Philosophy- Symbolic Language

2610 Words11 Pages
For the last century, philosophers have focused on problems concerning religious language. After understanding that language is the way that we communicate concept, trying to describe concepts that no one physically sees and hears, such as God became a massive dilemma. Religious believers have to use language to make statements about God and his being and aspects known to be able to express human understanding. How do the meanings of words change when applied to God? To use univocal or universal language for God raises the problem being that if we argue God is ‘all loving,’ we would also be able to describe a loved one as such, thus demining his almighty status as a supreme being, so how can we use words to accurately describe God? And Given that God is unlike anything or anyone that we can actually experience? Hence, if language applied to God is univocal, it has the effect of bringing God down to an anthropomorphic level. In contrast with this, to use equivocal language, the problem raised here is that God is ‘holy,’ it means that when applying to something else, so I can never know what a word means when it is applied to God. Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion. In the 1920’s logical positivists came together to form what is known as, the Vienna circle.
Open Document