Religious language Flashcards
cognitive language
language that conveys factual information.
most of it’s statements are synthetic.
Non-cognitive language
Language of which it is inappropriate to ask whether it is factual or not. such language may make moral claims or it may convey emotions, give commands, etc.
Metaphysical statements
claims made about things beyond the empirical world
logical positivism
The claim that only statements of logic or those capable of proof by empirical evidence are meaningful.
According to the logical positivists what statements are meaningless.
metaphysical and religious language.
Vienna circle
A group of philosophers who met in Vienna in the early part of the twentieth century.
Their theory of logical positivism was the inspiration behind Ayer’s verification principle.
What philosopher came up the verification principle
Ayer
what are the two types of meaningful language according to Ayer
synthetic and analytic
what is verification in practice
verification in practice is possible only when statements can be conclusively established empirically.
Ayer recognised that at present we might not have sufficiently established scientific knowledge to be able to verify something.
what is verification in principle
verification in principle is possible when it can be stated what observations would make that statement verifiable in practise and doing so could be possible at some point in the future.
what did Ayer conclude
any statement unverifiable in practise or principle have no factual meaning
verification principle
For statement to be meaningful we must be able to verify if it is true
strengths of the verification principle
- the principle is straightforward
- it aligns itself with a scientific approach
- Ayer points to the need to be clear in one’s use of language.
weaknesses of the verification principle
- it’s straightforward does not mean it is right
- it makes the assumption that science tells us everything of importance about the world
- Ayer’s criticism of religious claims is not true of all religious arguments
- the verification principle itself is meaningless since it is not empirically verifiable
who came up with the falsification principle
Flew
falsification principle
A sentence is factually significant if and only if there is some sort of evidence which could falsify it
what does Flew use to support his view
parable of the Gardener
parable of the Gardener
each test carried out fails to give any empirical evidence of a gardener, but one of the two explorers insists there is one coming up with a reason for evidence not having been forthcoming
quote to support flew
religious statements undergo ‘death of a thousand qualifications.
religious statements are therefore empty
strengths of the Falsification principle
Flew point to the approach of some believers to religious beliefs: they are blinkered and refused to take seriously changes to those beliefs instead finding some excuse for God such as when faced with a small child dying of an agonising disease.
weaknesses of the falsification principle
-Many aspects of experience are not in the same category as scientific fact and have deep significance for humans: flew’s category is too rigid.
In any case it is not true that religious believers allow nothing to falsify their claims. the problem of evil makes many question or even lose their faith
Eschatological verification
Hick’s view that the facts of Christianity will be verified or falsified at death
who can you reference to Eschatological verification
Hick
what does Hick claim for religious language
- it’s claims are cognitive
- they are therefore subject to verification
what parable can be used to support Hick
his parable of the celestial city
celestial city
- there is no evidence for whether or not the road leads to a celestial city
- their views on this dictate the way they level along it
- at the end of the journey. all will be made clear.
strengths of Hicks argument
- Hicks claim that heaven is a real possibility
- it gives good support to the view that religious claims are cognitive
- whenever we describe an experience we are also interpreting it
weaknesses of Hicks argument
- this does not mean it is true or even a strong probability. atheists would dismiss the parable
- can never be falsified because of it’s nature
- might provide the basis for an argument that religious language is non-cognitive along the lines of Hare and his bliks.
counter responses to Hicks argument
- there is evidence for life after death ( near- death experiences and memories of reincarnation)
- the atheist’s claim relating to life after death is similar: it could never be falsified but never verified
who is linked to Bliks
Hare
what parable is used to support Hare and belief in bliks
parable of the lunatic
what are Bliks
interpretations/ assumptions of the world
strengths of Hare’s argument
- it explains why there are different factual claims
- explains why people are not convinced by evidence
- supports the view that religion gives a view that is used to interpret the whole of life
weaknesses of Hare’s argument
- it makes religion subjective
- most theists regard their faith statements as cognitive
Did Hare think religious language was cognitive or non-cognitive
non-cognitive
who came up with the idea of a language game
Wittgenstein
language game
Wittgenstein’s name for the idea that language has a 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 nothing to do with verification or falsification but with the context in which it occurs. each context has its own rules
what does Wittgenstein believe about language games
- words do not indicate an object but perform a function
- language games are connected to a form of behaviour
- language is something that is learned from others
- the word God is not an object
- religious language cannot be claimed to be true or false
strengths of Wittgenstein ‘s argument
- it allows a range of meaning for language rather than trying to put it in one box
- it allows for religious statements to be ‘belief in’
weaknesses of Wittgenstein ‘s argument
- it is virtually impossible to enter into debate with those coming from another language game
- most religious believers think that religious claims are also cognitive
religious language as analogical with reference to who
Aquinas
analogy
the attempt to explain the meaning of something which is hard to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference frame.
The analogy of attribution
- Despite gods essential distance from the universe it is possible to say something about him
- when God created humans he created them with the capacity for goodness on wisdom
- that goodness on wisdom all not identical with gods nature but we can say that God is good and wise
The analogy of proportionality
- This starts from the idea that created things have qualities proportionate to their nature
- humans have goodness and wisdom proportionate to their nature as human beings
- hick gave an example of proportionality of faithfulness old dogs as compared with humans which was not the same but totally different
- God is totally different from created things
- In saying that God is good and wise humans can not know what this means for God
strengths of the use of analogy in language about God
- it avoids the issues caused by the use of univocal and equivocal language
- its use of observable experience makes the language cognitive
- it encourages the believer to push beyond the limited meaning of goodness
weaknesses of the use of analogy in language about God
- what can be said of God is very limited
- Hick’s analogy does not work because neither dog nor human contain the idea of infinity
- the same approach could be used to argue for negative language about God e.g. that God is evil
- many do not agree with Aquinas’ view that evil is negative
Via negative
The approach to religious language that describes God in terms of what he is not
Apophatic language
is about making statement’s about God in terms of what he is not
The negative language used by the via negativa approach.
Kataphatic langauge
the use of positive terms about God.
pseudo-Dionysius
pseudo-dionysius developed the via negativa to emphasise God as completely beyond human understanding and to ensure that no language was used that could limit him.
- he was a mystic so it fitted in with this
- it cannot be said that God is good because humans do not know what this means
- pseudo-dionysius claimed god was nameless yet at the same time has the names of everything that is
what does Maimonides say ?
- humans can know that God exists but that is all
- he believed that to use positive aspects such as power in reference to God was to limit and in fact reduce him
- he described the nature of a ship using only negative statements
strengths of the via negativa
- it avoids making God a thing
- it avoids anthropomorphism
- it is true to the mystical experience of god as ineffable
weaknesses of the via negativa
- most people want to say positive things about God
- the end result of such language might not be the God of theism
- this language might be helpful to mystics
religious language as symbolic with reference to who
Tillich
what does Tillich say about symbolic language
- signs are forms of communication, pointing to something, but symbols go much deeper
- symbols can die or change their meaning, and they many not be meaningful to everyone
- God is the meaning behind all that exist
- religious symbols speak to a believer
- symbols affirm something positive about God
strengths of the use of symbolic language about God
- it avoids the danger of anthropomorphism
- it permits the use of one literal statement about what is meant by God without the need for metaphysical concepts
- it reflects what is known through religious experience and so helps us to understand what is meant by sin
weaknesses of the use of symbolic language about god
- Tillich’s idea of symbols participating in reality in not at all clear
- the abstract concept of God as ‘being-itself’ is not held by most Christians
- most things people want to say about God come from rational thought
Equivocal
this is when a word has different meanings in different situations
univocal
this is when a word means the same thing each time
is Wittgenstein’s approach cognitive or non cognitive
non cognitive.
he says the language has meaning in context
is Eschatological verification cognitive or non cognitive
cognitive
he claims they can be verified empirically
