Is religious language meaningful

Answer 1

It depends on how you want to look at what is meant by the meaning. Those who take religious language as cognitive (meaning based on facts/making truth claims) could argue no. For example, the logical positivist and Anthony Flew. The logical positivists argued that the only language which is meaningful is assertions which are made that can be empirically verifiable according to analytic (a posteriori/deductive meaning true by definition) claims such as 1+1=2 whereby all the information to verify the statement is found within the statement or synthetic (a posteriori /inductive)reasoning which is based on taking empirical measures to find out whether a statement is true or false. For example, the statement is raining outside can be empirically tested to find a fixed conclusion. To the logical positivists as long as a certain conclusion can be made whether true or false is found then the assertion is meaningful. From this they then went on to conclude that any language consisting of emotion, or historical elements which cannot be tested in the here and now are meaningless (according to the strong verification principle) The weak verification principle states that any language which is verifiable in principle is meaningful. therefore, this (unintentionally) allows for claims such as "Christ was resurrected from the dead" to become meaningful as the conditions which you would undergo to find out the truth or falsity of the statement are known. (Going back and witnessing the event).

Flew developed the Falsification principle that was basically the next step on from verification. In simple terms in states that a statement is meaningful if and only if you know the conditions in which the statement is true or false. For example, if you claim that a polar bear is white you must be able to prove how it is not black. From this Flew went on to saying that all religious statements are meaningless as religious believers do not allow for anything to count against their claims.( as shown through John Wisdom's Parable of the gardener. This is how Flew claims Go dies a death of a thousand qualifications).

Therefore, through taking religious language as cognitive language it is seen as meaningless to these people.

Non cognitive approaches however, such as Braithwaite's rel lang as a moral discourse, Rudolf Bultman's demythologizing of The Bible and Tillich, Randal & Soskice's metaphoric and symbolic language refer to religious language as meaningful as it is meaningful on a personal subjective level.

Braithwaite argued that the purpose of religious language is not to make universal truth claims but to bring about morality and a way of life for mankind to follow. therefore to him religious language is meaningful as it affects the lives of religious believer around the globe.

Rudolf Bultman also claimed that religious language is non cognitive. He claimed that to find the true meaning behind religious claims you should strip away certain layers found in the Bible stories such as the creation story found in Genesis and regard it as an aeteological myth.

Tillich argued that it is through symbols that we can find the true meaning behind religious claims. For example, looking at a symbol does not state facts but allows an individual to look at them and feel a sense of the numinous and feeling at one with God. He argued that unlike signs which simply state something, symbols have the ability to participate in what they show, open up deeper realities that were previously unknown and unlock dimensions and elements of the soul. To him religious language is therefore non-cognitive meaning that religious language although ineffable in the outside word unlocks an ultimate reality within the believer's mind. Therefore, religious language in seen as meaningful to Tillich.

From this, Ameila Jaff went on to say that symbols such as the Cross develop and change throughout time however, the meaning remains the same to the believer. She uses the example of the Greek Cross to the cross shown in Christianity today. Although the image of the cross has changed slightly the meaning remains the same to believer.

Soskice too argues that religious language is meaningful and claims that symbols and metaphor are both inspirational meaning they have an affect on the believer, they're emotional meaning they bring out emotion to the believer, they're representational meaning that they show and provide meaning to what they are, they're interpretive meaning that different people have different ideas about their meaning and finally, they are subjective meaning that they mean different things and have different affects on each individual. Therefore, religious language has meaning to the believer.

Randall stated that religious language is meaningful as motivational meaning that it inspires people into action. Social meaning that common understanding binds people together.e.g Christian communities. They express things beyond human understanding - communication factor. They also express the experience of the divine.

Also, in Witgenstein's book the Tractactus he states that all speak of religious language should be respected as all people are part of their own language game. Only those within that game understand the context of the words spoken. For example, those who do not understand the rules of cricket would not understand the context of Bowling a maiden over. Therefore, for anyone to claim that religious language is meaningless are wrong as they do not understand the context to which the believer is referring to. The same goes to religious believers against non religious claims.

In conclusion, it depends on what you take meaning to mean. Truth claims? or on an personal level. (p.s sorry about the essay, I was practicing for my Philosophy exams next week)

Answer 2

Hello, i add, i will fix my answer gradually if that needed along accepted period of the time, i understood this a question as "is a religion facts is useful? or is the study of religion is effective?", my answer is: a life or an existence or an all has general law in a fact, but it is not uncontrolled nor float.. as we were think, this a law is that a god is a start or stand point permanently and forever, and his being work true only and permanently and forever , and a god can't use his being for injustice where its construction miss a wrong, and a life is active -known- but not passive, and we an creatures discover what a god make by any true law from a god as we use logic -laws- for discover a things gradually forever from a god, and a god created everything for justification but not futility, thus a god created a religion for justification and truly, and thus religion are effective and useful completely.