Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

RE: Philosophy > 8. Religious language > Flashcards

8. Religious language Flashcards

1
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Logical positivists - vienna circle, 2 forms of verifiable language

A
  • analytic - true by defintition
  • Synthetic - statement can be proven true or false through sense experience or experiements
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Verification principle

A
  • Non-cognitive statemets = meaningless
  • only meaningful = cognitive
  • Talk of god cant be verified through senses or scientific evidence so can’t prove religious language to be T or F - RE = meaningless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Verification principle - quote

A

“we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true of false”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Verification principle - criticisms

A
  • most general claims = meaningless by this process. e.g. scientist - all water boils 100 degrees, not all water can be tested = too extreme
  • VP itself can’t be verified by own conditions = self-defeating.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

VP critisicm - Eschatological verification

A

John hick
* to verify some statments, certian situations must occour, that may only occour later
* To verify life after death = must experience it but can’t now.
* RE may not be meaningless then bc cant be verified in afterlife

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

A.J. Ayer development of VP

A

creates 2 versions of verification to determine meaningfulness.
1. strong verification = can be veified thru obersavtion and established at TorF
2. weak V = some obervations and reasoning suggest a statements probably T or F, could be verified in future e.g. 2024 world will end.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

A.J. Ayer’s development - critisicm

A
  • still allows weakness - could allow some religious language to be meaningful
  • e.g. God is creater - evidence of complex design.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Falsification principle

A

Like VP, agrees that meaningful langiage must relate to the world in some way.
* if you can’t falisfy a statement - shows world has no bearing to truth of statement + is immune to all factual knowledge + thus has no relationship to world.
* Unfalsified statements are therefor meaningless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Anthony Flew dates

A

1923-2010

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Anthony Flew - parable of the gardener

A
  • Original belief in garderner - after no evidence or sight, believer makes excuses like him being invisible + intangible to overcome doubt.
  • argues this illustrates how believers on’t allows anything to contradict their belief in God + His qualities + constantly adapt their claims to avoid being prove wrong
  • to point that original claims = lost
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Anthony flew - quote

A

“Religious language makes God die a death of a thousand qualifications”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Anthony Flew - example in context

A

e.g. ‘God is all loving’ = but when faced w/ problem of evil + suffering, believers argue its part of God’s greater plan to test or teach us.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Falsification principle - Swinburne criticism

A
  • some statements not falisfiable, yet still understand meaning behind them.
  • Toy cupboard analogy - can never prove toys don’t come out to play or move when we aren’t looking.
  • yet although can’t falsify this statement, still understand it’s meaning + herefore still meaningful.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

falsification principle - Basil Mitchell

A
  • believers do allow things to count against their beliefs.
  • Flew missed the point that believers have a prior commitment to God based on faith, + though faced w/ doubt + challenged, don’t let them undermine their faithfullness to God.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Religious language - MEANINGLESS

Falsification principle - R.M. Hare criticism

A
  • Religious language may not hold factual claims, but still holds meaning.
  • Not bc it gives knowledge, but bc it influences the way people look at the world in their own ‘blik’ + so is meaningful to the individual.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

R.M. Hare - ‘bliks’

A
  • a rame of reference in interpreting the world.
  • not based on evidence, so cannot be contradicted by evidence.
  • Religious beliefs are ‘bliks’ bc of impact they have of religious believers + how they live their life + look at the world, whilst not letting anything go against their beliefs.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

R.M. Hare - analogy of uni student

A
  • uni student convinced professors plotting to kill him, and would deny any attempts to falisfy his claim.
  • although not true, his belief is still meaningful to him as it effected his way he percieved university.
    = way at looking at world is called a BLIK.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

R.M. Hare - crticisms

A
  • doesn’t gove a way of ranking ‘bliks’
  • shuts out other ppl as its only meaningful to believers
  • e.g. religion, science + pranoia are all bliks
  • but surely paranoia is not nearly as legitimate in comparision to science, so bliks sould be able to be ranked in order of validity.
19
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Basil Mitchell - parable of Freedom Fighter/ Stranger

A
  • during WW2, soilder meets stranger who says he is on his side + to trust him even though the soilder sees him act on the side of his enemies.
  • soldiers faith constantly tested but no matter what remains faithful + gives him benefit of doubt.
20
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Basil Mitchell - parable of soldier/stranger - meaning

A
  • Mitchell suggests beleievrs are like soldier in parable + once a prior commitment to God has been made, then believers will face any strugled in their belief but give GOD BENEFIT OF DOUBT even when faced w/ challenges against their beliefs.
  • So religious language is still meaningful to individual.
  • agrees w ‘blik’ idea but believes believers allow evidence to challenge + overturn their ‘blik’
21
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Basil Mitchell - criticism

A
  • flew = argues in parable, stranger was ordinary man - doesn’t work same way for God.
  • when faced w/ proble of evil - can’t say God wants to help but cant = he’s meant to be OmniP, can’t say he can’t see the problems, meant to be OmniS.
  • no reason to give God benefit of doubt + remain faithful.
22
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Via Negativia - meaning

A

“way of negation”
or
“the Negative Way”

23
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Via Negativia

A
  • God isn’t limited within our universe so he is beyond our understanding and language to speak of.
  • if we did use words to descibe God we would limit or anthropomorphise Him.
  • therefore better to descibe God through saying what he is Not.
24
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Via Negativia - Basil the Great quote

A

“our intellect is weak, but our tounge is even weaker”
e.g. god is not lacking in power.

25
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Via Negativia - criticism

A

fails bc negative statements are just disguised as positive ones.
e.g. God is not lacking in power = God is powerful.

26
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Analogical - Aquinas

A
  • thoughts we could only talk of God analogically to try + understand him
  • developed 2 types of analogy = attribution + proportion
27
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas - Analogy of attribution

A
  • term concerning one, original hing, also concerns the seconf because it was caused by the first.
  • therefore humans posses simular qualities to God (e.g. wisdom, kindness) bc we were created in his IMAGE but in lesser proportions
28
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas - analogy of proportion

A

words employed to refer to the quality that the thing posseses in proportion to the kind of reality it posses - so gods power is proportionally greater than humans’ power

29
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas - univocal use

A

(same defintion in multiple contexts)
cant talk about god like ourselves because he is different and beyond us

30
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas - equivocal use

A

(different defintions in different contexts)
can’t talk equivocally about God either, bc we aren’t completely different from Him (he did create us)

31
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas - analogical use

A

our slight differences to him allow us to talk about him analogically

32
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

aquinas analogical - criticisms

A
  • VP = ayer argue God is beyond our experience so there is no foundation for analogical language.
  • Via Negativia = would argue that God is beyound our limited understandind and so should be spoke about EQUIVICALLY.
33
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Symbolic - Paul Tillich

A
  • religious language should be interpreted symbollically and metaphorically
  • believes symbols ‘unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul”
  • cant be taken literally, religious language = non-cognitive
34
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

symbolic - symbols

A
  • transcends facts, elicits responses (“participates in that to which they point”),
  • point to something beyond themselves
  • subtle modes of communication, can be interpreted differently.
  • desribe god as ‘being’ is to deny him, bind him up to physical, limited world - anthropomorphises him.
  • cannot describe INFINITE god using FINiTE
35
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

symbolic - criticism

A

VP = ayer could argue that symbols can’t be verified and emotional responses to them aren’t open to being checked by evidence
RESPONSE = meaning is personal + cmes from emotiona responses so evidene isn’t important.

36
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Wittgenstein

A
  • rejects VP after originally agreeing with logical positivists
  • pointed out some statements can’t be verified as T or F, yet we still undertsand eachother e.g. talk of art, poetry, religion.
  • thought of language as using words in a range of contexts
37
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Wittgenstein - original picture theory

A
  • believed language was a way of depicting facts and mist relate bacl to the world or we stray away in to the realm of nonsense
  • plus language was supposed to allow us to use picture images and stimulations
  • later rejected it - failed to capture the complexity of language
38
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Wittgenstein - language games

A
  • used within ‘form of life’ (context) + only meaningful to community of people within the “game” (the players) but seem meaningless to thers.
  • outsiders cannot claim langauge used by one community is meaningless bc it doesn’t make sense to them.
  • religious language = one language game - meaningful to believer.
39
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Language games - Braithwaite

A
  • developed Wittgenstiens idea but further saying how religious langauge is a moral discourse.
  • Meaning = use
  • e.g. ‘killing animals = wrong’ may suggest they would never kill an aminal themselves as a way of living.
  • religious calims ‘god is love’ means followers may act selflessly + lovingly in his example.
40
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Braithwaite - criticism

A
  • some believers believe their religious teachings are to be taken more literally thatn he suggests
  • some argue he belittles religious language to reduce it to the ‘intention to carry out a certain behaviour policy’
41
Q

Religious language - MEANINGFUL

Language games - criticism

A
  • aquinas - used analogically and meaningful for everyone
  • VP = language games are meaningless if they don’t relate to the world factually, s religious language = meaningless.
  • RESPONSE = assuming one language game (science) applies to another langauge game (religion) - it doesn’t
42
Q
A
43
Q
A

RE: Philosophy (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions