mini mock Flashcards
“Gods judgement takes place immediately after death.”
Yes: biblical evidence of God welcoming people immediately into heaven or hell
parable of rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
But: biblical evidence shows a delay of judgement until all people are judged
- Sheep of Goats
last trumpet will sound before the dead are all judged
Yes: why would judgement be delayed? where will soul go?
But: bodies needed for reward or punishment so must be a moment when they are resurrected all together
Yes: heaven and hell are not literal places so no need to wait for final judgement
But: time is different after death so we may simply sleep until moment of judgement
To what extent could it be argued that hell and heaven are eternal states?
eternal:
talk consistently of eternity of hell and punishment
but:
those who do not reach heaven are punished and then annihilated
yes: held to account for living sinful lives
but: cannot experience punishment outside of time so hell is within time not eternal
- exists until day of judgement
yes: must be a point to which people fail
but: god of love wouldn’t punish his creation
- problem of evil
“Heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation.”
yes: book of revelation describes end of time as a “new heaven and a new earth” (21:1) and people use the words of prophet Isaiah to echo transformation in Messianic Age
but: heavn is a future, spiritiual place that does not occur on earth
“Today you will be with me in paradise” jesus says on the cross
yes: build god’s kingdom on earth, start with christian community
- not found physically but within people and good actions lead to the transformation of all of creation
but: heaven not literal, it is a metaphorical place
- symbol of our life on earth
yes: christian duty to re-find paradise that Adam and Eve lost
- rebuild free will on earth
but: heaven a future place
“The definition of the word ‘good’ should not define the study of ethics.”
all people will be saved
yes: the god of love would never allow anyone to be condemned to eternal suffering
but: universalis removes freedom of people to choose their fate as they will automatically be saved
yes: God calls everyone
but: heaven and hell are both realities in the bible
- sheep and the goats parable in Luke
yes:
“Ethical language does not have a factual basis and cannot be measured.”
“People cannot just know in themselves what is good, bad, right and wrong.”
“Ethical language is no more than expressions of emotion.” Discuss.
“Moral statements are merely an expression of feeling.” Discuss.
“Ethical language is meaningless.”
“Conscience is not linked to reason or the unconscious mind.”
“Conscience does not exist, it is an umbrella term covering various factors involved in moral decision making.”
“Aquinas’ conscience is not helpful.”
“How helpful is Freud’s view of conscience?”
Assess the claim that conscience is a reliable guide to making ethical decisions.
“Conscience is the voice of God working within us.” Discuss.
“Aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language of God.”
1: the theory avoids the problem of equivocal language
But: by attributing similar, worldly ideas to God we may still be limiting him with the use of positive language, as he is still beyond our understanding
2: avoids anthropomorphism by using analogy of proportion - he is proportionally greater than humans, infinitely greater scale
- Hugel uses example that humans are more faithful than dogs
But: yet we do not know on ow much of a scale, there is no point of reference to judge its appropriateness
3: his approach is effective as it has been supported by scholars such as Ian Ramsey with his models and qualifiers approach
But: yet analogy is still entirely too vague and leaves us unable to understand God’s actions
4: Hick also supports it as he claims it talks about God in a way that retains his divine mystery
“Analogy is the best way to talk about God.”
Is religious discourse comprehensible if religious language is understood as symbolic?
Yes: Tillich’s use of symbolic language preserves the mystery of God as it understands that God is beyond human comprehension, therefore avoiding anthropomorphism
But: Hick questions what the symbols ‘participate in’
Yes: allows us to say something positive still, unlike the apophatic way which is not helpful for those who know nothing of God to begin with
- as symbolic language changes over time it stays relevant to the culture and time which is an advantage
But: it is however, open to interpretation and change, and can lose its meaning over time (like the swastika or star of David)
- too subjective
- non-cognitive
- limits God-talk
Yes: considers how religious language an be cognitive as it does ultimately express something, the true reality
“unlocks the hidden depths of our own being”
But: symbols are non-cognitive for Randall who says they have no objective reality
- it does form a cultural function but it is simply a human endeavour so ultimately it would not successfully be comprehensible
Is the apophatic way an effective way of understanding the theological discussion?
Yes: respectful as it recognises God is far beyond human comprehension/understanding
- preserves his transcendence and mystery
- as Moses Maimonides says, it is better to use negative terms to talk about God as any positive statements (bar “He exists”) is disrespectful
But: Brian Davies however criticises Maimonides and his ship analogy believing you could get to the conclusion of a ship in ten steps by describing what it is not, the same way we can describe God through negation
- he says it is also possible to arrive at the conclusion of a wardrobe not a ship
- we are no closer to understanding what God is
Yes: to say what he is not implies the positive
- if God is not limited then that in turn tells us something about God
But: religious believers tend to only seek positive knowledge and understanding of God
- religious revelation and text uses positive terminology
Yes: avoids anthropomorphising God as it does not bring him down to a human level
But: yet it still leaves us with a limited understanding of God
- Gregory of Nyssa says it leaves us in a place of ‘darkness’
Does the verification principle successfully demonstrate that religious language is meaningless?
Yes: strong verification principle argues that religious language cannot be verified by sense experience so cannot be seen as true or false
- Ayer says it is meta physical language that is outside our immediate sense experience
- God is beyond our empirical understanding
But: this assumes only science can give meaning and knowledge about the world
Brummer and DZ Phillips believe that sentences of faith should be treated as scientific statements
- too rigid as it dismisses religion entirely
Swinburne also says that there are still sentences that have meaning and convey moral truths despite not being fact or scientifically provable
Yes: Ayer’s weak verification principle outlines which observations make statements worth discussing and as religious language cannot be verified in principle it is meaningless
But: Hick claims we can verify statement about God when we die
- eschatological
- can be verified in principle so therefore have meaning
How do the ideas of Aquinas on religious language compare with those of Wittgenstein?
Aquinas approach better:
- his analogies allows us to be positive whilst avoid anthropomorphising God
- Wittgenstein’s approach doesn’t work as seems to not express truth or reality
- it also can be dangerous as can claim beliefs on faith alone which is a form of fideism, can just say it is a “language game”
Wittgenstein:
- has meaning depending on context
- not reflecting reality but making it, reality is subjective
- can be no criticisms
- Aquinas is too vague
- analogy makes assumptions that there is similarities between humans and God
Does a cognitive approach or non-cognitive approach present the better way of making sense of religious language?
Non-Cognitive:
- better understood in context of a faith community and means less opportunity for misunderstanding
- Wittgenstein’s focus on the use and context of language can be applies to religious texts
Cognitive:
- religious texts transcend time and space, is cognitive and point to universal truth
- non-cognitivism undermines importance of events
- should not be diluted as they are truth claim
Critically assess Ayer’s view that religious language is literally senseless.
Did any of the participants in the falsification symposium present a convincing approach to the understanding of religious language?
Yes: Flew argues that religious language is used in the same way as scientific assertions
- believers don’t allow evidence to falsify statements and instead keep qualifying until nothing is left
But: religious language is not scientific as it cannot be tested or falsifiable
- Hare suggests religious statements are bliks - unfalsifiable fundamental beliefs about the world
Yes: helps to clarify which statements are scientific and which are not
But: Mitchell says not falsifiable as don’t allow evidence to discount their beliefs
Yes: not factual or cognitive
But: not scientific
Cognitive is better than non-cognitive
Yes: Aquinas uses religious language cognitively through his analogy of attribution and analogy of proportion which shows how words can be used positively to describe God, and they make a truth claim about him whilst understanding God’s greatness and how he is beyond our comprehension, retains the mystery of God
But: Language Games show how meaning of words depends entirely on context
- Cupitt argues that religious language is not objectively true outside of the language game so must be non-cognitive
- yet they still hold meaning as Brummer and DZ Phillips believe.
Yes: logical positivists argue that we must only discuss whether a statement is meaningful or not
- verificationism treats religious language like failed scientific assertions as it treats all language cognitively
But: we should not treat religious language as scientific claims
- religious language should be seen like music or poetry as it is non-cognitive and beyond the scientific criteria
- Tillich would argue we should instead understand religious language through symbols which ‘participate in’ what they present
Yes: Flew argues that making religious claims sound scientific means they should be judged with the same criteria and should be falsified
- treats it cognitively and even if it fails the test of other cognitive statements it still helps us understand religious language better as without it believers would qualify their beliefs until they die a “death by a thousand qualifications”
But: Hare’s bliks support non-cognitivism as they are important to the individual and impact their life whilst not making any universal truth claims
- they are their own view of the world and cannot be true or false and therefore cognitive
