All religious statements are cognitively meaningless because they cannot be verified or falsified in fact or in theory. This was a logical positivist expression called the verification principle, backed up by A.J. Ayer. The positivists further explained that only empirical statements can be cognitively meaningful because they are the only statements that can be truly verified or falsified. Antony Flew elucidated that religious statements cannot be empirical statements, because we do not have religious experiences through our empirical senses. This means that religious statements must be cognitively meaningless.
Many scholars who have studied the logical positivists believe that religious language is in fact somewhat meaningful, but in a unique way. Antony Flew proved that religious language is cognitively meaningless, but R.M. Hare ‘shifted his ground’ and instead tried to prove that religious language is non-cognitively meaningful. This means that religious language does not cognate with reality, it cannot directly describe reality. It may however, have some other social, psychological, cultural or existential impact.
A myth is an illustrative parable. These are the words of R.B Braithwaite, a late 20″ century philosopher. A parable is a story used to deliver a moral or religious lesson. Sometimes parables use metaphorical language. A myth is therefore an illustrative (metaphorical) story. This means that a myth cannot be cognitively meaningful. It is most likely that a myth is a fictional story, and that there is no cognitive truth in the actual parable. However, this is not to say that there cannot be a non-cognitive message contained within the myth itself. To find this meaning, Bultmann, a 20″ century theologian scholar (who pre-dates Braithwaite) invented the process of demythologizing.
127 our experts are availableright now
A religious symbol is something that has cognitive symbolic meaning. A symbol is a way of depicting an idea or meaning through non-cognitive means. For example, the Buddhist wheel is a symbol of life. It does not cognitively mean anything, but for a Buddhist it represents much more. A symbol can open levels of reality which are previously closed to a person, and (potentially) ‘unlocks dimensions and elements of the soul’. Paul Tillich came up with these definitions.
Bultmann had a new, unique existentialist approach to Christianity. He analyzed the Gospels by deconstructing them into categories and forms. He did this to separate the meaningful from the meaningless and further analyses the gospels credibility. He evidently found that much of the Gospels must have been fabricated by the early Christian communities. Bultmann did not see this as a negative however, because he decided that the historical accuracy is unnecessary. The most crucial factor is the personal non-cognitive meaning of the gospels, not the historical accuracy.
As an existentialist, Bultmann demythologized the Gospels, seeking the deeper non-cognitive meaning of the myths and symbols within them. Some existentialists describe demythologizing as a way of bridging the gap between the first century gospels and the 20th century Christian religion. An example of demythologizing is the story of the Virgin Mary. Bultmann categorized the idea of childbirth Without conception as mythological. Childbirth cannot happen without conception. However, the idea that Mary was a virgin puts forward the idea that she never put her physical desires first. This is a prime example of demythologizing because it shows how stories that could otherwise be interpreted as ridiculous can now be interpreted as meaningful.
Another example of demythologizing is the resurection. A fundamentalist protestant would genuinely believe that Jesus was killed and then later rose from the dead (by miracle). But, as an existentialist Christian, Bultmann re-interpreted the resurrection (non -cosmologically) and made a different conclusion. The story of the crucifixion and resurrection is not to be taken literally but rather metaphorically. Jesus did not actually rise from the dead and break out of the tomb. However, Jesus’ message was so powerful that it lived beyond him, and this is a miracle.
David Jenkins, professor and bishop of Durham once said that ‘God doesn’t do juggling tricks with bones. By this statement, he means that God would not have resurrected Jesus because it WOuld violate the laws of nature. Jenkins also supported the idea that the gospels are not to be interpreted literally but rather, cosmologically or existentially. In a sense, this existential medium fills the gap between language and reality and alows us to relate between the two.
According to Bultmann, the only historically proven data from The Gospels is that Jesus lived and later died. The historical accuracy is unnecessary, the existential inference is the impact on the readers of the New Testament. The idea that the stories never happened is what makes the meaning non-cognitive. This existential approach to Christianity allows us to throw out all the impossible ideas that fundamental Christians may believe in, and instead allows existential Christians to seek the personal meaning of the gospels.
Myths are very similar in meaning to Symbols, because they are both about seeking the deeper personal meaning from certain ideas. I would argue that Myths are full of symbols, and therefore we can be impacted by them. Going back to the significance of the virgin Mary, it is evident that the ‘virgin’ aspect is a non-cognitively meaningful symbol from a wider myth. Myth is a vehicle of the symbol
