this isn’t my final draft of this essay cos I lost that
Compare and Contrast the Distinctive Features of Religious and Ethical Language
Religious and Ethical language are similar in that they both encounter similar problems, the first of which is the issue of meaningfulness and the second is the limits of the language we have available to us and the way in which we use it. In order to compare and contrast the two we can look at the way in which they try to overcome these problems.
The problem of meaningfulness stems from the ideas of logical positivism. This was a 20th century linguistic movement, which states that in order for something to be meaningful it must be open to empirical verification. This poses problems for religious language, as statements such as “Jesus was the Son of God” or “Jesus rose from the dead” are impossible to empirically verify. Similarly the Verication Principle is problematic for Ethical language because the statement, “abortion is wrong” is equally impossible to empirically verify.
However in contrast to this, Naturalism asserts that non-ethical statements are similar to ethical statements and an ethical statement is factual in the same way that a historical statement would be. If you were an ethical naturalist you would maintain that moral language meets the criteria of verification. The truth and meaning of an ethical statement can be established using empirical evidence. In the same way as “Napoleon died in 1821” can be verified using historical records, so too can “Napoleon was a good man” through an examination of the motives, intentions and outcomes of his behaviour".
A development of the Verification Principle, the Weak Verification Principle, can be used to show that Religious statements are in fact meaningful. The Weak Verification Principle holds that if something is verifiable in principle then it is meaningful. This means that a statement such as “Jesus rose from the dead” is, in theory empirically verifiable, as at the time, people would have been able to see both Jesus die, and later Jesus walking around. In contrast to this ethical language remains meaningless according to the Weak Verifiable Principle, as a statement such as “Abortion is wrong” is not verifiable even in principle. Therefore religious and ethical language can be seen as contrasting according to the verification principle.
Anthony Flew uses the falsification principle to discredit the meaning of Religious Language. The falsification principle states that in order to assert that X is the case there must be corresponding evidence that Y is not the case. As religious believers do not disprove evidence counting against the statement such as “there is too much evil and suffering in the world”, but instead qualify their definition of God to encompass the evil and suffering in the world, God dies the death of a thousand qualifications. R. B. Braithwaite says that religion, is, essentially a moral statement, expressed in the terms of symbolic language. The use of Religious language is to project commitment to a way of life. This would contrast the rejection of the meaning of religious language, as the meaning would be derived from its ethical meaning instead. An example of this is illustrated in the Eucharist. Meaning is derived not from the empirical verification that the wine, is wine, which becomes blood, but as a result of the sacrifice, which Christians endeavour to reciprocate in their own lives.
R. M. Hare contradicted the ideas of Richard Swinburne in his essay “Theology and Falsification” Although Hare agreed that religious statements are non-cognitive he believed that religious statements can still influence the way that people view the world. Hare called this way of looking at the world a “Blik”. Religious beliefs are bliks and they affect the way people look at the world. Hare illustrated this with the analogy of a student who is convinced that his teachers are trying to kill him. No matter what evidence he is given to the contrary he will not change his mind, and this belief affects the way he is living. Similarly to this view A. J. Ayer in his work language, truth and logic argued that whilst ethical language cannot be seen as statements about facts, it does however serve another purpose, “that of describing the emotions or the opinions of the speaker”. This is similar to R. M. Hare’s idea of “Blik”, that although religious statements are non-cognitive they can influence the way people view the world, as it illustrates how ethical language can be meaningful as it affects your behaviour.
Wittgenstein, a former logical positivist, amended his ideas in the 1930s, he then asserted that the demands of logical positivism were far too extreme and that language has a variety of meanings dependant upon context. In his work Philosophical Investigations he stated that “The meaning of a word is its use in language”. This approach is known as language games as just as the words “goal”, “penalty” and “foul” have different meanings dependant on the game that is being played, so too the meaning of language depends on the “form of life” in which it is applied. According to language games, religious language is meaningful as it makes perfect sense within its own contextual framework. Wittgenstein developed this argument stating that meaning is derived not only from context but also from convention. There is a social agreement about the use of words within their given contexts. These ideas are comparable to ethical theory of cultural relativism. Cultural Relativism states that ethical ideas are meaningful depending on the culture in which you live. The morals people have are not objective but instead entirely subjective on your background and culture.
Wittgenstein’s theory of language games is criticised from a religious viewpoint as it promotes an anti-realist idea of God, and many religious people object to the idea of God as a subjective reality, and believe that God is an actual real objective being. Similarly many ethical theories do not believe that moral values are subjective, but in fact that there are objective and absolute moral laws. Deontological theories of ethics such as Natural Moral Law and Deontology hold that moral laws are absolute and unchangeable, and that they apply to everyone regardless of individual situation. Natural Moral Law links to religious language in that it can be seen as a Christian theory of ethics God gives everything a purpose and that purpose must be upheld.
Ethical naturalism also asserts that their ethics can be objective. Naturalism states that moral conclusions can be proved from non-natural premises. I can conclude that something is wrong from observation and analysis. When we look at murder, we see not only the fact that someone has been killed, but also that this is wrong. Thee wrongness of the act is as much a fact as the fact that murder is the act of killing someone. This means that moral facts aren’t views or opinions, when I observe that something is wrong it is a moral fact of the universe.
According to Naturalism moral statements can be expressed as non-moral statements. However, according to G. E. Moore ethical language faces a similar problem, the term good is indefinable, good is a simple idea, that which cannot be broken down into any other parts, unlike, say a horse, which is a complex ideas, there are many different ways of describing a horse. The term good defies analysis, it is irreducible. We know if something is good or right intuitively, he makes an analogy with the term yellow, we cannot define goodness any further just as we cannot define yellowness any further. There are a number of basic moral principles that are objective, for example, “telling the truth”, “do not harm others”. Pritchard expanded on Moore’s intuitionism, saying that it is based on moral obligation; he distinguished between two types of thinking, reasoning and intuition. Our reason allows us to collect all the facts about a situation, our intuition shows us what is the right thing to do. This can be seen as similar to the way we have faith in God, our reason gives us the facts, and our faith allows us to make the leap to believing. Pritchard believed that this intuitionism was a special type of thinking and not everybody’s was equally developed.
As with ethical language, one of the major problems facing Religious Language is the imitation of the language available to us. Religious statements cannot be expressed as non-religious ones, just as good cannot be defined in non-moral terms. How can the vocabulary of finite beings encapsulate the attributes of an infinite being, if we attempt to describe God in this way we will anthropomorphisise God. “If our words applied to God, mean the same as when they are applied to creatures the resulting descriptions are anthropomorphic and this is false - if the words have not the same meanings they have when applied to things in our experience then they are used merely equivocally and there is no context to what is said.” - James Ross. Religious believers try to overcome this problem of religious language in many ways.
One way in which this problem can be overcome is by the use of analogy. As God’s creation we are pale reflections of him, there are therefore some similarities and also some differences between God and his creations. As God is ineffable we have to “schematise” our experiences. Analogous language is based upon yet goes beyond the literal meaning of words. There are tow main types of analogy, analogy of proportionality and analogy of attribution. Analogy of attribution suggests a causal relationship. Upward analogies apply from people towards God and our knowledge of qualities such as goodness and love are remote approximations of God’s goodness and love. Analogy of proportionality asserts that the attributes of God are proportional to his nature in the same way that our attributes are proportional to our natures. “Analogy provides a framework for certain limited statements about God.”
Another way in attempting to solve the problem is to use symbolic language. Paul Tillich argues that religious language should not be taken as a set of literal assertions but should instead be understood symbolically. Symbolic language opens up a deeper level of understanding and allows believers to arrive at a state of “ultimate concern” for God. Tillich distinguished between a sign and a symbol, a sign points by arbitrary convention, whereas a symbol participates in that to which it points. J.H. Randall also supported the symbolic interpretation of religious language saying that it served four important functions. Motivational-to persuade others, Social, Communicational-gives us a framework to discuss the ineffable, to evoke clarify and foster believe.
This can be likened to prescriptivism, in that Prescriptivism is a cognitive theory, which states that once moral attitudes have been established they are used to prescribe objectively similar beliefs in others. If I say “lying is wrong” my belief is that others should perceive it as wrong. Opinion I therefore used as a means of establishing universal guides. I.e., emotive language is used to universalise moral laws and persuade others; in the same way that Randall believed symbolic language was useful as a means of motivation, to persuade others of their beliefs.
The third way in which Religious Language attempts to overcome the problems associated with limitations of language is through myth. There are three ways of interpreting myth, firstly as a literary device by which we can talk about the ineffable, secondly as a method of interpreting “ultimate reality”, and thirdly as a fable, a story which is not literally true but still conveys meaning. Braithwaite argued that their meaning was in their moral value. Religious language has conative value. If this is true then Religious language and ethical language are comparable as religious language is merely an expression of ethical language, and is simply there to provide us with moral truths. However realists would disagree with this, most religious believes do not see their God as a myth simply there to help provide moral standards. God is an objective being, who created the world and gave us life. Events such as the resurrection cannot, as Bultmann believed, be considered mythical; the resurrection of Christ is essential to Christian belief of atonement and salvation. Plantinga argues that when one claims God exists the are making a literal-existential assertion - first that there exists a person of a certain sort - a being who acts, holds beliefs, and has aims and purposes. This person is - perfect in goodness, knowledge, and power, and is such that the world depends on him for its existence. Supporters of myth such as Dawkins reject this saying that belief in God and to be fobbed off by a cheap supernatural myth is intellectually degrading.
Furthermore the way in which mythical language describes God as a non-objective is similar to ethical ideas of emotivism. Emotivism holds that there are no objective moral standards but that instead our morals are an expression of our personal opinions; similarly if God is not an objective being but merely provides moral guidance then different religions are simply expressions of our own personal choices and own personal emotive beliefs.
In conclusion, some aspects of Religious and Ethical language can be seen to be comparable, for example they both face the same problems imposed by the restrictions of language and the ideas of logical positivism. The differences occur when they try to overcome these problems, for example Religious language attempts to overcome the problems posed by the limitations of language, by using ideas such as myth, symbol and analogy, whereas ethical language attempts to use different theories of ethics such as naturalism and emotivism. The main difference between the two seems to be that religious language is ways of talking about God whereas Ethical language is different types of ethical belief and theory. However there are still many ways in which the two are similar, in attempting to overcome the problems of meaningfulness put forward by logical positivism, both religious and ethical language put forward arguments, which suggest that meaning is derived from context. Ethical language uses cultural relativism, and religious language uses Wittgenstein’s language games, or Hare’s world view/Blik.