives us no definite truth, it offers a revealing
insight into the nature of human existence and the quest to understand God. Peter Vardy
observes: In finding the value of religious language, the individual finds God. Believers
do not discover religious truths them make them The scalpels of the verification


principle failed to sever the limb from the patient that is religious language as this type of
language plays a major role in many of the lives of human beings. As observed in Orwells
1984 through the issuing of the new dictionary and defining words such as amazing,
spectacular, great as only good people were unable to express how they feel. This is
applicable to religious language as it is the only way people are able to communicate their
beliefs about God either in a cognitive or non-cognitive manner. Perhaps Ayer and Flew
fail to appreciate the aspect that all religious claims made by religious believers require
faith.