The Problem of Religious Language

<p>Some skeptics will articulate an objection to Christianity by raising the problem of religious language. They will allege that, even if there were a God, since He is such an infinite and transcendent being, our language would be inadequate to describe Him, and thus all our talk about Him is meaningless. There are three main responses that have been offered to this. One response says that language referring to God is univocal; that is, when we use words to describe an infinite God, they have the exact same meanings as in other finite contexts. In other words, there is no problem with religious language. Another response claims that religious language is equivocal, which means that our language can’t actually describe God because an infinite God always transcends the ability of finite language to describe Him. However, on the equivocal position, our religious language is not completely meaningless, as it can describe certain aspects of God or our experience of God. A third response is that our religious language is analogous such that it has some connection to what God is like and can describe Him using comparisons and similarities. Some adopt a hybrid position that the language itself is univocally defined but analogously applied to both finite humans and an infinite God.</p>

By Adam Lloyd Johnson – Published on ConvincingProof.org

Some skeptics will articulate an objection to Christianity by raising the problem of religious language. They will allege that, even if there were a God, since He is such an infinite and transcendent being, our language would be inadequate to describe Him, and thus all our talk about Him is meaningless. There are three main responses that have been offered to this. One response says that language referring to God is univocal; that is, when we use words to describe an infinite God, they have the exact same meanings as in other finite contexts. In other words, there is no problem with religious language. Another response claims that religious language is equivocal, which means that our language can’t actually describe God because an infinite God always transcends the ability of finite language to describe Him. However, on the equivocal position, our religious language is not completely meaningless, as it can describe certain aspects of God or our experience of God. A third response is that our religious language is analogous such that it has some connection to what God is like and can describe Him using comparisons and similarities. Some adopt a hybrid position that the language itself is univocally defined but analogously applied to both finite humans and an infinite God.

< Prev.

Intro to Apologetics Part 15B

Next >