A. Inherent problems of religious language:
Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless; challenge to
sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible; challenge that religious language is not
a common shared base and experience; the differences between cognitive and non-cognitive
language.

B. Religious language as cognitive (traditional religious view), but meaningless (Logical
Positivists’ view):
Logical Positivism – Verification (A. J. Ayer) – religious ethical language as meaningless; there can
be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the propositions (e.g. God is good,
murder is wrong); falsification nothing can counter the belief (Antony Flew).
Criticisms of verification: the verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither can historical
events; universal scientific statements; the concept of eschatological verification goes against this.
Criticisms of falsification: Richard Hare – bliks (the way that a person views the world gives meaning
to them even if others do not share the same view); Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger
(certain things can be meaningful even when they cannot be falsified); Swinburne – toys in the
cupboard (concept meaningful even though falsifying the statement is not possible).

C. Religious language as non-cognitive and analogical:
Proportion and attribution (St Thomas Aquinas) and qualifier and disclosure (Ian Ramsey).
Challenges including how far analogies can give meaningful insights into religious language. A
consideration of how these two views (Aquinas/Ramsey) can be used to help understand religious
teachings.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:
• The solutions presented by religious philosophers for the inherent problems of using religious
language.
• The exclusive context of religious belief for an understanding of religious language.
• The persuasiveness of arguments asserting either the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of
religious language.
• How far Logical Positivism should be accepted as providing a valid criterion for meaning in the
use of language.
• To what extent do the challenges to Logical Positivism provide convincing arguments to nonreligious believers.
• Whether non-cognitive interpretations are valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of
religious language.

D. Religious language as non-cognitive and symbolic:
Functions of symbols (John Randall); God as that which concerns us ultimately (Paul Tillich).
Challenges including whether a symbol is adequate or gives the right insights. A consideration of
how these two views (Randall/Tillich) can be used to help understand religious teachings.

E. Religious language as non-cognitive and mythical:
Complex form of mythical language that communicates values and insights into purpose of
existence.
Supportive evidence – different forms of myths to convey meaning: creation myths; myths of good
against evil; heroic myths. Myths help to overcome fears of the unknown; myths effective way of
transmitting religious, social and ethical values.
Challenges: problem of competing myths; meanings of myths change over time as they reflect the
values of society as societal constructs; demythologisation of myths results in varying
interpretations, myths often incompatible with scientific understanding of the world.

F. Religious language as a language game:
Meaningful to people who participate in same language game (Ludwig Wittgenstein).
Supportive evidence – non-cognitive form of language provides meaning to participants within
language game; consider use of language not meaning; language games fit with coherence theory
of truth; religious language as expressions of belief.
Challenges, including rejection of any true propositions in religion that can be empirically verified;
does not allow for meaningful conversations between different groups of language users; does not
provide adequate meaning for the word ‘God’.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:
• The effectiveness of the terms non-cognitive, analogical and mythical as solutions to the
problems of religious language.
• The relevance of religious language issues in the 21st century.
• The extent to which language games provide a suitable way of resolving the problems of
religious language.
• Whether symbolic language can be agreed as having adequate meaning as a form of language.
• How far the works of Randall and Tillich provide a suitable counter-challenge to Logical
Positivism.
• Whether the strengths of language games outweigh the weaknesses.

Dialogue: Myth and Symbol, Edition 36

Dialogue: What do believers mean? The Problem of Religious Language, Edition 1

Dialogue: Religious Language, Edition 27

Dialogue: The Doctrine of Analogy, Edition 22

Dialogue: The via negativa, Edition 31

Dialogue: Is religious language meaningful?, Edition 46

TRS Chester Podcast: How to speak and not speak of God

TRS Chester Podcast: Symbol, metaphor and story in religious language

TRS Chester Podcast: Can we deny God meaningfully?