Abstract

The question is: what sense does it make to regard religions as languages? The first step is to explicitly state a theory of language. From Ferdinand de Saussure comes the importance of context, from Ludwig Wittgenstein the relation between context and Lebensform, and from Benjamin Whorf the constitutive effect of language on world. These three considerations are exemplified, respectively, by the paradigms "poem," "game," and "picture." The second step is to examine three different approaches to the question of language and religion: the "critical realism" of Ian Barbour, Janet Soskice, and Frederick Ferre, the "ordinary language" approach of D. Z. Phillips, and the "aesthetic object" approach of Norman Perrin. The threefold conclusion is that the three approaches are all concerned with language in religion rather than religion as language, that there is no one religious use of language, and that the relativist theory of language developed in step one can accommodate all three. ;The third step is to explore the implications of religion as language, using the paradigms developed in step one. As poem, a religion is a context constituted by the counters of which it is composed, counters whose value is relative to their context and which may have a different value within that context than outside of it. As game, a religion is embedded in a particular form of life. As poem and game, a religion is a "participatory art form." As picture, a religion is a world-view concerned with what it is to be human in the world. As poem, game, participatory art form, and picture, a religion is a poem that one lives. As such, religions may be judged in the same way as works of art, according to their success in satisfying the criteria the satisfaction of which is the reason such experiences are sought. In conclusion the criterion of "vividness" is proposed and various religious phenomena are examined in terms of their success in satisfying that criterion