Still More Religious Language
Religious Language as Myth
- A myth is a story told using symbol, metaphor, analogy and parable to convey some kind of religious truth. The story, in itself, tells us nothing if taken literally, but through it we gain something considered a deeper truth, or a more in depth meaning.
- A lot of Christians resign themselves to the fact that a lot of stories in the Old Testament (if not all of the Bible) are myths and allegories.
- A lot of contemporary philosophers dislike the use of mythology in conveying ideas beyond our own, as they often contain outmoded ideas; for example the Genesis story appears anachronistic compared to the theory of the Big Bang. Rudolph Buttman says that to gain any truth from the New Testament we must cast asunder the use of mythological language, but does not say why!
- This view is opposed however, as other theologians believe that to ignore the use of myth in the bible would render most (if not all of the bible) as useless and nothing can be gained from it.
- A myth hoping to explain the birth of the universe is called a “cosmogony”.
- These cosmogonies all share apparent common themes. Note the use of the word “apparent”, in the fact that these are the thoughts of modern scholars being projected onto the work, and not stepping stones put in place by the writers of the stories. Anyway, here are those building blocks:
- A prior chaotic, or formless, state, either described as “a body of water, or nothing at all”.
- A god who exists in the void in order to perform an action which causes creation.
- In latter stages: the introduction of human beings.
- A connector between the world of the God in question and the world of the men He creates, which also puts us in our place in the scheme of things.
- This provides aetiological mythical grounding for religions; that is to say “a foundation myth”.
Purpose
- Some scholars believe religious language has a purpose in conveying ideas, which makes it meaningful.
- R.B. Braithwaite for example tells us that Verification and Falsification are useless when talking about religion, as they can only be used in dealing with cognitive language (to verify: cognitive language is that which deals with our worldly experience), whereas religious language is completely non-cognitive.
- “Religious language is a moral discourse”, apparently, because it almost entirely tells us how we should act toward one another.
- “Theological propositions are not explanations of facts in the world of nature in the way in which established scientific hypotheses are.”
- Braithwaite argues that religious claims have meaning because:
- A religious claim is, at first, a moral one, and one which expresses a certain view. It illustrates the intention and wish to conform to certain ways of behaving.
- It is different from a purely moral claim, however, as it will refer to some kind of parable or allegory, rather than just being an intention.
- It is not entirely needed for a person to believe the truth of the story in order to live by its doctrine.
More Symbology
- J.R. Randall seems to side himself with Tillich and sees religious language as “huan activity, which makes a special contribution to human culture.” It acts to agitate people, to stir them up and unify them through their common faith.
- They serve a few functions too:
- They aim to point out the idea they are trying to get across.
- They “participate” in the overall meaning of the concept.
Jung
- In his work “Man and his Symbols”, Jung informs us of 4 base “archetypes” which resolve themselves as we examine the subconscious.
- He attempts to show that various symbols are common among religions and that, in this, we never stray far from our “animal psyche”. He believes these archetypes reveal themselves in the symbols of art and religion.
- Aniela Jaff hopes to show in the evolution of the symbol of the cross that religion evolved. The original Greek cross looks just like a “+”, symbol; however, over time the modern cross has a slightly raised point of crossing, which is claimed to symbolise the alteration of the centre of man from the earth to that of a “higher”, spiritual plane.
Language Games
- Ludwig Wittgenstein rejected the verification principle and decided that the meaning of words and statements is in their use, the “function they perform as agreed by the particular group or society using them”
- Wittgenstein tells us that every activity has its own associated language, and considered it as a “game”.
- These games exist within all forms of humanity.
- People outside of a game will not understand the language used in it, as they do not know the rules that the game is played by.
- As they do not understand the rules, the language appears meaningless.
- Religious language has its own “rules”, understood by those who believe, and that a non-believer could never really hope to understand, and is thus meaningless to the unbeliever.
- He says, in finishing, that just because we do not understand the meaning of the language used, does not mean that the language used has no meaning.
- Wittgenstein says that we cannot create a personal language, because how would we know that we are using the language correctly without some kind of group concurrence?
- As a result of this, Wittgenstein denies “first-person certainty”, that idea which underlines rationalists and empiricists.
- However, it is considered by other contemporaries that religious believers are involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. If one were to enter a similar aspect of life then surely the common grounds allow for a discussion and perhaps understanding and thus the decision if the ideas have meaning for them.
It could also turn out that non-believers may have a better understanding of religious language than believers, as they approach it with a certain amount of (debatable) objectivity, rather than preferential bias.