Keeping the Faith: Language and God: points to ponder

February 26, 2009 by Haley Etchison 

If reality is determined by the lexicon, how do words affect religion?

Linguistic determinism is my favorite philosophy. Though my religious journeys have only just begun, I feel compelled to share this idea that has fascinated me for so long with my readers. My hope is that it will give you all as much food for thought as it continues to give me.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines determinism as follows:

1.  The philosophic doctrine that human action is not free but necessarily determined by motives, which are regarded as external forces acting upon the will.

2.  The doctrine that everything that happens is determined by a necessary chain of causation.

Thus, linguistic determinism is fundamentally the belief that our thoughts and actions are decided by our language.

Don’t worry, this is not about to become an argument for traditional exclusivity or an allusion to personal enlightenment (which I certainly do not profess). Instead, I would like to simply list a few ways in which I have found the possible relationship of linguistic determinism to religion thought-provoking.

First, consider the highly debated topic of inerrancy of religious texts. While it seems that most people, religious and nonreligious, find it difficult to accept the idea that any holy book is literally perfect, it should make sense to suppose that if God is omnipotent, he can protect the words he has given to man from corruption. If that is the case, then the only solid argument I have found to suggest that holy texts should not be read literally rests on linguistic determinism.

Assuming, as linguistic determinism suggests, that man’s thoughts are limited to what his language can describe, it should follow that the meaning of any statement, including one in a religious text, could be lost between languages. That is to say, the revelation of scripture or the writings of holy men are less valuable in translation than they are in the original.

The Qur’an, while precious and instructive in any tongue, is most holy in its original Arabic. Biblical scholars, though not traditionally adherent to any similar doctrine, have long made a practice of researching texts in Hebrew and Greek – arguably the original languages of the old and New Testament respectively. Hindu priests traditionally pray in Sanskrit, the ancient language of the religion, despite the fact that it has long had no native speakers.

Next, think about the ramifications of linguistic determinism for missionary work. If missionaries speak English (to give the easiest example) in their attempts to convert in a region where English is not the primary language of the population, to what extent can they expect local hearers to assimilate the complexities of a new faith? 

It might be more reasonable to think that the universal, linguistically non-dependent appeal of food and clean water could motivate public acceptance of a religion in a way the doctrine in a foreign language could not.

Finally, I have to invoke the idea that, despite wide-ranging skepticism across sectarian boundaries, seems to follow from the suggestion that linguistic determinism is related to religious truth: Either all religions are equal and merely forms of the same truth, or God chooses people for salvation by way of a single religion that excludes those whose languages disallow their understanding. 

That is, if Judaism is the only true religion then only speakers of Hebrew are elect, if Catholicism, then only speakers of the languages that evolved from Latin, etc.

These suggestions are by no means expressions of personal conviction. On the contrary, they represent points on which I continually ponder and in which I hope you will find inspiration for thought and internal discussion.

KEEPING THE FAITH is a column about religionand philosophy that seeks to open constructive discussion about our most important beliefs. It appears in every Thursday issue.