analogy/religious language Flashcards
analogy/religious language (13)
(1) religious language (general)
(2) 3 main issues (religious lang)
(3) cognitive vs non-cognitive
(4) vienna circle, logical positivism
(5) verification principle (+strong/weak principles)
(6) a.j. ayer
(7) weaknesses/strengths of VP
(8) falsification principle + flew
(9) falsification principle’s strengths and weaknesses
(9) aquinas + 3 kinds of lang
(10) aq+ analogy, an of attribution, an of proportionality
(11) ian ramsay
(12) strengths/weaknesses for analogy
(13) mitchell + hare’s views
(1) religious language (general)
- abt G, religion, religious experience (moksha, doctrine, incarnation, karma)
- human lang to describe non-human/divine = issues; lack of shared experience = exclusionary
(2) 3 main issues (religious lang)
- (1) lack of clarity/shared experiences/lang to describe G, as G+humans don’t share experiences (metaphysical/3-dimensional complications)
- (2) rel lang not normal lang; ‘have you been washed in the blood?’; not universal/relatable
- (3) lang experience-based; time, concept, understanding varies
(3) cognitive vs non-cognitive
- Cognition: empirical, fact, sense, objective; RL in cognitive sense = statement believed to be true/not to be objectively scrutinised
- CT: realist, factual, objective, empirical, verifiable/falsifiable
- NCT: pictorial, subj, emotive, not empirically-verifiable/falsifiable
(4) vienna circle, logical positivism
- 1920s, founders Wittgenstein/Schlick; Carnap, Ayer
- exploring verif/falsif concepts; via scientific formulations
- ‘language mirrors the world’
- ^> if a RS is outside logical/scientific tenets, it’s meaningless
- inside, it’s tautological/self-explanatory (verifiable; a priori/empirical)
(5) verification principle (general)
- ‘to prove something true’
types of VPs/RS:
- tautological (self-explanatory)
- analytic (a priori by definition)
- mathematical (maths; all errors human errors)
- synthetic (a post/can be v/f empirically)
e.g.:
- (1) ‘Dogs bark’ (emp test, but true)
- (2) ‘Swans are green’ (emp test, but false)
- (3) ‘Peter has brown eyes’ (emp test)
(6) a.j. ayer (+VP forms)
- 1936, infl by russell/wittgenstein; spread LP to UK
- G claims can’t be contradicted, so aren’t valid propositions
- G can’t be rationally demonstrated
- G metaphysical term, can’t be proven
Forms of VP:
- Strong VP: statement verified in practise+present day> meaningful
- Weak VP: statement may be false, but still meaningful if method of verification found
(7) weaknesses/strengths of VP
- W: paradox of invalidity; VP can’t verify itself; VP deems overly meaningful statements as meaningless; weak principle makes all experiences verifiable (ward, hick, runzo)
- S: provides language structure; facilitates verifiability for religious statements; allows all religious statements to have a form of meaning (cuppitt, smith, allen)
(8) falsification principle + flew
- ‘to prove something else’, Anthony Flew (BR philosopher)> falsifiability over verifiability; a principle scientific if disprovable (Popper)
- F> RS meaningless, as can’t be disproved/challenged; ‘dies a death of a thousand qualifications’
- F’s ‘Gardener’ parable (jungle seems tended, gardener vs no gardener; invisible vs not real = different reactions to same facts)
(9) falsification principle’s strengths and weaknesses:
- S: apply VP strengths + provides a method> can’t be falsified, can’t be meaningful
- W: statements can be understood without being falsifiable (toys moving/’toys in the cupboard’, Swinburne); meaning can exist through intention; hick, richmond, davies
(9) aquinas + 3 kinds of lang
- G unknowable, properties can be attributed
- univocal (same word, same meaning in dif contexts)
- equivocal (same word, dif meaning)
- analogical (causal link/all G-derived)
- Aq> analogy is a compromise, two things compared
- Aq> rejects Via Negativa (process of elimination about G), equivocal (doesn’t convey info of G), univocal (reduced G)
(10) aq+ analogy, an of attribution, an of proportionality
- attribution: humans derive from G, G all things; attributes divinely inspired (link to cosmological’ first cause/uncaused causer)
- proportionality: ‘in ratio’; hierarchy, but all have things proportionate to them (G infinite/omni, so infinitely divine); hick
(11) ian ramsay
- bishop; all experience continuous G/creation encounter; models (understood concept) +qualifiers (aid in understanding model), disclosure models (‘penny drops‘/e.g. understanding divine in spite of it being ineffable)
(12) strengths/weaknesses for analogy
- S: analogical lang bridges humans/G; analogy avoids reduction of G; avoids anthropomorphising G (brown, runzo, hume, schwartz); Aq/IR facilitate linguistic/conceptual gateways, anchored in physicality
- W: G’s meaning remains empirically unquantifiable; goodness is subjective, so judging G’s greatness problematic; analogy presupposes G’s existence; analogy requires basis of comparison, not possible with G (ayer, flew, blackstone, hume, evans, swinburne)
(13) mitchell + hare’s views
- M: treat it as a provisional hypothesis (discard if flawed), vacuous formulae (experience makes no dif), significant article of faith (open to challenge)
- Hare: ‘bliks’; meaning from impact of thing, not on its v/f
