Religious language 30 marker PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Religious language 30 marker PDF

Description

The problems of religious language have been completely solved by philosophers of religion (30 marks) Religious language has been faulted by many philosophers such as Karl Popper, A.J Ayer, and Ludwig Wittgenstien for many things such as its lack of empirical validity, uselessness and exclusivity to those who are non-religious.These problems seem to outweigh the solutions that philosophers such as Ramsey, Braithwaite and Swinburne have made as they find meaning and inclusivity in religious language which are seen to not completely resolve the issues of religious language. One problem that was highlighted by Karl Popper through his principle of falsification is that religious language cannot be meaningful as it “does not speak about reality” . Popper believed that language could only be meaningful if it had evidence against it and as the topic of religious language is a metaphysical God there is no way you can empirically disprove it. It was Popper’s belief that all of religious language is nonsensical and holds no real value which is obviously a major problem. This could be seen as a strong argument as in science the majority of the time you aren’t trying to verify a topic but instead see if it’s false as that is more valuable and so the fact that religious language has no empirical evidence against is a flaw that needs to be solved. A philosopher who attempted to give a solution to this problem would be Braithwaite. Braithwaite demonstrated how religious language can be meaningful to both non religious and religious believers even without evidence as he drew similarities between religious language and moral claims and how they both hold empirical significance as they both provide a meaningful outlook on life to the recipient. This point is also supported by the views of Richard Hare who believed that meaningfulness comes from the effect a belief has on someone- not whether it can be empirically verified or falsified. Hare used the parable of the paranoid student to demonstrate this as no matter what people tell the student he still believes that the dons are going to kill him and so his belief is meaningful to him. This could be seen as a strong argument and solution to the problem as there are certain beliefs that people have about the afterlife that are meaningful to them and even though they hold no empirical evidence they are not any less meaningful or valid beliefs as they would alter how that person acts in their life. Another problem that has been brought up about religious language is how it cannot be used outside of religion. This is brought up in Wittgienstien’s language games where he suggests that many are unable to find meaning in religious language due to them not knowing the “rules of the game” as they don’t have enough knowledge on the philosophy of religion- This would make most religious language useless to everyday people who aren’t aware of the context of the language used. This could be seen as a weak argument as it is untrue to say that people cannot find meaning in things if they are not involved in the ‘game’ that the language is used in. Even if that means each individual finds different meanings from religious language they still have found meaning. To combat this problem philosopher Ramsey used the concept of qualifiers to make religious language more accessible to all. A qualifier would be a word that is added to a term to alter what

they’re regular reality is. It adds another dimension to the word which brings it into relation with God yet is still understandable to everyone no matter the degree of their previous knowledge on God. An example would be adding the qualifier “all-loving” to “shepherd”. Adding this qualifier discloses meaningful knowledge about God to an individual which allows them to understand the religion better. This could be seen as a strong argument as it successfully solves the problem of exclusivity of religious language as it simplifies it yet still holds its meaning. Ayer’s verification principle completely rejects metaphysical language as he shows a flaw in the concept. The flaw in question being that that there is no way to empirically prove religious language and because of that it holds no meaning. Ayer believes that because it holds no empirical validity it is nothing but a “production of nonsense” as you cannot find meaning in something that you don’t know is true. This could be seen as a strong argument as it may not be beneficial to an individual to find meaning in a concept that we can’t prove as true and it would be better to base their behaviour on facts and morals that aren’t based on religion. Swinburne would disagree with Ayer’s point as just because a concept doesn’t have evidence for or against it doesn’t mean it can’t still happen as much like the “toys in the cupboard “ might “get up and dance in the middle of the night” we cannot prove that religious language isn’t based on facts just because we have not witnessed it as it might be eschatologically proven at a later date and so it is not wrong for those who believe in it to find meaning in religious language now. This could be seen as a mediocre argument as although Swinburne isn’t technically wrong you could use his logic for almost anything and then the world would be full of uncertainties as there is always a probability that something could be true but it is mostly improbable that it actually is true. In conclusion I would say that the problems that are highlighted in religious language although they have been combated with solutions have not been completely solved as you are still able to find flaws in the concept itself and the arguments in favour of it. However, I don’t think the problems of religious language make it any less valid or meaningful to the individual who believes in it as it has still impacted their behaviour and outlook on life...