- 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 – Religious Language
What is it?
The language of worship and dogma
Description of god such as omnibenevolent
Descriptions of beliefs such as Second Coming, Judgment Day
Descriptions of concepts such as Sin, Grace, Atonement, Salvation
Problems
Human vocabulary inadequate
God removed from our experience so how do we talk sensibly about Him?
Is it meaningless to try?
Two types of language
Cognitive –realist – factual, true or false statements
Non-cognitive – anti-realist – not to be taken actually, but interpreted symbolically
How do we find out if this claim is true? ‘Jesus died for me.’
Try the verification principle – 3 types of statements analytic, mathematical, synthetic
Religious language tends to express fundamental truths hence myths
Symbols enable us to participate in a shared experience or belief e.g. baptism, marriage
Bultmann felt that to believe in modern science (the light bulb) and the Bible, was incompatible.
Braithwaite: religious language claims mean something to the adherent; they express ‘an intention to follow a certain code of behaviour.’
A J Ayer – talk of a soul is meaningless because it cannot be verified
Talk of religious experience is meaningless, no empirical verification.
But emotional, ethical ‘be good’ statements are not verifiable which would make them meaning less. Did man walk on the moon in 1969?
Hick- some religious language, particularly historical claims, could be verified
Falsification principle – Hick believes if potentially falsifiable it is meaningful.
Flew felt believers would never allow anything to count against their faith e.g. Job
RM Hare – blik meaningful to the person in the context and it affects their life
Hick’s story of the toys in the cupboard is presented as an example of the kind of assumption we take for granted, that toys do not get up and dance around our bedrooms at night.