Home > All Posts > Frames and Religious Language

Frames and Religious Language

Over time, as I’ve pondered religion as a phenomenon, I am much less attracted to the idea of borrowing from its vocabulary. If anyone has looked into the work of George Lakoff, a cognitive and linguistic scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, you’ll be familiar with the idea of framing, which is “a schema of interpretation—that is, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes—that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.” Essentially, a frame is a conceptual framework that people use unconsciously to contextualize information. As such, certain words or phrases will evoke (and reinforce!) conceptual frames, which then impact how one perceives and translates new information.

I regularly argue against “god-language” when discussing non-theistic spirituality because it evokes the frame of a supernatural and paternalistic all-powerful being. It doesn’t matter if it is intended to be metaphorical, the frame will get evoked whether you want it to or not. The moment you say “God is love,” the average mind will instantly conjure up an objectively existing being—as well as any given conceptual frames regarding the religion through which that God was understood, such as the Catholic church. It doesn’t matter if you then say “this is a metaphor, don’t take it literally”; the frame will already be invoked and reinforced anyway, which will be used to then interpret what you have to say.

I now believe that using all religious language does the same thing, if to a lesser degree. Words like sacred, spirituality, faith, religion and so on will inescapably evoke a supernatural and/or traditionally religious frame in the mind of the average listener. Why is this bad? I argue that is it, in the aggregate, a bad thing because religious thinking often shuts down the critical faculty; it promotes credulity and wishful thinking. It dampens one’s appreciation for reality, as well as one’s curiosity about the natural world. Further, religious thinking often provokes an us-versus-them tribal mentality.

The challenge is to find new language and to create new frames that capture the beneficial elements of religion that are worth keeping. Ideas like community, inspiration, hope, morality, transcendence, wonder, justice, gratitude, comfort, and redemption need to be wrestled out of the dying grasp of religion. I’m happy to say that this project is already underway by people far more influential and intelligent than I. More and more people are reframing these ideas in ways that are secular and naturalistic. However, we’ve a long way to go…as of yet, there are no large-scale frames, which is something that will simply take time to form. And religion will not let go of these ideas willingly.

All Posts

  1. slain posted the following on May 31, 2011 at 10:37 am.

    - “I’m happy to say that this project is already underway by people
    far more influential and intelligent than I.”

    Who do you have in mind?

    Reply to slain
  2. B. T. Newberg posted the following on July 10, 2012 at 7:27 am.

    How does this post relate to the pillar of “allegoricalism”? It seems to reject it.

    The pillar talks about “symbolism that is explicitly religious”, and “Traditional religious objects—such as gods, sacred spaces, and holy artifacts” that can “also be viewed as symbols, potentially providing a sense of profundity and connection with the natural world.” Is this different from God-talk?

    Reply to B. T. Newberg

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. Pingback from The “Spiritual” Nature of 11 November 2011 or “11/11/11″ | Moving On Up a Little Higher

    [...] a religious naturalist, I am also against the use of spiritual language to describe every day phenomena (yes, that includes “god-language”), so it is my goal in this paragraph to dismantle [...]


Leave a reply

  1. You will post the following soon.
    Go ahead and start typing.