- 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 do not make factual assertions – (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.
The value of religious language
-
JH Randall argued that religious language serves four functions:
- Binds the community together
- Expresses something which cannot be expressed literally
- Reveals something about the nature of God
- Arouses emotions and stirs people to action.
- Attempts to ascertain the accrual truth of the Genesis creation stories often lead to a double misunderstanding: that the stories can be understood without their mythological or symbolic content or that the stories can be understood literally.
- The purpose of these stories is non-cognitive (affective) and though they do attempt to convey religious truths, making factual confirmation of them ensures their real meaning (the emotional content) will be undiscovered.
- RB Braithwaite has argued that religious statements serve an ethical purpose i.e. that they refer to the particular way of life of someone who is expressing them, that they reflect the religious convictions which underlie the ethical and moral codes.
- Opponents would argue that their assertions mean more than just ethical statements.
- Paul Tillich recognised that religious language is almost entirely symbolic: God is my rock is not intended literally! Recognition of its symbolic nature means that such use of language can be more easily understood.
- Wittgenstein regarded the question about meaning in religious language as irrelevant. ‘Don’t ask for the meaning, look for the use.’ All language was seen as belonging to particular forms of life and each particular form had its own language game. Misunderstandings arise when one form is judged by another’s rules.
- Religious language is not meaningless just different.
- It must be judged on its own terms and non-believers can enter into meaningful discussion about religious issues if they accept the same terms, even though at the end they may not agree with the believer’s faith they can see it as justified.