(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Ch. 6 Problems of Religious Language (Continued)
Religious language as non-cognitive
Cognitive language is either true or false.
Is religious language cognitive or non-cognitive?
1) Are religious utterances intended to be construed cognitively?
2) Are they logically true or false (regardless of user intention)?
J.H. Randall Jr. (The Role of Knowledge in Western Religion) conceives or religion, science and art as separate institutions that each make a positive contribution to human society.
The symbolism and myths of religion according to Randall are similar to social and artistic symbols in that they are non-representative and non-cognitive.
Religious symbols have a fourfold function:
1) Arouse emotions and stir people to act
2) Bind communities together by response to the symbols
3) Communicate qualities of experience not expressible with literal language
4) Clarify the human experience of an aspect of the world known as 'the order of the splendor' or the Divine
Randall holds God to be man's ideals, values and ultimate concern. God does not necessarily exist outside the construct of the human mind.
The Divine is merely a temporary mental construct "of a recently emerged animal inhabiting one of the satellites of a minor star" (Hick, 85).
Randall's theory is an explicit theory of what many implicitly believe today. "God" as a term has been placed under the subcategory of religion in today's society.
Bertrand Russell: "I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who say that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time" (Hick, 86).
This culture has made a startling departure from the origin of philosophy of religion by focusing on the utility of religion rather than the truth-hood of it.
Braithwaite's non-cognitive theory
R. B. Braithwaite suggests that religious assertions serve a primarily ethical function.
Religion as expressions are recommendations to behave in a certain way. Thus, "God is love (agape)" is a recommendation to "follow the agapeisitic way of life".
Braithwaite sees the wide divergences of religious rituals as unimportant and trivial because their ethical exhortations are the same.
The connection between religious stories and the religious way of life is a psychological and a causal one. Stories help psychologically to enforce the otherwise unnatural ethical exhortations.
Braithwaite's theory is a drastic change in understanding religious language.
Braithwaite's theory is flawed because he holds that ethical (religious) expressions are intentions to act in a certain fashion. Thus, 'Lying is wrong' is, 'I intend never to lie'. This theory denies that people can willingly act wrongly or against one's moral path.
The Language-Game theory
This theory is derived from Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy. D.Z. Phillips (with others) has developed this theory.
This theory holds that languages of specific constructs (i.e. religion, science, etc.) constitute different "language-games".
Christianity has its own distinct language game and non-Christians cannot participate in this language game.
Religious assertions are immune to scientific criticisms and vice versa.
The notion that religion tells us anything about the actual structure of reality in this theory is a mistake.
Immortality in a Christian sense has been understood as a belief about the soul's destiny after death. It is a thing that is true or false based on future human experience. D.Z. Phillips denies it has this implication. Phillips claims that the soul is merely a moral personality.
The basic criticism of Neo-Wittgensteinian theories like Phillip's is that they are not accounts of ordinary religious language (as they claim to be) but, radical reinterpretations of religious utterances.
Under these theories religious expressions are deprived of their cosmic implications. God is no longer thought of as existing independently of the human mind.
D.Z. Phillips claims that "to know how to use this language is to know God". To have the idea of God is to know God" (Hick, 93).
People can have the idea of God, participate in the language of God, Know God and yeah there be no God.
No comments:
Post a Comment