Religious Language And Non Cognitive Language

In the bible, it says that “Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Anselm's reflection to this has become known as the Ontological Argument. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” One way to interpret this phrase is to define “God” as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being. Anselm justifies his argument by using the idea of a painter. When a painter first knows of what it is he or she wants to accomplish, they have it in their understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. They don’t understand it to exist because they have yet to construct their painting. He is trying to say that there is a difference between saying that something actually exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something actually exists. when you hear the word square, you picture a square, or when you hear the word circle, you picture a circle. Anselm argued when humans hear the word God, they think Supreme Being. When I hear the word “God,” I recognize a God that I know from my personal experiences, but I also know that this God of mine is also working through the lives of everyone, not just mine. He has an intimate oneness with all of us, even if we don’t recognize or know it. I don’t think the God I know of is worried about whether people are religious or not. I think this God is interested in exploring experience, through us.

In contrast to the classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, the argument from religious experience doesn’t just entail a set logical of points arriving at a conclusion on a piece of paper, rather it also necessitates sense-based experience, tangible to the individual who experiences the divine.

Those who believe that religious language is non-cognitive and so meaningless stem their beliefs from the Logical Positivist. The Logical Positivists were a group of philosophers who were primarily concerned with the truth contained in statements we can make, or in other words, with what can be logically posited, or stated. The group began in Vienna, Austria in the 1920s and gathered around a philosopher called Moritz

The word “God” or “Christianity” is often thrown around in the political world today. Candidates often can be seen supporting the invasions of other nations, but then claiming a strong devotion to God only a few moments later. The question is, “how has America become such a broken nation with such distorted views of the role of Christianity?” The emergent idea of America as a Christian nation is an important and relevant issue with many possible consequences. In reality, there are many cultural and religious influences in the nation, but many people have internalized the idea that the Christian religion is not solely an influential aspect of our society, but instead helps to construct the society itself. Personally, before reading

Aquinas used the example of analogy to prove this. He believed any religious statements that you make are being made from a human’s perception and cannot be compared to the brilliance of God. For example, you may get a good grade in an essay and you may claim that God is also good but the two types of ‘good’ are completely different. The univocal language that we use in day to day life is not meaningless though it does help us to make connections between the world around us and God himself. Analogy of attribution highlights words that can be applied to humans as well as to God. For example, if you claim ‘Anne is good’ and then say ‘God is good’ then these are both meaningful statements. When you state that God is good you are saying that he is the source of all goodness because God is the creator and sustains all things. This is meaningful because the statement ‘God is good’ illustrates that if God created all goodness he must be good himself. According to the analogy of proportion if you say “my car is great” then you are saying it lives up to your expectation of what greatness is. If you say the religious statement ‘God is a great God’ you are agreeing that God measures up to what a great God should be. To Aquinas, this was meaningful because you were expressing through analogy the goodness of God.

In the Word of God exist the eternal truths, the species, the formal principles of things, which are the models of created beings. In the intellectual light imparted to us by the Word of God we know both the eternal truths and the ideas of real beings. God is the beginning and end of enerything.

The traditional God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is known to be as an “Omni-God” possessing particular divine attributes such as omniscient, which means he knows everything he is also omnipotent, or all powerful. God has also been said to be also he is omnipresence which means he exists in all places and present everywhere, however there are many philosophical arguments on whether if any of that is actually true or if there is a God at all. This paper argues that it is not possible to know whether the traditional God exists or not. While there have been philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kierkegaard who are for god and present strong argument, likewise philosopher like Nietzsche and arguments like the problem of evil both make valid point on why God isn’t real.

Religion and Education is a society "norm", meaning it is very typical. Norms such as these are apart of what keeps our society balanced. Society is a giant system of interconnected parts that work together to maintain a state of balance; Or is society just in a state of perpetual conflict? Rather than conformity, balance is maintained through domination and power of the higher class. Two Sociologist set out to find the answer of how our society remains relatively stable and gave us two theories. The "Conflict theory" and "Functionalist Theory". Though these Sociologist both agree that religion and education help maintain societies stability, there reasoning behind it couldn 't be more opposite.

“Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations, and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this da, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.”

In the following essay I will be explaining Gaunilo’s objection to Anslem’s ontological argument. In the introduction of the second chapter of the ontological argument, Anslem begins his argument by introducing a psalmist’s “the fool”. With the following “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’?” (Anslem page 81), giving one the thought to conclude that he is denying the existence of God in other words. In the following paragraph he states “But when this same fool hears me say ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought’ he surely understands what he hears” (Anslem 82), here one gets the understanding that even the “fool” understands the concept of God being conceivable because he was told so and this being

The word “community” is usually defined as a group of people living together in the same area and having some common characteristics, such as language, physical appearance and religion. In The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin, the common characteristics that form the Aboriginals’ tribal communities are familial ties and their culture (similar form of lifestyle, similar beliefs and similar traditions); while in Gilgamesh it is the city-state they belong to and their settled lifestyle that holds the community together. Another difference in the two works is that the society in The Songlines does not have a hierarchal monarchy that Gilgamesh has, but instead has everyone as equals for the most part. However,

A being conceived as the creator of divine nature and attributes is widely known to be god. God is an idol and symbolic representation of deities superior than humans, but does it truly exist? There are strong arguments if god’s existence is an actuality, such as why doesn’t it unambiguously reveal itself? Hume implies that he is not accepting of the idea of god's existence, and he sees the nature of the god of a true and philosophical religion. The rhetorical forces of these arguments as mentioned explains how god is non-existent, but more so just a theoretical idea of a supreme, higher being that people rely on for their spiritual needs or guidance. Logical knots that god employs can be intimidating and there is great rhetorical force of

Famous American anthropologist and social theorist Clyde Kluckholm , claims in one of his publication that “Every language is also a special way of looking at the world and interpreting experience concealed in the structure of language are a whole set of unconscious assumptions about the world and the life in it”(Writing logically, Thinking critically 7th edition P 35). Based on this theory, we can learn more

The mystery of God's existence has been a crucial element of many religious studies and traditions. Who is God? What is God? Where is God? To effectively discuss the existence of God, it is necessary to illustrate the notion of faith. People of faith believe that God does exist, and that relationship with God gives meaning to their lives. Others who are skeptical point to God as an obsolete hope of an ignorant human race. People today live in a world distinguished by sophisticated technology in which modern science has been a strong agent in questioning the existence of God.

Although, there is no agreed definition of language among linguists, but we can say that language is the most sophisticated way of communication between any two human beings and far more complex than any other system of communication. The ability of acquiring and using languages is one of the properties that differs us as human beings from other species.