20th Century Religious Language Essays

Question 1

What is essay 1 ?

Answer 1

Is religious Language meaningless

Question 2

What is ur view essay 1 ?

Answer 2

It is meaningful - disagree

Question 3

What are the scholars in essay 1 ?

Question 4

what is the point in para 1 essay 1 ?

Answer 4

Swinburne Toys in a cupboard analogy
Statements are not meaningless just because they cant be emprically verified
Hick - believers would be able to verify statements about God and heaven at the end of life’s journey. So religious statements can be verified in principle and are therefore not meaningless.

Question 5

What is the counterargument in para 1 essay 1

Answer 5

AJ Ayer - Verification Principle. Statement only meaningful if its :
- An analytical truth
- Empirically verifiable
Any statement that doesn’t fit these descriptions is meaningless according to verification.
Statements like ‘God answers my prayers’ and ‘God exists’ are not analytical truths , further , they are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable
Therefore according to Ayer, RL is meaningless.
Strong verification principle argues that since religious language cannot be verified by sense experience now, it cannot be talked about as true or false, e.g. we cannot observe God exists or that God is good (meaningless statements ).
Strong verification principle argues that ‘God is good’ is not true by definition , it is not a tautology or an analytic statement , therefore its meaningless

Question 6

How will you counteract the counterargument para 1 essay 1 ?

Answer 6

Underlying assumption of v principle is that only science can give meaning and knowledge about world
Brunner and DZ Phillips - Sentences of faith , just like poetry and literature , shouldnt be treated in the same way as scientific statements . Veriication principle is too narrow

Question 7

What is the point in para 2 essay 1 ?

Answer 7

Hick - Eschatological statement that can be verified after death, or at the end of time.

Question 8

What is the counterargumentn in para 2 essay 1 ?

Answer 8

Anthony Flew = Meaningless bcos language is unfalsifiable.
‘Everything in the universe doubles in size every 10 seconds ‘- example - no possible observation could disprove this.
Analogy -show that religious language is meaningful - Parable of Gardener
- Jungle clearing = world
- Invisible gardener = God
- flowers = good
- weeds = evil
Flew = God exists = unfalsifiable so meaningless in the same way the existence of the gardener is unfalsifiable,
We cant use the problem of evil as evidence against Gods existence because the religous believer just creates reasons. (free will , soul making ).
Why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil.
Because religious beiever accepts no observations count as evidence against belief in God

Question 9

How will you counterargue the counterargument in para 2 essay 1 ?

Answer 9

?

Question 10

What is essay 2 ?

Answer 10

Falsification helps us understand religious language , yes or no.

Question 11

What is the intro essay 2 ?

Answer 11

• Falsification - created by Karl Popper (1902-1994). He was a philosopher of science.

Created to describe how scientific statements can be separated from non-scientific statements

Question 12

What is ur view essay 2 ?

Answer 12

It does help us understand religious language

Question 13

What scholars essay 2 ?

Answer 13

Popper, Flew, Hare, Mitchell, John Frame.

Question 14

What is your point para 1 essay 2 ?

Answer 14

Falsification principle = A statement is a genuine scientific assertion if it is possible to say what evidence would prove it false.
KARL POPPER - created it to describe how scientific statements can be separated from non-scientific statements . Rejected verificationism and invented falsification.
‘science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification’
‘Any theory that is impossible to disprove is no valid theory at all’
Helps to clarify which statements are scientific and which are non-scientific
Religious claims = not falsifiable so they are not genuine scientific assertions.
Religious statements are not scientific so it can be argued they are not cognitive or factual

Flew - Parable of Gradener . Uses it to teach that unfalsifiable language fails to assert everything,

Question 15

what is counterargument in para 1 essay 2 ?

Answer 15

Religious language is not like scientific claims which can be tested and are justifiable.
Hare - Parable of the lUnatic
Blik = unfalsifiable , fundamental beliefs which are either sane or insane but are not affected by contrary evidence.
Parnoid student thinks dons are out to get him.
No matter the evidence which they show him

Question 16

counter counter para 1 essay 2

Answer 16

Falsification is a good test of rationality

It provides a clear criteria for determining whether a statement is meaningful or not.

Question 17

point para 2 essay 2

Answer 17

Concept of God to ‘die a death of a thousand qualifications’.

Flew ends with the questions : what is the difference between a world in which this gardener (God) exists, and a world in which is doesn’t ? If belief in God is consistent with any possible discovery about reality, then its existence surely can make no difference to reality. It cannot be about reality, Religiou slang usage therefore fails to assert anything. it is unfalsifiable and thus meaningless.

Flew - analogy to show that religious language -in particularly the statement “god exists” is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

Flew. - believers think that religious language is used in the same way as scientific assertions. E.g. “God is a loving creator”

Question 18

counter para 2 essay 2

Answer 18

Flew approach falls because his belief in atheism is a,so unfalsifiable. Atheists believe there isn’t sufficient evidence to justify belief in God.

The issue is, they cannot say what could prove that belief false.

Last bit is incorrect because believers will not allow any evidence to falsify their statements . Instead they keep qualifying their original statement until nothing is left.

MITCHELL - Argued that religious belief actually is based on the rational weighing of evidence so that religious language is cognitively meaningful.

Although religious claims are not falsifiable , believers do seriously consider evidence against the,

M. However they don’t allow that evidence to discount their belief because they have a reasoned faith with God.

Parable of the stranger x

• soldier fighting the resistance against the government in a civil war.
• Someone comes up to them and claims to be leader of th eresistance
• They stay up all night talking and the stranger leaves a strong impression on the soldier.
• The soldier decided to have faith in the stranger , even when they see them fighting for the government

This shows the way that Christians have an initial experience / relationship with God which justifies their faith.

He insists that sgte level or amount of evil required to falsify a persons religious belief can’t always be known “in advance” . It depends on too many particular things.

Question 19

counter counter para 2 essay 3

Answer 19

Parable of gardener is simple to understand

It’s constructive and positive

Question 20

what is essay 3

Answer 20

Language games allow religious language to be meaningful

Question 21

what is intro essay 3

Answer 21

• Language games developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein. (Austrian Philosopher).

Language Games = Language use is like playing a game with rules. Within our groups we have agreed rules about how words are used.

Question 22

what scholars essay 3

Question 23

what is ur view essay 3

Answer 23

Language Games allow religious language to be meaningful.

Question 24

point para 1 essay 3

Answer 24

Witggenstein- Austrian Philosopher - Began as a logical positivist but later challenged logical positivism for falling to properly capture the complexity of language.

Language used in similar way to games, ‘Family resemblances’ to phrases we use in different contexts.

Meaning of religious language , depends on the ‘game’ in which it is spoken and understood.

W-’ Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday’.

w-’ What is your aim in philosophy? To show the way out of the fly bottle’.

Talk about God and religion is meaningful to those who are in the same language game and understand the rules of the game.

E.G. ‘God is good’ is meaningful to those in the Christian language game, and ‘God does not exist’ is meaningful in the atheist game.’

Question 25

counter para 1 essay 3

Answer 25

Anything could be meaningful as long as there is an agreed understanding. For example , in the ‘unicorns exist’ game it would be meaningful to say unicorns are real. But unicorns do not really exist.

Similarly, language is subjective and meaningful only within the ‘game’.

Peter Greach - Language Game theory is a circular argument - the world takes its meaning from the game. but the game takes its meaning from the words within it , which take their meaning from the game and so on.

Wittgenstein states that when someone makes a religious statement it is subjective to the rules of that language game of religion they have adopted. This means the meaning and definition of their religious language would be influenced by the cultures and behavioral rules associated with that statement. So when someone says ‘God exists’ they may not objectively be saying that God exists , but instead making claims to the language games.

Most religious people would disagree and state that when they do make religious claims so do they mean it objectively. , e.g. saying ‘God exists’ they do mean that God objectively exists.

Result in theological

Question 26

counter counter para 1 essay 3

Answer 26

Meaning depends on the group in which the language is being used. No one from outside the group can criticize the language or claim it is false , therefore religious language is meaningful.

Question 27

point para 2 essay 3

Answer 27

DZ Phillips - Language games make it possible to talk about religious language in a meaningful way.

Statements such as ‘God exists’ are not grounded in belief , rather are expressions of belief and can be understood in context of belief , therefore a non-believer may not understand but this does not mean the statement is meaningless.

Religious language , according to Philips is beyond the discussion of fact (cognitive). It can be meaningful whether it is cognitive or non-cognitive because it depends on the form of life in which it is spoken.

Language games provide a useful defense of meaning for religious statements. Approach shows how religious statements do hold meaning for believers and that lack of understanding , due to restriction from adopting rules of language games, does not mean they do not have meaning.

Question 28

counter para 2 essay 3

Answer 28

From last bit - It is usually true that when people make religious claims, they ,mean them objectively true and that they are referring to reality.

Also, seems to be indicating that religious statements do not need evidence, unlike the verification and falsification principle which states this is essential.

Presents a problem because its one of the main reasons why people become atheist are non-religious is due to the lack of available evidence for religion . The lack of evidence explains this loss of faith and its important to consider the significance of evidence - Wittgenstein seemingly does not acknowledge the importance of empirical evidence and its clash with faith.

Cuppit - language games show that religious language is non-cognitive and therefore does not have an objective meaning outside of a religious form of life.

Question 29

counter counter para 2 essay 3

Answer 29

x

Question 30

what is essay 4

Answer 30

Does Aquinas or Wittgenstein have a better approach to religious language

Question 31

what isintro essay 4

Answer 31

Aquinas = 13th Century Philosopher. Christian, Cognitive,

Wittgenstein = 20th Century Philosopher. agnostic, non-cognitive.

Question 32

what is scholars essay 4

Answer 32

x

Question 33

what is ur veiw essay 4

Answer 33

aquinas is better

Question 34

point para 1 essay 4

Answer 34

Analogy of attribution - Words we apply to human beings are related to now words are applied to God because there is a casual relationship between the two sets of qualities.

Our qualities such as love and wisdom are reflections of those of God.

Example - Medieval Times - BULLS URINE - if the bull is helathy then the urine is healthy. ‘If the urine is good, then the bull is good’.

Likewise, by examining human qualities we see a reflection of those divine attributes.

Analogy of proper proportion -

The extent to which a being can be said to have certain properties in proportion to the type of being we are describing. To say that a 10 yr old is a good footballer is different to saying that an England international footballer is a good footballer.

When we say that a human is ‘good’ we are speaking of a finite being - when describing God, we are speaking of an infinite being so the ‘goodness’ is in proportion to that.

Aquinas = Religious language puts forward factual statements about supernatural reality. - Fits with most believers understanding of what they are doing when they say God exists - they are asserting a fact e.g. when a religious believers claim that God is omnipotent , they are aiming to say factually that God is all powerful.

Strength of Aquinas - Analogies allow something positive to be said about God without anthropomorphising or agnosticism

Question 35

counter para 1 essay 4

Answer 35

Wittgenstein - 20th century Agnostic - We know God , words have meaning to those that use them so God is known.

Religious Language isnt just the asserting of facts, but a commitment to a way of life. - Non cognitive approaches make more sense than a cognitive approach.

Strengths of W = Religious Statements have meaning but it depends on the context of the language game.

Language Games do not reflect reality but make it; reality is subjective

There can be no criticisms of religious language , you can only play a ‘different game’ , with other rules , for example the verification game.

Question 36

counter counter para 1 essay 4

Answer 36

Weaknesses of W - Believers use language to express truth and reality , so Wittgenstein’s approach does work for them.

Since religious language cannot be criticised or challenged , it could lead to dangerous beliefs based on faith alone, without reason (fideism).

Question 37

point para 2 essay 4

Answer 37

Strengths of Aquinas = Hick - argues that teachings and actions of Jesus give us some clearer ideas of how and what to say about God.

Question 38

counter para 2 essay 4

Answer 38

Weaknesses of Aquinas = Analogy is too vague , bcos we dont know we are speaking accurately about God.

Analogy makes an assumption that there is a similarity between finite humans and an infinite God.

Wittgenstein = Recognises that religious and scientific statements are 2 differeny types of things that deserve to be treated differently.

Theory recognises the meaning is not fixed but changes with use and context.

It recognises that there are beliefs we have that are grounded. We cannot necessarily provide reasons for them yet they shape our world.

Only those ‘within the game’ are able to understand religious language.

Question 39

counter counter para 2 essay 4

Answer 39

Weaknesses of W= A believer may reject the idea that religious statements only have meaning to the individual. They may (like flew and Mitchell argue ) see them truth claims.

They believe themselves to be meaning cognitive statements.

It has been argues that language games give words their meaning, yet the game itself is just a collection of words.

Critics claim that Wittgenstein over analyses ;amnguage. He ‘takes apart a perfectly working clock and the wonders why it doesn’t work - (Gellner).