Nature of Religious Language: Analogical and- Symbolic; Cognitivist and Noncognitive | Philosophy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

The Debate on Religious Language

Language plays a crucial role in communication across various domains, including science, politics, and religion. However, when it comes to religious discourse, there is a debate about the nature and function of religious language. The central question in the religious language debate is, "What can be said about God?"
The debate on religious language is not concerned with the existence of God, the nature of God, or the problem of evil in the world. Instead, it focuses on whether religious language has any meaningful content. There are two opposing sides in this debate:

1. Religious Believers: This perspective, held by centuries-old religious traditions, asserts that it is possible to speak and write about God because God is a real and meaningful reality.
2. Logical Positivists and Influenced Thinkers: This perspective, influenced by logical positivism, argues that statements about God lack meaning because they do not correspond to anything real. According to this view, religious language is devoid of factual content.

Philosophical Concerns in Religious Language

Philosophers have primarily focused on epistemological and metaphysical concerns in the debate on religious language. These concerns center around factual statements about God or other objects of religious worship and can be distilled into two key questions:

1. Nature of Religious Statements: Are statements used in religious language making genuine truth claims, or should they be understood differently?
2. Interpretation of Religious Statements: If religious statements are making truth claims, what specific claims do they make? This involves grappling with issues in the philosophy of language.

For instance, consider the statement "God made the heavens and the earth." If this statement is a genuine truth claim, it raises two fundamental questions:

• Who or what does "God" refer to, and how is this reference established? This pertains to the problem of understanding singular reference.
• How should we interpret the predicate "made the heavens and the earth"? More broadly, what kinds of predicates, if any, can sensibly and possibly truthfully apply to God?

Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Language

In the debate about religious language, there is a fundamental distinction between cognitive and non-cognitive language. Cognitive language conveys facts or information that can be known and cognized, while non-cognitive language communicates non-factual content, such as emotions, feelings, and metaphysical claims.
Here are examples of both types of language:
Cognitive Language:

• "Badgers have black and white fur."
• "2 + 2 = 4"
• "Coal and crude oil are black."

Non-Cognitive Language (Excerpt from Psalms):

• "The Lord is faithful in all his words, And gracious in all his deeds."
• "The Lord upholds all who are falling, And raises up all who are bowed down."
• "The Lord is near to all who call upon him, To all who call upon him in truth."
• "He fulfills the desire of all who fear him, He also hears their cry and saves them."

This distinction is essential for understanding the challenges raised in the religious language debate. The debate primarily revolves around what cannot be meaningfully said about God according to some philosophers.

Cognitive Aspect of Religious Language

• Some philosophers argue that religious statements are factually significant and provide special knowledge about God. According to this perspective, religious language conveys cognitive content that contributes to our understanding of religious truths. John Hick, for example, asserts that religious knowledge is based on faith, but faith, in his view, is a factual and cognitive concept.
• Hick argues that believers acquire knowledge about God through direct experience and faith. He maintains that faith is not divorced from the ordinary course of life; instead, it is intertwined with it. Believers experience the presence of God in various aspects of life, and this experience is both cognitive and factual. It encompasses a believer's awareness of divine commands, the apprehension of divine grace, and the recognition of God's hand in the beauty of nature.

In summary, according to Hick, religious experience is not separate from mundane life but is integrated into it. While this experience does not provide empirical evidence for the existence of God, it is a matter of faith. Hick introduces the Theory of Eschatology of Verification, suggesting that at the end of time, aspects of religious belief that currently require faith will be made clear by God. In the future, what cannot be verified now will become verifiable.

Speaking Meaningfully about God and Religion

• Some philosophers and theologians contend that it is possible to speak meaningfully about God. One notable approach is St. Thomas Aquinas's theory of analogy. This theory offers a way to talk about God without reducing God to human terms or making God entirely incomprehensible.
• St. Thomas Aquinas proposed that we can speak about God analogically, meaning that we use human language to describe God in a way that reflects similarities between the divine and human attributes. However, these human attributes are considered analogical or analogous to their divine counterparts. For example, when we say that "God is good," we mean that God's goodness is analogous to human goodness, but it is greater and more perfect.
• This approach allows for meaningful discourse about God while acknowledging the vast difference between the divine and the human. It maintains that our language about God is limited but still significant, helping us express our understanding of the divine within the constraints of human language. St. Thomas Aquinas's theory of analogy has been influential in the philosophy of religion and theology.

The Theory of Analogy in Religious Language

The theory of analogy is a way to speak meaningfully about God, even though we do not have direct empirical experiences of God. This theory is based on making comparisons between God and familiar, empirical experiences. One of the most famous analogies in theology is Paley's analogy of the watch, where he tries to explain God's role as a creator by comparing it to a watchmaker who designs a complex timepiece.

St. Thomas Aquinas's Theory of Analogy

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is one of the most notable proponents of speaking about God in analogical terms. His approach seeks to find a middle ground between univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.

1. Univocal Language: In univocal language, words have the same meaning in all situations where they are used. For example, "black" in "blackboard," "black hat," and "black car" all consistently refer to the color black. Aquinas rejected the use of univocal language for describing God because God's attributes are not the same as those of humans. God is considered perfect, and human attributes cannot be applied to God in the same way.
2. Equivocal Language: In equivocal language, words are used to mean different things in different contexts. For example, the word "gay" can be understood as "jolly," "homosexual," or "rubbish" in different contexts. Aquinas also rejected equivocal language when discussing God because it implies that the language used to describe the human experience does not apply to God, making it impossible to say anything meaningful about God.
3. Analogy: Aquinas proposed that analogy provides a middle way to speak about God meaningfully. He identified three types of analogy:
   • Analogy of Attribution: This type of analogy involves attributing a quality to God that we find in human experiences but in a way that recognizes God's perfection. For example, when we say, "God is good," we attribute goodness to God while acknowledging that God's goodness is perfect, unlike human goodness.
   • Analogy of Proper Proportion: This analogy emphasizes that God's attributes are in proper proportion to His nature. It recognizes that the attributes we ascribe to God (such as wisdom, love, and goodness) are perfect and harmonious, not limited or flawed like human attributes.
   • Analogy of Improper Proportion: This analogy recognizes that there are limitations in applying human language to God but suggests that some attributes of God can be understood by analogy even though they are not entirely the same as human attributes.

Aquinas believed that using analogy allows us to talk meaningfully about God while acknowledging the vast difference between the divine and human attributes. Analogy provides a bridge between our limited human language and our desire to express our understanding of God.

The Analogy of Attribution and Proper Proportion in Religious Language

Aquinas believed that we can speak meaningfully about God by using the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper proportion.

• Analogy of Attribution: In the analogy of attribution, Aquinas starts with the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect. He argues that all beings in the universe imitate God in some way, each according to its mode of existence. For example, humans have wisdom and goodness, but their wisdom and goodness are derived from God's perfect wisdom and goodness.
  In this analogy, God is the source of these qualities, and God possesses them in their most perfect form. These qualities are attributed to God first and foremost, and then secondarily and analogically to other beings. Since humans are created in the image of God, they have these attributes analogically, but God possesses them perfectly.
• Analogy of Proper Proportion: The analogy of proper proportion emphasizes that we, as creatures, possess qualities similar to those of God (e.g., goodness, wisdom, faithfulness) but to a lesser degree. This analogy helps us understand that these qualities are inherent in humans because they were created in the image and likeness of God.

An example provided by John Hick illustrates this idea. He compares human faithfulness to that of a dog. While there is a significant difference between the faithfulness of a human and a dog, there is a recognizable similarity or analogy, which allows us to describe the dog as faithful. Human faithfulness is the original, and the dog's faithfulness is a dim and imperfect likeness known by analogy.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Analogy in Religious Language

Strengths:

1. Grounded in Religious Belief: Analogy is consistent with the belief that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, which is a fundamental religious concept.
2. Explains Qualities of God: It provides a way to speak meaningfully about God by explaining how human qualities are derived from divine qualities.
3. Reflects God's Perfection: It acknowledges God's perfection and the limited proportion in which humans possess divine qualities.

Weaknesses:

1. Religious Assumptions: Aquinas's approach relies on religious assumptions about creation and the nature of humanity. Those who do not share these assumptions may not find analogy convincing.
2. Selection of Qualities: Analogy picks certain qualities to explain but not others. It does not address the existence of evil and whether God possesses such qualities.
3. Limited Revelation: Analogy may not reveal entirely new information about God but rather builds upon what is already known through human experiences.
4. Imaginary Bridge: Critics argue that the bridge created by analogy between known and unknown aspects of God is based on imaginary or unverifiable elements.

In summary, the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper proportion offer a way to understand and speak about God in religious language. While they provide insights into the relationship between God and humans, they are rooted in specific religious assumptions and may not be convincing to those who do not share those beliefs.

Paul Tillich and Language as Symbol in Religious Discourse

Paul Tillich was a theologian who proposed that religious language is symbolic in nature and can have a profound impact on humans. He made a distinction between signs and symbols, highlighting the symbolic nature of religious language.

Signs vs. Symbols:

• Signs: Signs merely point to something beyond themselves and have no inherent participation in what they symbolize. Without knowing what the signs mean, they would be meaningless. Signs often convey straightforward information, such as traffic signs.
• Symbols: Symbols are more powerful and actively participate in the power and meaning of what they symbolize. They not only represent something but also evoke a deep and profound understanding and emotional response. Symbols are not limited to conveying information; they open up deeper levels of meaning.

Tillich argued that religious language operates as a symbol, functioning in a similar way as powerful symbols do. He outlined four main functions of symbols:

1. Point to Something Beyond: Symbols direct our attention to something beyond themselves, often representing deeper or transcendent meanings.
2. Participate in What They Symbolize: Symbols actively engage with and embody the power and meaning of what they represent. They are not passive representations but actively convey a sense of the sacred.
3. Open Up Levels of Reality: Symbols have the ability to open up dimensions of reality that may remain closed to us through ordinary language. They offer a different perspective on reality.
4. Open Up the Soul: Symbols can evoke emotional and spiritual responses within individuals, allowing them to connect with deeper aspects of themselves that correspond to the symbols' meanings.

Tillich's central idea was that religious language functions as a symbolic way of pointing to the ultimate reality, which he referred to as "Being-Itself." Being-Itself represents the ultimate source of all existence and reality, upon which everything else depends for its being. According to Tillich, symbols in religious language direct us toward an understanding of this ultimate reality.
Religious symbols, such as the cross in Christianity, not only serve as markers for a particular faith but also evoke profound meanings related to the central beliefs, experiences, and values of that faith. They have the power to open up new dimensions of reality and invite individuals to connect with the depths of their own spirituality.

Tillich's perspective on religious language as symbol emphasizes the transformative and experiential aspects of faith, highlighting the profound influence symbols can have on human consciousness and spirituality.

Religious Language as Moral Assertion: The Perspective of R.B. Braithwaite

R.B. Braithwaite's approach to religious language is distinct from some of the earlier theories we've discussed. He focused not on the nature of religious statements themselves but on how they are used. Braithwaite proposed that religious statements are essentially moral in content and intention and can be meaningfully verified because they lead to changes in human behavior.

Key Points:

1. Religious Statements as Moral Assertions: Braithwaite characterized religious statements as declarations of adherence to a particular course of action or commitments to a certain way of life. In his view, religious language is primarily concerned with expressing intentions to act in specific ways as specified in these assertions. Essentially, religious statements are moral directives.

2. Verification through Action: Braithwaite argued that religious statements have meaning because they result in observable actions. When individuals make religious moral assertions, they are expressing their intentions to act according to a particular moral framework or ethical code. The meaningfulness of these statements is verified through the subsequent actions and behaviors of those who make them.

3. Basis of Religious Belief: Braithwaite highlighted that religious beliefs and, by extension, religious moral assertions, are rooted in two primary aspects:

   • A commitment to live a particular way of life.
   • Religious narratives or stories, such as the life of Jesus or the life of the Buddha, which serve as influential factors for guiding behavior.

4. Role of Fantasy and Imagination: Braithwaite emphasized that human behavior is influenced not only by beliefs but also by other mental constructs like fantasies, imaginations, desires, and ideas of what individuals aspire to be or do. These elements, in addition to propositions that are believed to be true, collectively shape human conduct.

5. Verification of Religious Assertions: For Braithwaite, the meaningfulness of religious assertions lies in their capacity to inspire and guide human action. Religious people don't need to rely on empirical verification of religious stories or historical claims, such as producing Jesus' death certificate. Instead, religious stories function as influential narratives that shape and direct individuals' moral commitments and behaviors.

Non- Cognitive: Logical Positivists

This approach, known as the Verification Principle, aimed to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless statements by emphasizing the need for empirical evidence or verification.
Key points covered in this section:

1. Logical Positivism and Religious Statements: Logical Positivists argued that religious statements, including those related to God or religious phenomena, are devoid of meaning because they cannot be empirically verified. A.J. Ayer is quoted as stating that statements about God are metaphysical and, therefore, cannot be true or false.
2. Verification and Falsification: The Verification Principle insisted that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical experiences. If a statement cannot be empirically tested, it is considered meaningless. Religious statements were deemed problematic because they were challenging to verify empirically.
3. Debate with Antony Flew: The section references a famous debate between Antony Flew and a parable about an invisible gardener. Flew's argument is that religious believers often add numerous qualifications to their claims, rendering them immune to falsification. The statement "God moves in mysterious ways" is cited as an example of a claim that can fit any situation and remains unfalsifiable.
4. Problem of Meaning in Religious Discourse: Flew's argument is that religious discourse lacks assertive and meaningful statements. Many religious claims are framed in a way that makes them unfalsifiable, leading to the conclusion that they are meaningless.
5. Challenges to the Verification Principle: The section discusses how the Verification Principle was criticized for being both too narrow and too broad. It was too narrow because it ruled out sentences that most reasonable people would consider meaningful. Simultaneously, it was too broad, allowing many expressions to qualify as meaningful, making it unreasonably inclusive.

In summary, the section highlights the challenges posed by the Verification Principle and Logical Positivism to religious language, asserting that religious statements may lack meaning due to their inability to be empirically verified. The debate over the meaningfulness of religious language remains a complex and ongoing discussion in the philosophy of religion.

Ludwig Wittgenstein & Religious Language

Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy, particularly as outlined in his work "Philosophical Investigations," significantly influenced the discussion of religious language and meaning. Wittgenstein's approach emphasizes the contextual and pragmatic nature of language, rejecting the idea that language directly corresponds to an objective reality. Instead, he introduces the concept of "language games" to describe how language is used within specific social practices and forms of life.
Here are key points related to Wittgenstein's view on religious language and meaning:

1. Language Games: Wittgenstein's concept of language games highlights the idea that the meaning of words and statements is intrinsically tied to their use within specific activities or practices. Language, including religious language, is a dynamic, rule-bound, and context-dependent form of life.
2. Religious Language as Language Games: Wittgenstein applies the idea of language games to religious discourse. In the context of religious practices, words like "God," "Brahman," "Nirvana," or "the Tao" derive their meanings from their use within religious rituals, traditions, and experiences. These terms are not meant to provide a literal picture of a transcendent reality but to serve specific functions within religious practices.
3. Use over Denotation: Wittgenstein emphasizes that the meaning of a word is primarily derived from its use within a particular language game. In religious contexts, the meanings of religious terms are more closely related to their roles in religious rituals, narratives, and communal practices rather than their capacity to denote objective or metaphysical entities.
4. No Literal Pictures of Reality: Wittgenstein's philosophy of language suggests that religious claims should not be interpreted as attempts to provide literal representations of an external or transcendent reality. Instead, they serve specific functions within a religious community and are best understood within their respective language games.
5. Opposition to Natural Theology: Wittgenstein was critical of natural theology, which seeks to prove the existence of God or religious truths through rational arguments and empirical evidence. He argued that such efforts often misunderstand the nature of religious language and its role in religious practices.

Wittgenstein's later philosophy challenges the idea that religious language seeks to provide a direct correspondence to an external reality. Instead, he views religious language as a complex set of practices and rituals, and the meanings of religious terms are derived from their roles within these practices. This perspective has had a significant impact on the philosophy of religion and has encouraged scholars to consider the pragmatics and context of religious language.

R.M. Hare's Blik Theory

• Lunatic Parable: Hare used a parable about a lunatic who believes that all dons want to murder him despite being introduced to kind and respectable dons who show no harmful intentions. The lunatic's unwavering belief reflects his "blik."
• Right and Wrong Bliks: Hare suggests that people can have either the right (sane) or wrong (insane) bliks. Right bliks align with the actual state of affairs, while wrong bliks deviate from reality.
• Critique by John Hick: John Hick criticized Hare's theory by arguing that religious beliefs are often based on reason, religious experiences, and other factors. He also pointed out that Hare's categorization of right and wrong bliks is inconsistent because bliks themselves are unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

Basil Mitchell's Perspective

• Religious Belief Based on Facts: Basil Mitchell disagreed with Hare's theory and proposed that religious belief is based on factual grounds, even though it may not be straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
• Resistance Fighter Parable: Mitchell used a different parable involving a resistance fighter who encounters a stranger claiming to be the leader of the resistance. Despite some behavior that seems contradictory, the fighter maintains his belief in the leader.
• Reason and Fact: Mitchell's key point is that religious belief is grounded in reason and fact. Believers may encounter experiences or evidence that support their faith, and they do not require an immediate, simplistic verification or falsification of their beliefs.
• Eschatological Verification: Mitchell's perspective aligns with John Hick's idea of "eschatological verification," which suggests that at the end of time, aspects of religious belief that require faith will be revealed and clarified by God. This notion contrasts with the strict verification principle advocated by logical positivists.

In summary, Hare's blik theory highlights the role of unwarranted or unverifiable beliefs in shaping one's perspective. Basil Mitchell and John Hick both counter Hare's approach by emphasizing that religious belief, while not always empirically verifiable, can be based on reason, evidence, and experiences. They propose that faith in religious claims may ultimately be vindicated or clarified in the future, challenging the strict criteria of logical positivism.