Religious language
The problem of religious language
Religious language is the communication ideas about God, faith, belief and practise. The problem with the communication of these ideas is that behind the words used are concepts. Individuals have different understandings of the concepts and this might result in differences of interpretation and meaning. Some philosophers argue that religious language is used in different ways from everyday language.
Cognitive: when applied to religious language, this communicates knowledge, information and facts about God (something about God may be known about God). The problem with this is that religious statements are not about objective facts that can be proved true or false. The argument put forward is that we are unable to validate religious statements based on objective facts that are open to cognition then religious language is considered to be meaningless.
Anthropomorphises: attributes human forms or personality to a god, animal or object. There is the problem of how God is to be described when nothing is known about God. For example, is it right to refer to a supreme being using human terminology such as ‘he’ and ‘him’. It is felt that the use of language in this way anthropomorphises or objectifies God. Using words in this way appears to limit God’s majesty or power in some way.
This has led to religious believers seeking ways in which they can talk about God in a meaningful way and some non-believers seeking to demonstrate why religious language is meaningless. One group that considered religious language as meaningless was the logical positivists.
Religious language is the communication ideas about God, faith, belief and practise. The problem with the communication of these ideas is that behind the words used are concepts. Individuals have different understandings of the concepts and this might result in differences of interpretation and meaning. Some philosophers argue that religious language is used in different ways from everyday language.
Cognitive: when applied to religious language, this communicates knowledge, information and facts about God (something about God may be known about God). The problem with this is that religious statements are not about objective facts that can be proved true or false. The argument put forward is that we are unable to validate religious statements based on objective facts that are open to cognition then religious language is considered to be meaningless.
Anthropomorphises: attributes human forms or personality to a god, animal or object. There is the problem of how God is to be described when nothing is known about God. For example, is it right to refer to a supreme being using human terminology such as ‘he’ and ‘him’. It is felt that the use of language in this way anthropomorphises or objectifies God. Using words in this way appears to limit God’s majesty or power in some way.
This has led to religious believers seeking ways in which they can talk about God in a meaningful way and some non-believers seeking to demonstrate why religious language is meaningless. One group that considered religious language as meaningless was the logical positivists.