Philosophy - Religious Language Flashcards

Question

.The via negativa is based on what fundamental belief?

Answer 1

that ‘God’ is beyond human understanding and description – ‘He’ is completely ineffable (cannot put into words the nature of God)

Answer 2

Plotinus and Augustine

Answer 3

Pseudo-Dionysius and Moses Maimonides

Answer 4

.Moses Maimonides was a twelfth-century Jewish philosopher living in Muslim Egypt, he was a great doctor as well as philosopher and a talented politician and linguist .He believed that the Torah (Hebrew Bible) was an imperfect source for describing God as any descriptions are carried out using human language – ‘The Torah was written by the sons of men’ .He concluded that when it came to directly describing God’s nature, ’silence is the best praise’ .As an alternative to describing the characteristics of God, which he felt was impossible to do in a meaningful way, he suggested that we demonstrate the nature of God by saying what he is not (via negativa) .For example, we can say that God is not mortal or he is not evil

Answer 5

Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus who were a group of early Christian philosophers known as the Cappadocian Fathers .They were concerned by their inability to fully convey through words the nature of God

Answer 6

‘Our intellect is weak but our tongue is even weaker’

Answer 7

feel this too limiting, and would also say that God is also outside creation, and we don't know everywhere that God is .Even the statement ‘God exists’ must be countered with the negative statement that God's existence is altogether different than any existence that we can imagine

Answer 8

.... Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.’

Answer 9

an attempt to achieve unity with God by gaining knowledge of what God is not, rather than by describing what God is

Answer 10

not only does it emphasise the transcendence and otherness of God; the language has also been used by people who have religious experiences to describe the ineffable nature of their experiences

Answer 11

.Many believe such statements to be true, but they fall short of expressing the full reality of God .This is because God is not an object that exists in the same way as other objects .Positive statements must be replaced with negative statements .This will avoid pitfalls such as anthropomorphising God or limiting God’s perfection .Negative statements bring us closer to the reality of God

Answer 12

.By ‘intellect’ he means our thoughts and what we understand .Our intellect regarding God is weak as we, as humans, cannot fully understand God .Our tongue (language) used to describe God is weaker still as our human words associated with human qualities do not hold the same meaning as they intend to with God, they cannot be used to describe him

Answer 13

.Peter Cole argues that it provides insight and understanding of God .Since it’s impossible for humans to talk positively about God, then to speak about him in terms of what he is not avoids some pitfalls .Peter Cole: “by denying all descriptions of God, you get insight into God rather than unbelief...” .We cannot speak directly about God because we don’t have direct experience about him

Answer 14

.One of the major strengths is that it avoids anthropomorphism .Prevents humanising (anthropomorphic) of God .It does not place a limit on God by giving a point of reference that is within the physical world .In other words, we do not use language about God that we use about things within our world .If we say God is powerful we might imagine God to be large and muscular but this would objectify or humanise God .This would be supported by scholars such as Boethius and Anselm who wanted to show that God was beyond human understanding

Answer 15

.It highlights God’s majesty .It is a very strong way of conveying the essential otherness and mystery of God and is seen as more respectful of God .Maimonides said positive statements are improper as they don’t fully convey God .The strength of the language is that it highlights that when we speak of God we find it difficult because God is a supremely perfect being

Answer 16

.William James argued that religious experience was often ineffable .This means that people were unable to adequately describe or explain the experience they had had .James would recognise the strength of the ‘Via Negativa’ as it would provide recipients of experience with the ability to explain what had occurred to them

Answer 17

.W.R. Inge says that God cannot be reached by process of elimination .If we speak of God only negatively, then it is still not very easy for the person who has no experience of God to know what we mean .To say that white is ‘the opposite of black’ does not give much help to the person who has never seen and has no concept of white .God cannot be reached by process of elimination, if God is outside our experience

Answer 18

.The ‘Via Negativa’ defines God into nothingness .Anthony Flew in his essay ‘Theology and Falsification’ argued that if we try to explain God by saying that he is invisible, soundless, incorporeal and so on, there is very little difference between our definition of God and our definition of nothingness .Flew suggests that we argue God out of existence by a ‘thousand qualifications’ .In other words, if we continually outline who God is not we eventually end up with nothingness

Answer 19

.The ‘Via Negativa’ is not consistent with the Bible .Many of the holy scriptures of the world’s religions do make positive statements about God .For example, the Bible makes positive claims that God is a king, judge, a father, a shepherd, a rock .‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’ Isaiah 44:8 .’Therefore the LORD's anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down.’ Isaiah 5:25 .It is believed that Holy Scripture comes from God, then this would suggest that it can be right and appropriate to make positive claims about God

Answer 20

.Brian Davies is critical of the approach taken by Maimonides and others .’Only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, and, if one can only say what God is not, one cannot understand him at all… it is simply unreasonable to say that someone who has all the negations mentioned in it ‘has almost arrived at the correct notion of a ‘ship’. He could equally well be thinking of a wardrobe.’ (Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, OUP, 1986)

Answer 21

.An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand, it does this in light of a comparison with something else which is within our frame of reference

Answer 22

St Thomas Aquinas

Answer 23

univocal | equivocal

Answer 24

where words are used to mean the same things in all the situations where they are used, for example black board, black hat, black car, in each case the word black is being used to refer to the colour black

Answer 25

where words are used to mean different things in different contexts, for example gay can mean both jolly and homosexual, or more recently rubbish, problematically once a word is used to mean a different thing, it is robbed of its original meaning because of the new application

Answer 26

.Religious language often attempts to describe the attributes or qualities of God .This is difficult as God is generally not something we have direct experience of, whereas most things language refers to are things that we can experience .Thus, when we say that ‘God is good’, we need to know how we are using the word ‘good’ in that sentence .If we are speaking univocally, we are claiming that God is good in the same way as humans are .Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect and because of this, imperfect humans cannot be good in the same way that God is .Alternatively, if we are speaking equivocally we mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans .Aquinas rejected this also, arguing that if we speak equivocally about God, we cannot say that we know anything about him, as we are saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us does not apply to God .Aquinas believed that there was a ‘middle way’, a way of talking meaningfully about God, this middle way was analogy

Answer 27

1. Analogy of attribution | 2. Analogy of proper proportion

Answer 28

Aquinas takes as his starting point the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect .He then argues that all being in the universe in some way imitate God according to their mode of existence

Answer 29

not only in so far as He produces wisdom, but also because, in so far as we are wise, we imitate to some extent the power by which He makes us wise.'

Answer 30

.Aquinas uses the example of a bull to illustrate this point .It is possible to determine the health of an animal by examining its urine .Aquinas said that if a Bull’s urine is healthy, then we can determine that the bull will be healthy .Obviously though, the health of the bull is more completely and perfectly within the bull itself and is only reflected in the urine produced by the Bull .In the same way, God is the source of qualities in the universe and God possesses these qualities first and most perfectly

Answer 31

.This sets up an order of reference, meaning that these qualities apply to God first and foremost, then to other things secondarily and analogically .Because we are created in the image of God, it is possible to say that we have these attributes (wisdom, goodness) analogically .These qualities are attributed to us analogically, whilst God has them perfectly

Answer 32

... God and his creation, which allows the latter to act as a signpost to God”

Answer 33

... be like God, without being identical to God.”

Answer 34

... that tie in with our world of everyday existence but does not reduce God to that everyday world”

Answer 35

* The ‘Analogy of Attribution’ means words such as just and good may be applied to God as well as human beings * When we use these words we are saying that a person has the quality of being good/just * As God created the world, He is revealed through it and this gives a point of comparison * We can know what it is for a person to be good or wise and from the way God is revealed in the world we can use these words to describe Him * What it means for God to be good is unclear but we deduce from the world that God is good * So, if we say, 'God is good'; 'The Pope is good', good is being used in similar senses * As we can see goodness in human beings this means that God is the source of goodness as He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things * Important to remember that Aquinas is not talking about good in a human, moral sense as God is infallible * God has the quality of being good, whatever that means for Him

Answer 36

.Created entity: humans, or any other being in the universe .Like God: we can, as Aquinas argued in his Analogy of Attribution, have qualities similar to that of God, as we have gained them from God, as he is the creator and sustainer of all things .Without being identical: we cannot be the same as God, as goodness in a human sense is not the same as goodness in the sense of God In this quotes, Alastair McGrath is trying to explain that a human being or any other created being in this universe, can share qualities with God, but not be the same as God

Answer 37

the car measures up to the sense of what a good car should be they meet the ideals of what a good person is

Answer 38

indicate that God measures up to what it is for God to be God

Answer 39

the way in which something lives up to what it should be

Answer 40

.We can understand that God is omnipotent as we have the human idea of power .God is proportionally more powerful than humans so although we cannot completely understand the idea of God’s omnipotence we can have an insight into God’s power because of our human experience of power

Answer 41

‘Consider the term ‘faithful’. A man or a woman can be faithful, and this shows in particular patterns of speech, behaviour and so on. We can also say that a dog is faithful. Clearly there is a great difference between the faithfulness of a man or woman and that of a dog, yet there is a recognisable similarity or analogy –otherwise, we would not think of the dog as faithful.’ John Hick

Answer 42

.The basic idea is that we possess qualities like those of God (goodness, wisdom, faithfulness) because we were created in his image and likeness, but because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God

Answer 43

- The basic idea is that we possess qualities like those of God (goodness, wisdom, faithfulness) - But because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God - It does mean however, that we can use human terms about God but we must always use them proportionately - We must extend upwards when talking about God

Answer 44

.God surpasses human understanding and speech: God cannot be understood through human understanding, and so cannot be spoken about through human speech .He who knows God: Those who know of God and have studied him .Whatever he thinks and says falls short of what God really is: We can never really express what God is, it will always not be enough, because human understanding and speech cannot express what God truly is

Answer 45

.Aquinas believed it was possible to work out the nature of God by examining his creation .Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument was that the world was created and sustained by God and for him, the link between creator and created order was clear .In the analogy of attribution, Aquinas takes as his starting points the idea that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect .He then goes on to argue that all beings in the universe in some way imitate God according to their mode of existence

Answer 46

.Ian Thomas Ramsey was a British Anglican Bishop and academic .He was professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Oxford .He was Bishop of Durham from 1966 until his death in 1972 .He wrote extensively on the problem of religious language, Christian ethics, the relationship between science and religion, and Christian apologetics

Answer 47

.Ramsey suggested that words and titles applied to God function as ‘models’, thereby agreeing with Aquinas

Answer 48

.By this, Ramsey meant that words tell us something about God, but not the whole story, just as models in everyday life help us to understand something .Models, by nature of being models, tend to be simpler than the original of which they are based on .Ramsey acknowledged this point and said that models always need to be qualified – he used the word ‘qualifiers’ .By ‘qualifiers’, Ramsey meant that every model has some limits .For example, a model is not necessarily like the original in all respects, or perhaps does not communicate all of the depth or complexity of the original

Answer 49

.To understand the workings of the human mind, it could be compared to a computer .The actual brain is like the hardware, and the memories an ideas the software (installed from upbringing and education) .However, the model of the brain needs qualifiers such as: - The brain is not made of microchip circuits as is a computer - The brain cannot be programmed in the way a computer can be .But still, the analogy can help us to understand something of the functioning of the brain

Answer 50

real insight and understand more clearly what is being talked about

Answer 51

.He applied this idea of functions and models to religion, suggesting that when we use religious language to describe God, the language functions as a model .If we say that God is good, the model is the word goodness .As humans, we have an understanding of the nature of goodness, and when applied to God it is a model for our understanding of the nature of God’s goodness .As we are dealing with God, the model word requires adaptation, and so ‘qualifiers’ .God cannot literally be ‘good’ in our sense of the word, and so we need to qualify the statement with the term ‘infinitely’ .The statement now reads ‘God is infinitely good’ .In this way, we can develop a greater insight into the nature of God’s goodness

Answer 52

.A model is an analogy to help us express something about God. It is the object we use by means of analogy to help us understand something

Answer 53

.The qualifier is a word or statement that we attach to the model to make sure we are speaking adequately about God

Answer 54

.By adding qualifiers, it will make us think of God’s goodness or God’s power in greater depth until eventually we have a better insight into what God is like

Answer 55

* Ramsey suggested that words and titles applied to God function as ‘models’ * The ‘model’ tells us something about God but not everything * The model then needs to be qualified * If we say that God is good, the model is the word goodness * However, as we are dealing with God, the model word requires adaptation, thus the term "qualifiers" * We can then qualify the word by adding the term ‘infinitely’ * In this way, we can develop a greater insight into the nature of God's goodness

Answer 56

.Analogy allows us to use things in our frame of reference to understand something outside it .For example, if we look at William Paley’s analogy of the watch we are given a frame in which we can understand God as a designer of the world .The analogy refers to something understandable in our world in order to gain understanding of God beyond our world .Likewise, Plato’s analogy of the cave was an excellent way in which we could speak meaningfully about the metaphysical concept of the world of forms

Answer 57

.Analogy has an empirical base – the world .This means that if we accept that God created the world as Aquinas did then we can use the world in our language to describe God .The analogy of attribution therefore works on the premise that as God is the creator we can use terms such as good or loving for God because God is the source of goodness and love .This would appeal to empiricist scholars such as Aristotle who would argue that ‘a posteriori’ evidence is far more reliable

Answer 58

.Analogy avoids anthropomorphising God .It does this because the words used about God are not meant to be taken literally .This means that when we use a human term such as ‘seeing’ when describing God’s omniscience this is purely to make humans aware of God’s abilities .We should not take it literally .Therefore, it helps humans understand the nature of God as a transcendent being .Anselm and Boethius would recognise Aquinas’ views because they provide humans with a way of understanding God’s timelessness

Answer 59

.Analogy is helpful because it can explain difficult concepts such as God’s agapeic love .Agape is a form of unconditional love used by the situationist Joseph Fletcher .When we use the term ‘agape’ it can be difficult to conceptualise (understand) how this love is shown .Therefore, an analogy such as the love between a mother and child is one way in which God’s agapeic love can be shown

Answer 60

.Aquinas based his work upon a number of assumptions that came from his religious belief .Obviously, he believed that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of the earth (as shown in his 5 Ways) and he also believed that humans were created ‘in the image and likeness of God’ as is stated in Genesis .The idea that we were created has been refuted implicitly by Darwin and explicitly by Richard Dawkins .If one doesn’t accept his assumptions, one doesn’t have to accept the idea that we can work out what God is like by examining a creation that may or may not be his

Answer 61

.If the world comprises evil, does this mean that God possess these qualities as well? .John Stuart Mill argued against the concept of God as the designer and creator of the world due to the existence of natural evil .If we can use analogies from the world to work out what God is like then Mill would argue that it reveals a very evil and sinister side of God .Therefore, analogy is not the best way to speak meaningfully about God

Answer 62

.The Logical Positivists (such as A.J. Ayer) were a group of scholars who argued that any language used about God is not meaningful so it is not effective .No cognitive / factual meaning arises from this type of religious language .The object one is trying to illustrate by use of analogy cannot be empirically verified, therefore the object of the statement is meaningless .In simpler terms, if I use a statement such as God is powerful I should be able to demonstrate the meaningfulness of this statement with clear evidence .Analogy does not directly speak about God so we are unable to provide the evidence necessary.

Answer 63

.Patrick Sherry points out the believers usually use religious claims literally not analogically .Christians who accept the ‘sola scriptura’ view would argue words and statements written about God in the Bible were written literally not analogically .Therefore, analogy is not helpful if you adopt this approach as it is easier and more meaningful to speak about God directly

Answer 64

.Born in Germany .Served as a army Chaplain in WW1 .Became a founder member of Religious Socialism .Became an academic and held a number of university posts .Expressed opposition to Nazi policies and was removed from post of professor at Frankfurt University .Fled to the US where he obtained employment at Union Theological Seminary, Harvard, University of Chicago

Answer 65

.He believed that it is possible to speak meaningfully about metaphysical concepts and came up with the theory that religious language, because it is symbolic in nature, has a profound effect upon humans

Answer 66

.He argues that signs do no participate in what they symbolize .This means that without knowing what the sign means, they would make no sense .All signs do it point to a statement, such as ‘attention: take care’, they have no other effect .In contrast, symbols are powerful and they actually take part in the power and meaning of what they symbolize .If you look at the cross, this is the symbol of Christianity .Not only does it stand as a marker for that religion, it also makes a powerful statement .It immediately reminds Christians of the sacrifice they believe Jesus made on the cross for them .It also remind them of their beliefs about God and his plan for the salvation of human beings .In this way, symbols communicate much more powerfully with us .Tillich believed that religious language operates as symbol

Answer 67

- They point to something beyond themselves - They participate in that to which they point - They open up levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us - They open up the levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality

Answer 68

.They can have a deep and profound effect upon us that we can only explain in a limited way, and the explanation would only really be understood by someone else who has seen that same work of art .Also symbols, like works of art, can open up new level of reality for us and offer a new perspective on life

Answer 69

.’Being-Itself’ is that which everything else depends for its being and Tillich believed that we came to knowledge of this through symbols which direct us to it

Answer 70

... but the description is useless without having the painting there.”

Answer 71

.Tillich believes that Religious Language works in the same way, it is possible to describe God but the description become more meaningful with a visual symbol

Answer 72

symbolic | literal

Answer 73

fundamental truths truths

Answer 74

.He uses the example of a flag as a symbol as it “participates in the power of the king or the nation for which it stands and which it symbolises” .A nations flag symbolises the power, strength and unity of the country it represents

Answer 75

the red candle which always burns in a Catholic Church is symbolic of the presence of God .When the candle is lit, Christians believe that God is present with them

Answer 76

first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, symbolic of God’s eternal nature

Answer 77

the letters represent the words, the fish is also symbolic of Jesus making his disciples “fishers of men”

Answer 78

symbolic of sacrifice and resurrection

Answer 79

symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus made as it links with the story of the Passover from the Old Testament

Answer 80

= a visual representation of the idea that God is one yet three (the father, the son and the holy spirt)

Answer 81

symbolic of God’s presence within the tabernacle

Answer 82

a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood that were given as a sacrifice

Answer 83

.A sign is often just an indicator of something – it is information giving .A symbol is something more, it elicits a response, it evokes participation in the intended meaning, it points to something beyond themselves, and it may be understood on a variety of levels

Answer 84

... points to an invisible metaphysical reality and participates in it.”

Answer 85

1. They point to something beyond themselves –they are more than just a sign and carry a greater and deeper meaning. 2. They participate in that to which they point – they encourage people to respond. They communicate the values of a group or a community. 3. Symbols open up levels of reality that otherwise are closed to us – help us understand difficult concepts such as transcendence and timelessness. Concepts that may be ineffable. 4. They also open up the levels and dimensions of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality – connect people with God. They are linked to the metaphysical rather than the material world.

Answer 86

.Symbols cannot be produced intentionally, they grow gradually from the unconscious mind of man (or a culture) .They have a place in a culture and grow and die like living things, they die when they no longer have any meaning for the culture

Answer 87

Twelve of the lambs represent the twelve disciples who were given the task of passing on Jesus’ message .The lamb in the centre with a halo represents Jesus who is known as the lamb of God .It links back to the Passover story in the book of Exodus .Jesus will be sacrificed to save the world like the lambs were sacrificed to save the Jewish slaves

Answer 88

.The tree and vines are symbolic of how the message of Christianity will grow and spread throughout the world .The tree is the tree of life and vines/branches will grow as the Jesus’ message is passed on

Answer 89

.The hand represents God reaching out to his son Jesus and taking him to heaven .Following Jesus’ death on the cross it is believed that Jesus rose again .The hand shows God’s power to overcome death

Answer 90

.This symbol represents the devil and how Jesus’ sacrifice overcomes death .The serpent/snake comes from the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis .Eve was tempted by the serpent and they ate from the tree of knowledge .This led to God banishing them from Eden

Answer 91

.This symbol represents the Greek term for Christ .It is one of the earliest Christian symbols and was used by the Roman Emperor Constantine following a dream about the symbol .He attached the symbol to his armies shields and was victorious in battle

Answer 92

.Jesus on the cross is a symbol of the sacrifice that he made .Christians believe that Jesus’ death was a saving act .This means that his death on the cross opened heaven for all people .This is why the cross is linked between heaven and earth.

Answer 93

.These are the first and last Greek letters of the alphabet .They symbolise the Christian belief that God is eternal .This means that God has always existed and will always exist .He has no beginning or end

Answer 94

.These figures represent important people in the history of the Church .The prophets foretold of Jesus as the Messiah .St Peter was the first disciple of Jesus to spread the message of Christianity and was the first Pope .St Paul spread the message of Christianity throughout the Roman empire

Answer 95

.J.R. Randall–The significance of symbols .Religious language is a human activity which makes a special contribution to human culture .Religious language has a unique function –it is able to stir strong emotion and binds communities together through a common response to faith .It is also a way in which we can come to a greater understanding of God .The concept of God may be difficult to understand so symbols provide us with an insight into these difficult ideas

Answer 96

.Paul Tillich would argue that symbols play an incredibly important part in the Christian faith .Symbols always point beyond themselves .For example, the red candle that continually burns in a Catholic Church is symbolic of the presence of God .When the candle is lit Christians believe that God is present with them .Likewise, the Lamb of God = symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus made as it links with the story of the Passover from the Old Testament

Answer 97

Life is more than just facts .Life is not just factual and intellectual; it is also emotional and symbols best describe this .They help us describe the indescribable, for example Heaven or God Himself .Tillich believes they unlock dimensions of our soul that would otherwise remain closed .If we accept the soul as some part of our mind (brain) then symbols could be the key to unlocking something that we find difficult to understand

Answer 98

.Paul Tillich maintained that religious language is a symbolic way of pointing towards the ultimate reality (God) .Tillich uses the example of a painting .He says: “it is possible to describe a painting but the description is useless without having the painting there.” .Tillich believes that religious language works in the same way .It is possible to describe God but the description becomes more meaningful with a visual symbol

Answer 99

.Symbols can change over time .Tillich acknowledged this problem; that the power of symbols changes through time .For example, consider the swastika symbol .It began as a Hindu symbol used to represent good fortune, luck and wellbeing .However, the symbol has changed dramatically due to its association with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party .Therefore, symbols might not offer the correct understanding of God that they were originally intended to have

Answer 100

.God is beyond human understanding .Paul Tillich argues that religious symbols successfully point to an understanding of God which is beyond our human understanding .The phrase ‘beyond human understanding’ however, highlights that no form of human language (symbols included) could give insight to God .If God exists transcendently then no matter how hard we try to understand him, we will always fail.

Answer 101

.Symbols may give incorrect or no insight into God .How can we be sure that people gain the same understanding / meaning from a symbol? .For example, the sanctuary lamp found within a Catholic Church is a light which is constantly lit .This symbol highlights the presence of God within a Church .For a Roman Catholic this is a terrifically important symbol and one that highlights God’s omnipresence .However, for a non-religious person the candle is a light, nothing more .Therefore, it does not point beyond its original function

Answer 102

.Paul Edwards argues symbols do not convey factual knowledge so are meaningless .Tillich argues symbols direct people to things beyond the symbol and lead people to revelations about one’s faith .However, the truth of revelation cannot be verified or falsified using empirical evidence .If symbols cannot be verified or falsified, they do not contain factual knowledge and so are meaningless .In simpler terms, symbols are inventions created by humans to represent certain things .They are therefore subjective, open to interpretation and cannot establish any truth

Answer 103

.William Alston argues that symbols are meaningless because we don't know whether they're true or not .Symbols have been created by humans to help us understand the transcendent reality of God .However, if God is transcendent then how are we to know if these symbols are correct?

Answer 104

.1920’s a group of philosophers developed a form of scientific reasoning known as logical positivism .The original members were all native German speakers .They were nearly all trained as scientists and mathematicians, not as philosophers .The meetings regularly took place in Vienna and so they became to be known as the Vienna circle .The group was founded by Moritz Shlick .They were heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein .They influenced many philosophers of religion, including A J Ayer, the Verificationists, Antony Flew, and the Falsificationists

Answer 105

speak in a language that is nonesense

Answer 106

freeing people from this factually meaningless chatter by applying some of the principles of science to language

Answer 107

.They published a manifesto entitled ‘The Scientific View of the World’, which sought to prove that religious language was never meaningful

Answer 108

.They argued that sentences could only be factually meaningful if it were possible to check whether they were true or false

Answer 109

analytical and synthetic

Answer 110

- E.g. A triangle has three sides, all husbands are married - These sort of statements don’t tell us much about the world, they simply tell us what words mean - They are factually meaningful as you can check that they are true by analysing the words being used (hence the term analytic) - They are true by definition and these definitions can be checked by looking in a dictionary - You can also establish whether they are false with some sort of analysis

Answer 111

- E.g. My RE teacher has bad breath, if I punch you on the nose it will break and become distorted - These statements are also trying to say something about the world - They are factually meaningful as their truth or falsity can also be checked

Answer 112

1. Strong verification principle 2. Weak verification principle 3. Falsification principle

Answer 113

.The principle states that statements which attempt to say something about the world (make factual statements) are only meaningful if their truth or falsity can be conclusively proved (verified) by either experience or observation

Answer 114

.... know in which conditions he calls the statement true or false; if he is unable to state this, then he does not know what he has said. A statement which cannot be verified conclusively is not verifiable at all: it is just devoid of meaning.’

Answer 115

we have no way of verifying whether or not these statements are meaningful

Answer 116

... it cannot even be probable that God exists. For to say that ‘God exists’ is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.’

Answer 117

there is no way of empirically verifying his existence

Answer 118

as none of them conclusively and empirically prove the existence of God

Answer 119

.However, for many logical positivists, even A.J. Ayer himself, the problem with this strong principle is that since the requirement is for conclusive proof through observation or experience then it condemns as meaningless too many sentences that are obviously meaningful .In other words, many statements that we make such as ‘Dinosaurs lived on the earth’ can’t be verified through observation or experience so we cannot accept the statement as meaningful

Answer 120

.Take the statement ‘all sweaty socks stink’ .Most people would probably accept that this statement is meaningful and correct .However, The Strong Version of the Verification Principle would condemn it as factually meaningless because I am unable to conclusively verify it as true by either observation or experience because conclusive proof could only be obtained if I could experience (smell) all past, present and future sweaty socks in the entire world .It is these sorts of problems which produced a Weaker Version of the Verification Principle

Answer 121

.The weaker verification principle attempted to address the apparent flaws of the strong version by making two modifications .These modifications are associated with A J Ayer as he later began to realise that the strong sense of verification “had no possible application”

Answer 122

Modification 1: .It recognised that it is not always possible in practice to gather all the evidence required for conclusive proof .So it asserted that statements which attempt to say something about the world are meaningful if it is possible in principle to gather the evidence .i.e. do we know how such statements could be verified? Modification 2: .It is also recognised that conclusive proof is not always possible .So it asserted that statements which attempt to say something about the world are factually meaningful if experience and observation can establish statements as probable

Answer 123

.For example, that statement ‘All sweaty socks stink’ is now a factually meaningful statement because: a) Although in practice I can’t smell all of the past, present and future sweaty socks I know in principle what would be required to verify this statement b) Although I can’t produce conclusive proof I am now only obliged to produce evidence that makes the statement probable and so I could simply smell a limited number of sweaty socks and conclude that a characteristic of all sweaty socks is that they probably stink

Answer 124

directly indirectly

Answer 125

.Direct verification meant a statement that is verifiable by an observation .If you ask the question: are post-boxes red? You can verify the answer by observing post boxes .Indirect verification meant a statement that is verifiable if we have direct evidence to support it .For example, a scientist predicts the existence of a black hole in space, however, black holes can’t be directly observed, and instead we can look for other evidence which suggest black holes exist such as a lack of light in an area of space

Answer 126

.The Strong Verification Principle offers clear parameters to verifying a statement .Either it can be verified empirically via experience or it is a tautology (true by definition) .In each of these cases we can be clear on whether a statement is meaningful or not

Answer 127

.The principle would be supported by the arguments of John Locke and David Hume .As empiricists they would argue that truth and knowledge were to be known via our senses .This form of reasoning goes back to Aristotle who argued that we can and should trust our sense experience when reaching conclusions about reality

Answer 128

.A.J. Ayer would argue that the strength of the principle is that it is not just an argument against God and his existence; both the agnostic and atheist are making meaningless statements .Therefore, we should not dismiss the principle just because it challenges religion .The principle can and should be applied to all forms of meaningless statements

Answer 129

.Weak verification is A. J. Ayer's contribution .It states that in order to be meaningful, a statement may not be verifiable but instead can be shown to be true within reasonable doubt .Weak verification means we can make statements about history, scientific theories and human emotion but not religion and ethics .For example, if we know in principle how to verify a statement then it is meaningful or if the probability weighs in favour of the statement then it is meaningful (all sweaty socks stink)

Answer 130

.John Hick would argue that the verification principle is not successful .He suggested that God talk is not meaningless because its truth is verifiable in principle (weak verification), thus meeting the conditions of verificationism .In other words, we can use the process of weak verification to make meaningful statements about God and religion .(See additional notes on the Celestial City)

Answer 131

.Richard Swinburne criticised the verification principle for excluding many areas of knowledge .For example, it is not possible to talk meaningfully about history using the strong verification principle as no sense-observation can confirm historical events .In addition, you cannot say water boils at 100 degrees centigrade because there is always the possibility of repeating the test one more time and obtaining a different result .This led to Anthony Flew proposal of the falsification principle

Answer 132

.Theologian and Philosopher Vincent Brummer argues that to treat sentences of faith as if they were scientific sentences is to commit an error of understanding .Brummer, like D.Z. Phillips before him. believes that scholars such as Hume and Dawkins are wrong to assume that if something is not scientific or measurable that it is somehow not significant .We should not say that the entire contents of reality can be possibly known to science

Answer 133

.The philosopher Karl Popper was the inspiration behind the falsification principle and he pointed out that if meaning depended upon strong or weak verification then the whole of science would be wiped out .This is because none of the general laws of science are actually verifiable. .We can never accept any statement as verifiable .Instead, we can only accept a statement up to the point where it is falsified .Therefore, the verification principle is not successful

Answer 134

.This third principle asserts that statements which attempt to say something about the world are credible only if it is possible to say what would make the statement false .i.e. what sort of evidence could count against the statement?

Answer 135

.The philosopher Karl Popper was the inspiration behind this principle and he pointed out that if meaning depended upon verification then the whole of science would be wiped out because none of the general laws of science are actually verifiable

Answer 136

.At a constant temperature the volume of a given quantity of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure of the gas (Boyle’s Law) .Now this law was arrived at by observing a large but limited number of occasions when gas behaved in this way .Data was then collected and patterns of behaviour began to emerge from which Boyle’s law was constructed .Popper pointed out that the actual scientific law itself has not been verified and that’s because no number of observations can verify a general statement because it may well be that gas has behaved in this way each time a scientist has observed it but this is no guarantee that it always has or always will .Logical positivists who accept this third principle allow scientific laws (and all general statements) to be defined as credible because it asserts that what gives reliability to a sentence is not whether it can be verified but whether it is capable of being falsified .Boyle’s Law is therefore convincing because one example of gas not behaving according to its assertions would count as evidence against the law and so it is capable of being falsified

Answer 137

empirical evidence false religious language

Answer 138

.We may see hundreds of white swans but this does not prove the statement .However, when we see one black swan we know that the proposition is false .Statements such as “All swans are white” are credible because they can be shown to be false .This statement is synthetic and empirically testable .Flew argued that religious people tend to refuse the possibility that their statement can be falsified and so make their statements vacuous (empty)

Answer 139

... a God who loves human beings. But apparently they are unwilling to allow anything to count against these claims. The claims seem unfalsifiable. Are they then, genuine claims? Flew does not dogmatically declare that they cannot be, but he evidently has his doubts. ‘Sophisticated religious people’, he says, ‘tend to refuse to allow, not merely that anything actually does occur, but that anything conceivably could occur, which would count against their theological assertions and explanations’.

Answer 140

.What Flew is protesting about, is a tendency he observed amongst religious believers to shift the goalposts of statements about God .For example, one might start by saying ‘God loves all humans’ .If one were to witness a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat, one would be right to use that as evidence to falsify the claim that God loves humans .Religious believers, Flew observed, would then retort ‘...but God loves humans in an inscrutable way, a different way to the way we love.’ .For Flew, this second statement is vacuous (NOTE THAT FLEW DOES NOT USE THE TERM MEANINGLESS), because it doesn’t allow for anything to falsify it .The famous example used to illustrate this point, is that of John Wisdom’s gardener

Answer 141

* 2 men return to a long neglected garden * Some of the plants have grown and flowered * One man believes that a Gardner has been coming and tending to the plants * Upon enquiry they find out that no one has been to the garden * The man believes that someone came when they were asleep * Other man says no, someone would have heard them and why would there be weeds * The first man believes there is purpose and arrangement and someone invisible to mortal eyes tends to the garden * The other man believes no one has been in the garden * They have the same experience but interpret it differently

Answer 142

because the explorer making the claim will not accept any kind of evidence that could count against the assertion .In other words, his claims cannot be falsified and therefore his statement cannot and should not be accepted

Answer 143

because religious believers do not accept any evidence against them .These constant qualifications render religious statements meaningless because they die the “death by a thousand qualifications"

Answer 144

The garden – The world in which we live The Flowers – Design, order, purpose and beauty in the world The weeds – Evil and suffering in the world / chance events The Gardener – God The differences between the two people in the garden – Religious person and an atheist (logical positivist)

Answer 145

* Anthony Flew would argue that most religious claims are empirically empty. * He believes this because they cannot be falsified by any evidence. * If you keep adjusting or qualifying then the argument is vacuous (empty) . * He says this is particularly true with religious claims. Religious language always leads to believers shifting the goal posts to accommodate their faith. * This movement or qualification means the argument is unfalsifiable which means it is flawed (it is an unsound argument).

Answer 146

* Flew argues that religious statements are vacuous because religious believers do not accept any evidence against them. * These constant qualifications render religious statements empty because they die the “death by a thousand qualifications”. * In other words, the religious person weakens their own argument by the constant qualification. * Others will reject the original statement as vacuous (empty) due to this constant unwillingness to accept the truth.

Answer 147

the theory of ‘bliks’

Answer 148

‘A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, "You see, he doesn’t really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?" But the lunatic replies "Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning; he’s really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you." However, many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is the same.’

Answer 149

.Like the person who believes in the invisible gardener in Flew’s version of Wisdom’s parable, the paranoid student cannot imagine being wrong; his statement ‘all dons want to murder him’ is unfalsifiable. .And yet, Hare argues that this belief remains very meaningful. .Thus a ‘blik’ is a particular view about the world that may not be based upon reason or fact and that cannot be verified or falsified; it just is and we don’t need to explain why we hold our ‘blik’. .Hare talked about trusting in the metal of a car; this ‘blik’ about the car meant that we would quite happily drive or be driven in a car, because we have the ‘blik’ that the metal is strong and that it is safe to drive at high speed in the car .Hare said that people either have the right or sane ‘blik’ or the wrong or insane ‘blik’; the lunatic above has the wrong ‘blik’ about dons, whereas his friends have the right ‘blik’. .So Hare argues that it is possible to assent to a proposition which is not falsifiable but which is nonetheless meaningful .According to Hare we all have fundamental beliefs or principles on which we base our actions and which we will never give up

Answer 150

“A member of the resistance movement is met one day by a man claiming to be the leader of the resistance movement. The fighter is suitably impressed and pledges his loyalty to the stranger. As time goes on, the fighter sees the ‘leader’ helping out the resistance, but at other times he is apparently helping out the enemy. The fighter nevertheless carries on in his belief that the stranger is in fact the leader of the resistance movement”

Answer 151

that religious belief and therefore religious language was based upon fact, although they are not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable

Answer 152

.Mitchell’s parable is different to Hare’s, as Hare’s lunatic a) has no reason for mistrusting dons and b) will allow nothing to count against his belief .Mitchell’s fighter however, is a) willing to admit that things count against his belief in the leader (a symbol of God) and b) grounds his belief in reason and fact: he trusts this man who claims to be leader and has examples of him fighting for the resistance .Mitchell claimed that Flew missed the point that believers have a prior commitment to trust in God based on faith, and for this reason do not allow evidence to undermine their faith

Answer 153

.Mitchell’s point is that religious belief is based upon facts, but that belief cannot be verified/falsified in the simplistic way demanded by the logical positivists .Of course, the stranger in the story will be able to reveal his true allegiance after the war and explain his mysterious behaviour, in the same way that all the peculiar and problematic parts of religious belief will be revealed at the end of time according to traditional religious belief

Answer 154

.This states that at the end of time (eschaton, hence eschatological) all the parts of religious belief that require faith will be made clear by God: just because they cannot be verified now, they will be verified in the future. Hick is, in a way, using the weak verification principle in reverse

Answer 155

“Two people are travelling along a road. One of them believes that it leads to the Celestial City, the other that it leads nowhere; but since this is the only road there is, both must travel it. Neither have been this way before; therefore, neither is able to say what they will find around each corner. Duringtheir journey they meet with moments of refreshment and delight and with moments of hardship and danger. All the time one of them thinks of the journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City. She interprets the pleasant parts as encouragements and the obstacles as trials of her purpose and lessons in endurance, prepared by the sovereign of that city and designed to make of her a worthy citizen of the place when at last she arrives. The other however, believes none of this, and sees their journey as an unavoidable and aimless ramble. Since he has no choice in the matter, he enjoys the good and endures the bad. For him there is no Celestial City to be reached, no all-encompassing purpose ordaining their journey; there is only the road itself and the luck of the road in good weather and in bad.”

Answer 156

.Now during the journey these two travellers are faced with the same facts and none of these facts can verify which of their views about the journey is right .However, according to Hick that doesn’t mean that the words they use to describe their views in the journey are meaningless because when the journey is finished there is the possibility of verification .i.e. if they came face to face with the Celestial City then the believers view would have been prove correct .Hick’s point is that Christianity believes that our journey through this life will not simply end up in the grave .It asserts that life will continue after death in a new dimension referred to as either heaven or hell .This, argues Hick, hold out the possibility of eschatological verification (verification after death) .In other words if I find myself in Heaven or even Hell then the religious language of Christianity will have been verified

Answer 157

.This was a lecture/debate presented by Anthony Flew .In response were the scholars R.M. Hare and Basil Mitchell .Each scholar uses a parable to present their view that religious language is not vacuous and can and does have meaning .John Hick involves himself in the debate at a later date

Answer 158

.A university student believes his professors are all going to kill him .Even when presented with clear evidence that this is not true the student still believes they want to kill him .However much evidence is presented the student still believes he is in danger

Answer 159

.R.M. Hare came up with a challenge known as ‘bliks’ .A ‘blik’ is a view about the world that may not be based upon reason or fact and that cannot be verified or falsified .Although it can’t be verified or falsified doesn’t mean it isn’t of value .He uses the parable of the paranoid student to make his point .The students ‘blik’ may be false but it still has an impact on his life .Therefore, religious language does have meaning and the challenge from the logical positivist is unsuccessful

Answer 160

.A student believes his professors are all going to kill him, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented

Answer 161

.A member of the resistance is met by a man claiming to be part of the resistance movement .He is impressed and pledges loyalty .As time goes on the loyalty is tested but the fighter maintains his belief

Answer 162

.Mitchell disagreed with the theory of ‘bliks’ and suggested another way .He said religious language was based upon facts but they were not easily verified or falsified .He uses the parable of the resistance fighter – religious people have a prior faith commitment to God and therefore accept statements about God without reservation .Mitchell’s fighter accepts evidence against his belief in the leader but also grounds his opinion in facts he has observed .Therefore, religious statements are meaningful even if they appear to be falsified

Answer 163

.A resistance fighter meets a man claiming to be part of the resistance movement, the fighter trusts him even when the loyalty is tested

Answer 164

.Two people travelling along a road .One believes it leads to a celestial city whereas the other does not .They interpret their journey differently. One thinks they have a reward at the end whereas the other thinks there is nothing .Proof will only arrive when and if they arrive

Answer 165

.John Hick uses the ‘weak verification’ principle put forward by A.J. Ayer .At the end of time (eschaton, hence eschatological) all the parts of religious belief that require faith will be made clear by God .He uses the parable of the celestial city - Now during the journey these two travellers are faced with the same facts and none of these facts can verify which of their views about the journey is right .If you find yourself in Heaven or even Hell then the religious language of Christianity will have been verified .We can verify religious statements ‘in principle’ as there will be a time where they are proved one way or the other

Answer 166

.Two people are travelling along a road, one believes it leads somewhere special but the other does not, because of this they interpret their journey differently, who is right will only be shown at the end

Answer 167

.Anthony Flew appeals to John Wisdom’s parable of the Gardener to highlight the problems encountered with religious language .Flew is showing that many religious people may ‘qualify’ claims to suit their agenda .Flew is accusing religious people of ‘shifting the goal-posts’ .Rather than accepting empirical evidence to counter a claim they instead qualify or amend their statement so that it cannot be falsified .For example, a statement such as ‘God is love’ is falsified by the evidential problem of evil .However, scholars such as Augustine or Hick would qualify their claims appealing to theodicies

Answer 168

.By using Wisdom’s parable Flew is highlighting the unconvincing argument presented by the explorer who continues to claim that the garden has been tended to .Wisdom used the parable to show the different interpretation of the believer and non-believer .However, Flew draws a different conclusion .The explorer makes justifications but does not allow anything to falsify his claim .Instead, the explorer maintains belief in an invisible, intangible, scentless and soundless gardener rather than accepting that there is no gardener

Answer 169

.Brian Davies suggests that Flew presents a convincing argument toward religious believers and falsification .Davies puts it like this in the context of God-talk: “Religious believers make claims. They say for instance, that there is a God who loves human beings. But apparently they are unwilling to allow anything to count against these claims. The claims seem unfalsifiable.” .Davies is suggesting that due to this unwillingness any statements made about God lack any credibility

Answer 170

.According to Flew the claim ‘that there is a gardener’ loses credibility because the explorer making the claim will not accept any kind of evidence that could count against the assertion .In other words his claims cannot be falsified and therefore his statement cannot and should not be accepted .Flew argues that religious statements are damaging because religious believers do not accept any evidence against them .These constant qualifications render religious statements meaningless because they die the “death by a thousand qualifications”

Answer 171

.The philosopher RM Hare came up with a response to falsification, called the theory of ‘bliks’ .He proposes the parable of the paranoid student to show that statements can have a profound effect on our lives .Hare notes that while the student’s view can neither be proven nor disproven, it profoundly effects the student’s life .Hare talked about trusting in the metal of a car; this ‘blik’ about the car meant that we would quite happily drive or be driven in a car, because we have the ‘blik’ that the metal is strong and that it is safe to drive at high speed in the car .Even though something is unfalsifiable it has an important impact upon our lives

Answer 172

.Basil Mitchell disagreed with the theory of ‘bliks’ but suggested another way, using another parable .Mitchell claimed that religious belief and therefore religious language was based upon fact, although they are not straightforwardly verifiable or falsifiable .He used the idea of a resistance fighter to make his point .Mitchell claimed that Flew missed the point that believers have a prior commitment to trust in God based on faith, and for this reason do not allow evidence to undermine their faith

Answer 173

.John Hick’s eschatological verification can be used to challenge the views of Flew .Hick’s point is that Christianity believes that our journey through this life will not simply end up in the grave .It asserts that life will continue after death in a new dimension referred to as either heaven or hell .This, argues Hick, hold out the possibility of eschatological verification (verification after death). In other words, if I find myself in Heaven or even Hell then the religious language of Christianity will have been verified

Answer 174

.Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic and the philosophy of language

Answer 175

.His teacher Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating"

Answer 176

that the purpose of language was to enable people to live a particular form of life .Language is a tool to picture the speaker’s world and each word is like a picture .The meaning in language is based on the role the word has in a particular language game

Answer 177

.The word fork has no meaning on its own, it depends on the context .For example, in the language game of a kitchen it has one meaning but in the language of motorists is has another meaning

Answer 178

limiting analyse the use of language and find out how words are used .Through the use of words we create a view of the world

Answer 179

.For example, in a game of chess the rules state how pieces can move .However, to talk about how the queen or pawn moves only makes sense within the context of chess .The meaning of words and how words are used can only be understood if we have knowledge of the game, for example, if we have knowledge of chess .If you don’t follow the rules of language (grammar, syntax) then you’ll be talking nonsense .To say that a king can move one square in any direction is an instruction that only makes sense in chess

Answer 180

they are part of that language game as they are not part of the game

Answer 181

.This is because it is a language game and as such the language of religious belief is meaningful to people who are part of that religion .Therefore, to understand the religious language of a person, you need to be part of their religion, otherwise you won’t have a clue and the statement would be meaningless

Answer 182

“forms of life,”

Answer 183

that we learn how to use it in social contexts,

Answer 184

language | Reality

Answer 185

.In such an instance, there is nothing we can say or do to persuade the student otherwise because the misunderstanding lies at a deeper level than explanation can reach .Such examples do not occur in ordinary life not because there is some perfectly unambiguous explanation for “add 2” but because we share forms of life: people, on the whole, simply understand one another, and if this basic understanding were missing, communication would be impossible

Answer 186

.Wittgenstein started as part of the Vienna circle, as a Logical Positivist .He decided that this was too narrow a way of looking at meaning and language .Wittgenstein’s main point is that the meaning of a statement is to be understood not by the steps you would take to verify or falsify it, but by the context in which it is used .Wittgenstein believes that there are different contexts in which language is used .These he calls language games .Religion is one and science, for example, is another .One needs to be initiated into the terms and modes of thinking in each language game .Each language game is its own universe of discourse

Answer 187

Supporters of cognitive religious language argue that religious statements describe how the world is, and so can be true or false To say that God exists is to believe that ‘God exists’ is true Thomas Aquinas uses a cognitive approach, he uses analogy because the statements are based on empirical evidence which can be proven to be true or false

Answer 188

Supporters of non-cognitivist religious language argue that religious claims do not try to describe the world and cannot be true or false They express an attitude toward the world, a way of understanding or relating to the world, rather than a belief that is true or false Wittgenstein, like R.M. Hare, offers a non-cognitive approach, religious statements reflect people’s views/opinions/emotions about the world and don’t require empirical evidence

Answer 189

.Wittgenstein uses the phrase ‘Forms of Life’ .This is the social context in which we use words .The way in which we use language to understand each other .We share ‘forms of life’ with one another and this is how we understand one another .If we didn’t share forms of life then we would not understand each other. .Consider the messages or conversations you share with your friends, you will know and understand the language perfectly, however, I might have no idea what you are talking about

Answer 190

.The meanings of words depends on your knowledge of the ‘game’ .If you don’t follow the rules of the game then you will fail and it will be nonsense .If you are part of the game then it will have meaning for you .For example, if you know how to play chess then you are part of the language game of chess

Answer 191

.The terms like ‘God’ and ‘heaven’ are metaphysical and cannot be verified .However, they are incredibly meaningful for religious people .Metaphysical = something outside of human perception .The terms ‘God’ and ‘heaven’ are a ‘form of life’ for religious people .The words themselves contain meaning as the person is part of the ‘religious game’

Answer 192

.Overcomes the challenge of the verification principle .It captures what it means to be religious and have faith .Religious language isn’t just a philosophical idea but a way of life .Richard Braithwaite argues that religious language changes/impacts lives .Non-cognitive approach is acceptable. Much of our language is based on opinion and belief

Answer 193

.No value if you are not part of the game .If religious language is not open to all people then it be accused of being empty and vacuous from Anthony Flew .Ant- empirical – many religious people such as Aquinas would argue that religious language is empirical as it is based on observable evidence .Too much emphasis on faith and not enough on proof – this is called fideism

Answer 194

that religious language has meaning and can be verified because it results in a change in behaviour .He argues that the Logical positivists are wrong to suggest that religious language is cognitive (factual) .It is moral language that requires people to respond .The response of a person shows that it is meaningful .For example, a Christian does not need to produce Jesus’ death certificate for a statement like ‘Jesus is the resurrection and the life’ to have meaning to them .It is a person’s actions based on the statement that is important

Answer 195

... statement… will be taken as being given by the way it is used.’

Answer 196

.They are arguing that religious language is non-cognitive because the language aims to describe belief rather than fact .However, if this is accepted then we reduce religious belief to nothing .Wittgenstein and Braithwaite are suggesting that whether God exists or not is irrelevant .St Thomas Aquinas argued that the cognitive approach to religious language was best because religious people make factual statements about their belief

Answer 197

.The strong VP .Only language that can be verified through observation and experience can be meaningful .If you aren’t part of the game then the language is devoid of meaning .Likewise, the WVP .Only language that can be verified in principle or through probability is meaningful .As Wittgenstein is arguing for non-cognitive language then the Logical Positivists would reject his theory of language games

Answer 198

.Both scholars would argue that religious language is cognitive .When they make statements about God they mean them factually .In the Ontological argument Anselm said God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ and this is what he meant .It wasn’t just a description of belief .Likewise, Aquinas’ teleological and cosmological arguments were based on empirical evidence of cause and design .When he referred to God as a designer or first cause this was meant factual based on observation and experience

Answer 199

.Cognitive statements are factual statements that can be empirically tested .Analogy of attribution & proportion = we can use analogy to speak cognitively about God .We use the world as our empirical base .God’s omnipotence is factual for Aquinas as it is evidenced through the universe .As God is the creator then God is all-powerful .Aquinas’ arguments for God are ‘a posteriori’ .They are based on empirical evidence of design and cause .They are cognitive claims

Answer 200

.Non-cognitive statements express feelings, emotions and are subjective .They cannot be described as true or false .Religious language is a form of life .We describe God in ways that expresses beliefs and how we live our lives .Philips and Vardy = support language games as they help us speak meaningfully about our beliefs .Words gain meaning when applied to context .Braithwaite = religious language is about how we live life .It is meaningful and can be verified by the impact it has on people’s lives .Rel lang results in action and commitment .Christians don’t need Jesus’ birth certificate to establish meaning

Answer 201

.Wittgenstein’s theory gives believers a way to express the meaningfulness of religious language while at the same time being able to explain why it doesn’t make any impact or sense to an atheist .It overcomes the challenge proposed by the Logical Positivists because it shows that religious language can and does have meaning without the need for empirical evidence .As long as you are part of the ‘game’ then the words will have meaning

Answer 202

.Religion is a way of life .It can be said that Wittgenstein captures what is means to be religious .As religion is an activity, involving a way of life and language .For many believers their religion isn’t just a philosophical idea but a complete way of living .Richard Braithwaite also agrees with Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach .Religious language is about how we live our life and reality .Braithwaite suggested that religious language / God talk has meaning and can be verified because it results in a change in behaviour and a moral commitment to live a certain kind of life

Answer 203

.D.Z Phillips and Peter Vardy .They both state that words gain their meaning by the way they work with other words in the language game .Both these scholars argue that Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach present better ways of making sense of religious language because the language we use is a ‘Form of life’–religious language helps the believer speak meaningfully about their own faith and belief

Answer 204

.D.Z Phillips and Peter Vardy .They both state that words gain their meaning by the way they work with other words in the language game .Both these scholars argue that Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach present better ways of making sense of religious language because the language we use is a ‘Form of life’–religious language helps the believer speak meaningfully about their own faith and belief

Answer 205

.Anti-empirical .Language games (when applied to religious language) have the danger of making religious belief anti-empirical .Many religious people would claim that statements they make are actually universal and empirically true statements .This means they are open to all people and all can understand .Language Games suggest the language is not based in any truth and can only be understood by a select few .For example, when Anselm uses the statement ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ he means it factually .It is not simply a game of language.

Answer 206

Language games is simply fideism (all that is required is faith and no proof) .There is no position for a scholar to criticise because supporters of language games would simply say that it is true/meaningful because I am part of the game .In simpler terms, Nielson accuses Wittgenstein of being too simplistic .For instance, if anyone rejects a religious statement because it can’t be verified Wittgenstein could argue that it is because the person does not understand the game

Answer 207

The Logical Positivists argued that religious language is ‘meaningless’ as it can’t be verified through experience or observation. Wittgenstein proposes the idea that language can and does have value and meaning irrespective of empirical evidence. If I am part of the religious language game then religious language is a form of life I understand. For example, as a Catholic, I know that when a priest gives bread and wine it has a deeper and more significant meaning. An atheist, who is not part of the game, who not understand this. However, this does not mean the language I understand has no meaning.

Answer 208

It can be said that Wittgenstein captures what it means to be religious and have faith as religion is an activity, involving a way of life and language. And so by saying that when in the religion ‘game’, the language matters to that person then it is capturing the whole of religion and giving it all meaning.

Answer 209

Much like how religion isn’t just a philosophical idea but a way of life for many believes, the language they use to describe their ideas of religion are not just philosophical but a way of life.

Answer 210

Braithwaite agrees with Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach. He argues that religious language is about how we live our life and reality and went on to suggest that religious language has meaning as it results in a change in behaviour and a moral commitment to live a certain kind of life.

Answer 211

The non-cognitive approach expresses feelings, emotions and are subjective, they cannot be described as true or false. This is much like the language we speak on a day to day basis, and so it is acceptable.

Answer 212

Religious language only makes sense and has meaning if you are a part of the game, and so for atheists it still holds no meaning.

Answer 213

Flew argues that if a statement cannot be falsified, then it is vacuous. Since religious language is only available to those who partake in the game, then still to atheists it holds no meaning, and consequently it is vacuous.

Answer 214

Many religious people claim that statements they make are empirically true statements, this means they are open to all people to understand it. Language Games suggest the language is not based in any truth and can only be understood by a select few. For example, when Anselm uses the statement ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ he means it factually, it is not simply a game of language.

Answer 215

Kai Nielson argues that language games are simply fideism (all that is required is faith and no proof). There is no way for a scholar to criticise the language because supporters of language games would simply say that it is true/meaningful because I am part of the game. Essentially, Nielson accuses Wittgenstein of being too simplistic. For example, if anyone rejects a religious statement because it can’t be verified Wittgenstein could argue that it is because the person does not understand the game.

Answer 216

.For Aquinas, religious language puts forward factual statements about supernatural reality .This fits in with most believers understanding of what they are doing when they say God exists –they are asserting a fact .For example, when a religious person claims that God is omnipotent they are aiming to say factually that God is all-powerful

Answer 217

.Analogy has an empirical base -the world .This means that if we accept that God created the world as Aquinas did then we can use the world in our language to describe God .The analogy of attribution therefore works on the premise that as God is the creator we can use terms such as good or loving for God because God is the source of goodness and love .This would appeal to empiricist scholars such as Aristotle who would argue that ‘a posteriori’ evidence is far more reliable

Answer 218

.Analogy is helpful because it can explain difficult concepts such as God’s agapeic love .Agape is a form of unconditional love used by the situationist Joseph Fletcher .When we use the term ‘agape’ it can be difficult to conceptualise (understand) how this love is shown .Therefore, an analogy such as the love between a mother and child is one way in which God’s agapeic love can be shown .The cognitive approach is better because it conveys facts about the nature of God .Using an analogy about agape enables people to accept God’s love

Answer 219

.Analogy avoids anthropomorphising God .It does this because the words used about God are not meant to be taken literally .This means that when we use a human term such as ‘seeing’ when describing God’s omniscience this is purely to make humans aware of God’s abilities .We should not take it literally .Therefore, it helps humans understand the nature of God as a transcendent being .Anselm and Boethius would recognise Aquinas’ views because they provide humans with a way of understanding God’s timelessness .Again, the cognitive approach seems to make more sense because scholars can clearly express what they factually believe about God

Answer 220

.Ludwig Wittgenstein emphasises the role of religious language .He argued that religious language isn’t just the asserting of facts but the commitment to a way of life .In this sense, it would appear that the non-cognitive approach of Wittgenstein makes more sense .This is because much of the language used to describe the nature of God are metaphysical claims that are beyond our realm of understanding

Answer 221

.D.Z Phillips and Peter Vardy agree that words gain their meaning by the way they work with other words in the language game .Both these scholars argue that Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach present better ways of making sense of religious language because the language we use is a ‘Form of life’–religious language helps the believer speak meaningfully about their own faith and belief

Answer 222

.Richard Braithwaite also agrees with Wittgenstein’s non-cognitive approach .Religious language is about how we live our life and reality .Braithwaite suggested that religious language/God talk has meaning and can be verified because it results in a change in behaviour and a moral commitment to live a certain kind of life .Braithwaite was not concerned with whether religious statements were true or false, but with how they are used .Braithwaite believed that religious statements are moral in content and can therefore be verified, because they result in a change of behaviour

Answer 223

.Braithwaite argued that because religious statements such as ‘God is the almighty father’ result in action, they have meaning .He used the conversion of CS Lewis, who wrote the stories about Narnia, as an example of how becoming a Christian redirected the way he lived his life .Braithwaite also argued that religious belief and hence religious moral assertions are based upon a) a commitment to live a particular life as we have seen, and b) religious stories such as the life of Jesus, or the life of the Buddha .What is interesting about this is that Braithwaite claims religious people do not have to rely upon these stories as being empirically verifiable, i.e. a Christian does not have to produce Jesus’ certificate of death, and they can just use these stories as an influence

Answer 224

Arabic philosophers in Islamic philosophy (including Al Farabi (870-950), Ibn Sina (980-1037, sometimes called Avicenna) and Al Ghazali (1058-1111), but also by Christian thinkers like Aquinas' tutor, Alexander of Hales

Answer 225

uncertainty over the meaning that could be shared by the same word used in different senses

Answer 226

proportion | nature

Answer 227

equivocal | univocally

Answer 228

Tell us something about Him

Answer 229

worldly framework

Answer 230

from analogia, the Greek for proportion

Answer 231

attribution proportion Aquinas' Doctrine of Analogy

Answer 232

St Anselm and Duns Scotus

Answer 233

Maimonaides

Answer 234

.Aquinas takes a middle way, arguing that a proportion of meaning is shared through his doctrine of analogy

Answer 235

and so balanced his philosophical genius and scholarly positions with a sincere belief that Christianity was about ministering to the poor and taking the Gospel message literally

Answer 236

unequivocally

Answer 237

... at least with regard to God's possession of the pure perfections, is ultimately one of degree"

Answer 238

to a much greater degree

Answer 239

.In other words, if we believe that we can define and understand God at all, then this guarantees that the reason and language with which we define Him is a reliable means of defining and understanding Him .Denying the univocity of language would, for Scotus, deny the possibility of meaningful philosophy and religion.

Answer 240

key component of our best available concept of God and a guarantor of the success of theological language. That is, our best ontology, far from fighting with our theological semantics, both supports and is supported by our theological semantics.'

Answer 241

all things are caused and (at least for the Christian philosopher) this suggests that all things must have either been kept in being or initially have been brought into being by an "uncaused causer", which is what we call God

Answer 242

creation might reasonably reveal something about God

Answer 243

analogical

Answer 244

can we meaningfully talk about what is ‘true’ unless we can somehow establish that truth?

Answer 245

that religious claims aim to describe how the world is, and so can be true or false .Religious claims express beliefs that such-and-such is the case, to believe that God exists is to believe that ‘God exists’ is true

Answer 246

do not try to describe the world and cannot be true or false, at least in the sense of stating facts .They express an attitude toward the world, a way of understanding or relating to the world, rather than a belief that is true or false

Answer 247

stating factual claims

Answer 248

Anthony Flew, Richard Hare and Basil Mitchell discussed the meaning of religious language

Answer 249

.The ‘sceptic’ finally asks how the claim that there is such a gardener differs from the claim that the gardener is imaginary or doesn’t exist at all

Answer 250

.Flew’s point is that for a claim to be meaningful, for it to be asserting something, there must be something it is denying .In other words, there must be some way of establishing that it is false, something that leads us to withdraw the claim

Answer 251

if ‘God exists’ is a real claim, then there should be some possible experience that would lead us to accept that it is false .Something should be able to ‘count against it’, e.g. the existence of evil .If you are not prepared to accept that anything could show that God doesn’t exist, then saying ‘God exists’ states nothing at all .Flew objects that many religious believers refuse to accept that anything could show that God doesn’t exist, instead, they keep qualifying what it means to think that ‘God exists’ .For example, they might argue that the existence of evil only shows that we don’t understand God’s plans

Answer 252

cognitivism

Answer 253

on the one hand, there is a truth of the matter (whatever one believes) whether university lecturers are trying to kill you or not or whether everything happens by chance or not, so it seems bliks can be true or false, which suggests that they are cognitive, on the other hand, because bliks can’t befalsified, Hare claims that they work more like attitudes or commitments than beliefs, this would suggest that they are non-cognitive .But notice that any empirical claim which would normally be held as a (cognitive) belief (about the motives of university lecturers, the properties of steel, the explanations of science) could be held as a (non-cognitive) blik, the difference is how the person thinks about it

Answer 254

very unorthodox and fails to make sense of what religious believers actually say

Answer 255

.Mitchell accepts Flew’s cognitivism and his argument that for an empirical claim to be meaningful, we must allow something to count against it, but he disagrees with Flew’s claim that an assertion is only meaningful if we are willing to withdraw it in light of certain experiences

Answer 256

.Here he uses the analogy of the resistance fighter

Answer 257

commitment

Answer 258

we recognise that experiences can count against it

Answer 259

.We are unable to find any justification of evil that is compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good God, and, the only way out for religious believers is to qualify what they mean by God or his purpose for us .We can object, however, that this is now no longer an argument about whether religious claims are meaningful, but about whether they are true or coherent