- Religious language is not cognitive language it does not appeal to reason but to the emotions and is therefore affective.
- Myth and symbol are part of the complex structure and character of religious language and are used when factual statements would be inappropriate.
- Non-cognitive statements about religion are neither true nor false (they cannot be verified or falsified) but have a meaningful function in the right context.
- Myth and symbol are pictorial forms of language which communicate religious truths about the nature of God, his relationship with his creation or the purpose God has for humanity which cannot be communicated any other way.
- Rudolph Bultmann said the only way to get at the meaning of religious stories was to strip away the myth.
- He believed that there was a kerygma – an abiding truth within the gospel message but miraculous details had no place in it.
- But is myth dispensable?
- They are surely meant to aid not hinder our understanding of the message?
- Religious language needs to be appreciated as non-cognitive in order to understand the essential truth underlying the stories without imposing a literal understanding of them.
- Symbols likewise convey more than just surface meaning. They open up deeper levels of reality. The sacrament of eucharist for example conveys a deeper spiritual meaning below the outward physical reality.
- Symbols are flexible. The cross for example has many meanings. Likewise referring to Jesus as the Lamb of God conveys gentleness, humility, sacrifice and atonement.
- Symbolic language reveals the most important elements of belief.
- However symbols can become over used and empty rituals, like baptism.
- They can be come the very focus of religion themselves, wherein for example the very acts of eucharist or baptism become essential to salvation.
- Both myth and symbol are essential to non-cognitive religious discourse but can become obscured by layers of tradition and culture. Each generation needs to rediscover their real meaning for themselves.
Notes from the A2 conference – Atheism and Arguments for the non-existence of God
BBC Religion and Ethics websites
Atheism is a legitimate faith position therefore has to be open to challenges too.
A theist believes in a God with the classical attributes of omni…
An atheist does not believe the God of classical theism exists
An agnostic believes we have insufficient evidence on which to prove or disprove God’s existence.
The conviction of the theist or atheist is therefore based on intuition!!
Atheists and antitheists object to the effect of religious faith on human behaviour
Dawkins an antitheist suggests religious belief is no longer a satisfactory way of interpreting the world.
‘faith is a great cop-out, the excuse to avoid the need to think and to evaluate the evidence.’
‘The God of the O T is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.’ Dawkins
Are the reasons either for or against supported by the evidence?
Are they decisive?
Are the explanations of religion simpler than those of atheism?
Why do so many still believe in them?
If the arguments against God fail then by default God must exist.
Chatterton: it is up to believers to prove God not non-believers to prove he doesn’t exist. ‘It is impossible to prove a negative.’
Durkheim religion used to control society (functional)
Stunts growth as a species.
Dawkins: bringing up a child in a faith is child-abuse!! ‘poky little medieval universe.’
‘Religion leads to extremism, terror and violence.’
Hume: a non-moral God.
Freud: Religious faith is the result of unresolved childhood issues.
To conclude that God doesn’t exist is still a leap of faith.
Can atheism be empirically verified?
Swinburne: science is the complete explanation.