So, how much is all just linguistic?

JC 2K3

Ever since a lecturer brought up the topic last year (it was a Computers and Society class, and we were discussing world views), I've been fascinated with the idea of linguistic determinism, that is, our thoughts and ideas are largely shaped by the language in which we primarily communicate with others in, i.e. the language we think in. For the majority of people on here, that'd be English.

Firstly, on the subject of linguistic determinism, do you think that certain languages/dialects/colloquial speak give rise to a higher probability of a religion or atheism is different areas?

Secondly, often on here there are arguments over the nature of belief, the difference between knowing and believing etc. and wordy explanations for God's existence are often given by theists. How much of this do you think is actually relevant logical discussion, and how much is worthless and involving nothing more than mere semantics, the definitions of words etc. ?


On the first point, I'm not really sure. But I think there's at least some truth that language can influence religious belief. Take Irish, for example, where "hello" is "Dia duit", literally meaning "God be with you". Surely if one's primary means of communication was a language with the concept of a God built into its most fundamental expressions, then the concept of a God is likely to be normalised in one's mind, and a tendancy towards religious belief is more likely?

On the second point, I think the English language is a flawed medium of communication for discussion of religious matters. Its vocabulary contains words that make it a beautiful language for artistic expression, but in some ways I feel that it can be misused and make illogical concepts make sense, which leads to circular arguments about nothing.

Thoughts?

nozzferrahhtoo

This is in fact a massive area on which I have read a lot. I could write reams on it but it would bore most people here.

Orwell is good on this and it was him that first got me into the idea in his fiction, but he has written other things on it too in non-fiction.

It was "1984" that got me interested in it though, so if you have not read this then it is a stimulating place to start. In this novel the controlling party moves to reduce the amount of words in English as much as possible. The idea being that if there is not a word for many things, people will not be able to think of them. Words like “freedom” get the chop instantly of course. The language you have available to you limits the ideas you can produce.

Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen would be a good layman place to start too and then work through their references and bibliography. They, alongside Terry Pratchett in some cases, espouse the view that we should not be called Homo Sapiens (wise human) since we clearly are not most of the time. We should have been called Pans Narrans (The story telling ape).

Their entire view is that our language and it’s development and it’s use in telling stories about the world is one of the largest factors in our development. Religion is a side effect of this, being as it is the area of discourse that tells stories about the world. The human mind is susceptible to religion greatly because it is so prone to those who can tell a good story about the world and the way it is.

It sounds also like memes (Dennett and Blackmore are good on this) would be interesting to you as they discuss much similar themes often as you raise here.

Only some of the above is 100% relevant to what you ask, and some is just closely related. If at least one part of it helps out though I will be happy enough.