P1 - Religious Language Flashcards
what is logical positivism
the philosophical approach taken by the Vienna Circle: a group of philosophers who met in the city during the 1920s-30s.
claimed that metaphysical and theological language are literally meaningless, because they are neighter matters of logic nor provable by empirical evidence
what do logical positives claim are the two types of meaningful language
synthetic propositions:
- propositions that are dependent on evidence
- e.g. ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’
analytic propositions:
- propositions that are true by definition, self-evident
- e.g. ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’
what is the verification principle
the meaning of a statement is its method of verification
e.g. the meaning of the statement, ‘my car is parked on the road outside the house’ can be verified by looking outside the house
Verification is by sense experience - e.g. sight
What book did Ayer promote Logical Positivism in
Language, Truth and Logic (1936)
what is cognitive language
if it conveys factual information, and most cognitive statements are synthetic (they are shown to be true or false depending upon evidence)
e.g. ‘Hong Kong is a city’, it is cognitive because it claims to give factual experience
what is non-cognitive language
to say that it is inappropiate to ask whether or not it is factual
non-cognitive statements may convey emotions, give orders, or make moral claims
e.g. ‘I am happy’, it is not proved true or false with reference to facts
Ayer – a statement is meaningful if and only if it is…
analytic (true by definition/ a tautology)
or
empirically verifiable
Ayer’s verification principle – application to religious language
Ayer argued that statements like: ‘God loves you’, ‘God exists’, etc. cannot be verified either in practice or in principle
there is no evidence by which we could show these claims to be true or false, so they are literally meaningless
cannot be reduced to a set of statements about evidence
Ayer’s quotes on the application of verification principle on religious language
“No sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance”
Ayer’s quote in relation to the assertions made by those who believe in God
“His assertions cannot possibly be valid, but they cannot be invalid either. As he says nothing at all about the world, he cannot justly be accused of saying anything else, or anything for which he has insufficient grounds”
what does Ayer’s verification principle imply for religious beliefs
Christian statements about the Trinity, God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or statements about life after death – there is no way of checking whether these are true or false
to Ayer, the claim that God exists is neither true or false, but is meaningless
same with an atheist’s claim that God does not exist, it is not meaningful
strengths/ advantages of the verification principle – straightforward demands
the VP is straightforward in what it demands
- meaningful statements are either tautologies or verifiable by sense experience
- brackets out all questions of emotion or commitment, concentrating only on the facts
strengths/ advantages of the verification principle – in line with science
the VP is in line with science and the scientific mehtod
since it demands that we observe the world empirically
strengths/ advantages of the verification principle – demands a sense of reality in what we say about the world
VP demands a sense of reality in what we say about the world
- it points out one major issue with religious language, namely those who try to justify their religious statements – there surely needs to be some justification for religious claims
weaknesses/ disadvantages of the verification principle – demands of the verification principle are too narrow
the demands of the VP are too narrow
- although it is straightforward, it does not mean it is wright
- it rules out a lot of language as meaningless, so statements about history and feelings are meaningless
- only works as an argument when discussing matters of fact, not interpretation, hopes, fears, etc, human engagement
weaknesses/ disadvantages of the verification principle – to say that it is in line with science has problems
much of science deals with entities that cannot be directly observed (e.g. quarks and strings)
how can this be verified by the VP?
Science also doesn’t work exclusively through verification, rather through falsification instead
weaknesses/ disadvantages of the verification principle – a clear proposition from religion
there are valid criticisms of some religious language, but religion makes a very clear proposition about God and the origin of the universe
arguments for the existence of God – either the universe explains its own existence or else its existence is explained by an external creative mind
this is a reasonable hypothesis based on our observation of the world and creators
challenges to Ayer’s VP – allows ‘verification in principle’, applicable to biblcial statement
‘verification in principle’ – it is enough to know how in theory a statement can be verified to render it meaningful
in that case, it could be argued that the Bible can supply verification for religious statements (e.g. eye witness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection)
many historians accept that the eyewitness accounts from a particular period in a nation’s history are also acceptable evidence
therefore, Statements about Jesus can therefore be verified in principle as historical claims
challenges to Ayer’s VP – the principle itself is not verifiable
the principle itself is not verifiable according to the VP
the VP is not a tautology and it is not verifiable in principle, therefore by its own criteria, it is meaningless and cannot be used to comment on the meaningfulness of religious language
Ayer’s response to the VP not being verifiable
Ayer argued that it was a convention/ policy statement, hence it does not make a factual claim and therefore cannot be used against itself
not a strong argument:
- if the verification principle is a factual statemnet, then it is meaningless as it cannot be verified
- it is not a logical statement, no logical truths
- if it is a policy statement, then it ammounts to little more than an arbitrary assumption of what Ayer thinks should be the case
what is falsification
by making a factual/cognitive claim, you should be able to specify what it is that could falsify the claim, this is used in science primarily and also used to challenge the meaningful of religious language
through work of Popper – argued that science works primarily through falsification rather than verification
summary of the parable of the gardener
there were two explorers in a clearing in the jungle. one said there must be a gardener tending to the plot, the other saying that there is no gardener
explorers pitch their tents, no gardner is seen, explorers added a barbed-wire fence and electrified it
no movements, no shrieks heard yet the believer is still convinced htat there is an invisible gardner
the sceptic despairs and asks ‘what remains of your original assertion
parable of the gardener in relation to religious language
gardener is God, believer is theists, sceptic is atheists
garden is the world, tended plot represents the order and design in the world
fence, etc. shows that no empirical tests show that he is present
What does Flew think of the parable of gardener
thinks that the gardener’s existence ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’ because every time he fails to be detected, the ‘believer’ qualifies what he means by his gardener
- the believer in the parable will allow nothing to falsify his belief that there is a gardener who loves and looks after his garden, would allow nothing to falsify his belief in God
what is the falsification principle
a sentence is factually significant if and only if there is some form of evidence which could falsify it
- a sentence is factually significant if and only if there is some form of evidence which could falsify it
Flew’s falsification in application to religious statements
statements like ‘god has a plan’, ‘god created the world’, etc. are not proper assertions, since it appear to have no instances where the believer wouuld be prepared to admit that ‘there isn’t a God after all’, or ‘God doesn’t really love us
e.g. ‘God loves his children’ - Flew refers to a case where a child is dying of inoperable throat cancer, the Heavenly Father appears to show no signs of concern, the believer would qualify his original statement by suggesting ‘God’s love is not human love’, this may continue to go on in order to justify their belief
strengths of the falsification challenge – empty claims
where religion makes important factual claims (e.g. ‘there is a God’, ‘God loves us’)
Flew seems to show that these claims are empty, because all the evidence against such claims is ignored by the believer
they cease to be real assertions, because they die ‘the death of a thousand qualifications’
weaknesses of the falsification challenge – confining ‘meaningfulness’
similar to VP, it attempts to confine ‘meaningfulness’ to factual propositions, but there is a whole realm of human experience that cannot be confined in this way
emotions, moral dilemmas, hopes, fears, etc. cannot be easily described using only facts
weaknesses of the falsification challenge – religious claims
when religious believers make claims about God, these are not unrealistic speculations
they assume that there is a truth to be known about the nature and origin of the universe, and that ‘God’ is a reasonable explanation for that truth
falsificationism is too rigid in its understanding of truth
weaknesses of the falsification challenge – science and religion are different
Falsification principle was concerned mainly with scientific statements
statements about God are metaphysical, not scientific, so it seems inappropiate to demand that they should be empirically falsifiable
weaknesses of the falsification challenge – ‘believers would allow nothing to falsify their assertions’
Flew’s argument that religious believers will allow nothing to falsify their assertions is not really true
e.g. the extent of the problem of evil has led many believers to question or reject their belief in God
what is eschatological verification
refers to Hick’s view that the ‘facts’ of the christian religion will be verified (or falsified) after death
what is Hick’s response to VP and FP – eschatological verification
the Christian concept of God is verifiable because it is verified eschatologically
Hick is claiming that the ‘facts’ of Christian religion will be verified (or falsified) to you after death
so religious language…
- claims are indeed cognitive/ factual
- claims are subject to (eschatological) verification
summary of the parable of the celestial city
two men are travelling together on a road
the believer believes it would lead to the celestial city
the sceptic believes it would lead to nowhere
they would not know until they arrive at the end of the road
what is the key poiint of the parable of the celestial city
there is no evidence while the men are making the journey
however one of them believes in the city, this influences the way he encounters and deals with the various events along the way, this makes it meaningful and remains so even if the celestial city is true or false
eventually, at the end of time, it would be verified whether the celestial city is true or not
strengths of Hick’s argument – undeniable statement
Hick’s claim that the celestial city/ heaven is a real possibility seems undeniable
the statement, ‘there is life after death’ must either be true or false
strengths of Hick’s argument – following VP
seems to show that Christian truth-claims are cognitive/ factual, because if we do wake up in a resurrected body, then not only will we know that christian claims about life after death are true, but many other claims about the Christian religion are true
strengths of Hick’s argument – ‘experiencing-as’
Hick supports his conclusion with his argument about ‘experiencing-as’, he tries to show that interpretation is an essential element of all factual experience
so with Hick’s parable of the celestial city, the believer and non-believer are interpreting the same evidence in two different ways
weaknesses of Hick’s argument – POV of the parable of the celestial city
Hick writes from the perspective of the believer for whom, in the end, the Celestial City will be reached, from the perspective of the athiest, the possibility of the Celestial City being verified is so remote, it would not be worth considering, Hick’s argument is no stronger than an atheist’s argument
- counterargument -
Hick points out that there is a body of evidence for life after death – near-death experiences and reincarnational memories by children
weaknesses of Hick’s argument – not a normal factual claim
Hick’s argument that religious claims are verifiable eschatologically is not a normal factual claim, they will be verified when the individual wakes up, but if they are false, they can never be falsified because the individual will never wake up to know that they are false
what is a blik
Hare’s definition refers to a framework of interpretation: a view of the world that is not an assertion, but is non-cognitive and non-falsifiable
summary of the parable of the lunatic
a lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him
his friends introduuce him to all the respectable dons to prove they dont want to murder but he is still convinced that the dons will murder him
parable of the lunatic in relation to Hare’s bliks
the lunatic is deluded, nothing can falsify his belief about them
the lunatic has a blik - similarly most people would have bliks, religious bliks is a common and powerful view and believers would not be persuaded to falsify it
Flew’s reply to Hare’s view
flew rejected Hare’s view of religious statements as non-cognitive bliks as believers do see their beliefs as cognitive
“If Hare’s religion really is a blik, involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator, then surely he is not a Christian at all?”
Strengths of Hare’s theory of bliks – explains differences in religions
does explain why it is that different religions make different factual claims
it seems simpler to accept Hare’s view that all assertions are just expressions of non-cognitive bliks
they are meaningful to those who have them but their value is in personal meaning
Strengths of Hare’s theory of bliks – explains the unfalsifiable nature of religion
explains why some people are not convinced by evidence which contradicts their beliefs
believers see the evidence through the framework of their beliefs
Strengths of Hare’s theory of bliks – seems to be true/ reasonable
his argument that religious people see the world in a particular way seems to be true – religious people see God at work in the world in a variety of distinctive ways, e.g. through nature
this correctly reflects the idea that religion gives a view or attitude that is used to interpret the whole of life
Weaknesses to Hare’s theory of bliks – believers do not see their beliefs as non-cognitive
most believers do not see their belief statements as non-cognitive
they believe that it holds factual truth instead
Weaknesses to Hare’s theory of bliks – odd claims
Hare seems to make a very odd claim – that Christan beliefs are expressions of non-cognitive bliks whether Christians know it or not
Christians might be supposed to know their own minds
Weaknesses to Hare’s theory of bliks – psychological and sociological value of Christian faith
if there are no factual truths about Christianity, its value reducees to its psychological and sociological benefits
Weaknesses to Hare’s theory of bliks – religious claims are cognitive
‘there is a God’ is a factual claim
verifiable: by the existence and qualities of the univers e (arguments for the existence of God)
falsifiable: by the problem of evil
What is the central feature of Wittgenstein’s approach
the meaning of language is found in the way it is used and language is a tool for getting something done
Wittgenstein’s famous quote + meaning
‘don’t think; look!’
if you want to understand something, it is not enough to understand the meaning of words and the way they work logically or how they are backed up by evidence
rather it is important to look at how the words are used
meaning is given by use
what is language game
Wittgenstein’s term for the idea that language has meaning within a particular social context, each context being governed by rules in the same way that different games are governed by different rules
the meaning of a statement is not defined by the steps you take to verify or falsify it, but by the context and use of it
what does language game mean for the use of language
language creates different games in different situations
they are all valid uses of language, but different ‘‘forms of life’
so the rules for the use of language are therefore neither right nor wrong; they are useful for the job we want them to do
cannot criticise other’s people language unless if they are in the same game
implications of religious language
religious language contains a multiplicity of language games within its own context (language of the believing community)
this means that other games like ‘science’ cannot criticise religious language as they wouldn’t use religious language in its former context
strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games – avoids confusion
avoids the confusion that results from mistaking what language is trying to do, particularly the mistakes of the verificationsit and falsificationist approaches to religious language
strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games – variety of meaning
it allows a variety of meaning: artistic, poetic, musical, emotional, historical, ethical and religious
rather than expecting all language to conform to an empirical or scientific norm
strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games – ‘belief in’, ‘belief that’
Wittgenstein recognises the meaning behind the statement of a Christian who says ‘there is a God’
to believers, that statement affirms that they are ‘believing in’ God rather than ‘believing that’ God exists
this confirms belief in God as a reality in their lives
weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games – discourages debate
discourages debate with secular thinkers
if we cannot understand religious language unless if we are part of the game, then this isolates religion from external criticism
weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games – evangelical Christian aims
some Christians like Evangelical Christians are committed to dialogue with those who do not share their language game
this would seem to go against language games to spread the christian message to those who do not understand the context of the game
weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games – religious statements no longer have to be true or false
religious statements no longer have to be true or false
in theory, a group of people could make up belief and it would form a valid language game
but this goes against the fact that religious believers believe that they are making assertions about reality
weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games – false claims on the evidence for metaphysical beliefs
assumes that there can be no evidence for metaphysical beliefs - this is arguably false -
‘there is a god’ is the main metaphysical belief in Christian theism and is a cognitive claim as it is a likely hypothesis to explain the existence of the universe
Russell’s claim that the universe is a ‘brute fact’ is not out of a scientific method
it seems arbitrary to claim that on one hand the universe is explained by natural laws while the other says that it is exempt from these laws
strengths of cognitivism
- makes factual claims that are clear and open to examination by anyone
- most religious believers are cognitives, believers are committed to those beliefs precisely because they believe them to be factual, not because they believe them to be non-cognitive bliks
strengths of non-cognitivism
- does not pretend that religious language is scientific, avoids challenges from verificationists and falsificationists
- reflects the distinctive views and commitments of religious people: their religious bliks
- acknowledges that there can be many different ways in which language can be meaningful
religious language as analogical
Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language to describe God
univocal would limit God, equivocal would not convey God
analogy would be an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference-frame
Aquinas’ analogies – the analogy of retribution
- although we have no idea what it means for God to be good, the assertion that God is good is meaningful
- solves the use of anthropomorphic language about God, to say that God is love, Judge or King, means that God has what it takes to produce these attributes in persons
Aquinas’ analogies – the analogy of proportionality
both a human being and God may be described as ‘powerful’, but we assume that the meaning of ‘powerful’ in each case is proportional to their respective nature
so God’s power would be proportional to his nature
strengths of Aquinas’ analogies – avoids univocality
a literal univocal language is inadequate to talk about God since it doesn’t take into account God’s transcendence, tends to reduce him to the status of one thing among many
strengths of Aquinas’ analogies – avoiding anthropomorphisim
analogy avoids anthropomorphisisng God because anthromoporphic language is not meant to be taken as literal
strengths of Aquinas’ analogies – religious experiences
religious experience often takes a person beyond words, but in seeking to describe what they have experienced, and recognise that they need to push beyond their ordinary, limited meaning
strengths of Aquinas’ analogies – use of ordinary human experience
analogy uses ordinary human experience and qualities to express something that transcends them
since it is based on human experiences, it is cognitive and allows language about God to be meaningful/ to avoid non-cognitivism
weaknesses of Aquinas’ analogies – criticisms of the idea of using analogies
some may disagree with the use of analogies, that for both the analogy of attribution and proportionality to work effectively, you have to have prior knowledge of God
you cannot argue that God’s love is analogous to human love if you do not even know what is meant by the word ‘God’
weaknesses of Aquinas’ analogies – objection of the analogy of attribution (God is evil)
some object that the analogy of attribution can be used to prove that God is evil
because if we say that ‘God has what it takes to produce goodness in humans’
we can also say that ‘God has what it takes to produce evil in humans’
what is apophatic theology
the denial of a positive description of God, hence the Via Negativa - the ‘negative way’ ‘by way of denial’
what is kataphatic theology
‘affirmation’, so kataphatic theology uses positive terms about God (as opposed to apophatic theology, which only uses negative terms)
what is the via negativa
the ‘negative way’ - to state only what may not be said about God
kataphatic theology in religions
has great emphasis on saying things about God with creeds and descriptions of his qualities (kataphatic theology)
apophatic theology in religions
Eastern Orthodox religions (Hinduism and Buddhism)
emphasise the idea that God’s reality/ Ultimate Reality is beyond all description (apophatic theology)
Original ideas on the via negativa
Pseudo-Dionysius (5-6 century BCE)
developed via negativa to emphasise the transcendence of God and to separate him from any description which could limit him
Pseudo-Dionysius’ ideas on God (via negativa)
- God is nameless, yet ‘has the names of everything that is’
therefore it doesn’t limit God as just a creator, but as involved creatively within everything
Maimonides support for the Via Negativa
God was not comparable to anything else
to say that God is the most powerful being means that it can be compared to human power, reducing God
… So God should be described through negatives, e.g. ‘God is not corporeal’ ‘God does not exist in space’
