Religious Language – A Level Philosophy AQA Revision

Religious language is the discourse used by individuals to express their faith and spirituality.
Its comprehension often requires a certain level of immersion in or knowledge of the religious context.
It generally deals with metaphysical concepts that are beyond empirical verification or falsification.
Central to the philosophical debate about religious language is its cognitive meaningfulness, symbolic value and its efficacy in conveying profound truths.

The main debate in religious language is between cognitive and non-cognitive theories.
Cognitive theories maintain that religious statements have factual or propositional content that can be known to be true or false.
Non-cognitive theories argue that religious statements aren’t meant to express propositional truths but are expressions of emotions, commands, or moral prescriptions.

The Verification Principle, proposed by the logical positivists, suggests that a statement is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified or is true by definition.
The Falsification Principle, championed by Karl Popper, states that a theory is scientific if it can in principle be empirically falsified.
Both principles pose serious challenges to religious language’s ability to convey meaningful propositions, due to their supernatural claims being beyond empirical scrutiny.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed the concept of language games to explain the varied uses of language across different spheres of life.
Each “language game” has its own rules for meaning and use, making its discourse meaningful within its own sphere, but perhaps not outside it.
For Wittgenstein, religious language is a specific language game, understood and validated within its own context.

Many religious thinkers and philosophers propose that religious language functions symbolically or analogically.
Symbols possess objective value and convey deep truths. In religious language, symbols represent spiritual realities.
Analogy suggests our language about God, a transcendent being, is derived from, yet different to, our experience of the world.
Both approaches regard religious language as a vehicle capable of communicating profound truths, albeit in a non-literal way.

Cataphatic theology (also known as positive theology) makes affirmative assertions about God.
Apophatic theology (also known as negative theology) involves speaking of God only in terms of what He isn’t.
These approaches recognise the limitations of human language when used to speak about God, given His transcendence.

Criticism of religious language often revolves around its perceived lack of clarity, verifiability and ability to communicate shared meaning.
Sceptics argue that without empirical verification, religious language lacks meaningful content.
Critics also express concern about potential misinterpretation, especially given the emotive nature of religious discourse.