Compare and Contrast 2 Different Approaches to Religious Language

...

And how effective are these approaches? (12)

On the face of it the verification and falsification principles rule cognitive religious statements literally meaningless. Since it was first formulate however, the verification principle itself has run into difficulties. For example, the verification principle itself cannot be verified either empirically or by analytic reasoning. It has also been argued that the verification principle rules of many historical, ethical and moral statements as well as those expressing unverifiable emotions or opinions, it is as Bryan McGee says ‘people begin to realise that this glittering new scalpel was, in one operation after another, killing the patient’.

The falsification principle perhaps offers more hope for deciding which statements are meaningful and which are not. After all, if there are no criteria for deciding if a statement is false, can it truly be said to have a meaning in the first place. There seems little doubt that most if not all cognitive religious statements fail the falsifiability test.

However the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed that we could view all language as a game and the meaning of statements. For example, the language of a doctor may not be understandable to a baker, or the word ‘out’ means something very different to a cricketer than what it means to a gay rights activist. However, I believe that this context theory of language should not be taken too far, after all, the statement ‘the action of yeast causes bread to rise is an objective and testable statement’ even if it is made by a baker to a doctor.

Religious language makes rich use of symbols and myths in order to convey messages and meanings about us as people and the nature of God. These are non-cognitive statements whose meaning and significance do not depend on the truth of the stories or statements.

Religious language is very complex as it needs to express so many different ideas and beliefs. It offers no empirically verifiable or analytic truths, but certainly it offers great insights into the nature of human beliefs. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, but it does express what it is to have faith both in God and the existence of a reality beyond the human world.