Religious Language Flashcards
Non-cognitivism
Does not aim to literally describe how the world is - is not true or false
“ouch!”
Cognitivism
aims to literally describe how the world is
is either true or false
“triangles have three sides”
cognitivism definition
language that makes an assertion which is usually factual in nature that can be proved true or false by objective means
non-cognitive language definition
not used to express empirically knowable facts about the external world; it expresses opinions, attitudes, feelings and emotions that cannot be held up to objective scrutiny
falsifiable statements
are meaningful and capable of being true or false
unfalsifiable statements
are meaningless and nor capable of being true or false
The claim that religious language should be viewed non-cognitively is a view often associated with…
logical positivism and the verification principle
what is AJ Ayer’s theory?
verification principle
What is AJ Ayer’s verification principle?
A statement only has meaning if it is an analytic truth (a triangle has three sides) or is empirically verifiable (water boils at 100°c)
any statement that does not fir these descriptions is meaningless
What is the problem with AJ Ayer’s verification principle?
W
What is the problem with AJ Ayer’s verification principle?
Self defeating:
Ayer’s claim that “a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable is itself neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable. Therefore, according to its own criteria, the verification principle is meaningless
What is John Hick’s theory?
Eschatological Verification
In what book does John Hick introduce Eschatalogical verification?
Faith and knowledge (1966)
Eschatological verification was written as a response to…
logical positivism
What is eschatological verification?
A statement that can be verified after death or at the end of time
John Hick overall argument
Hick agrees with Ayer and Flew that “God exists” is not empirically verifiable is this life. However, Hick argues that many religious claims are about things beyond the limits of human life. He argues such religious claims are falsifiable because it is possible to verify them after we die
To illustrate that religious claim are falsifiable, what does Hick tell?
a parable of a “celestial city”
Summarise the parable of the celestial city
2 men travel on road
man a = road leads to the celestial city
man b = road leads to nowhere and the journey is meaningless
if man a is correct = eventually arrive at the celestial city
if man b is correct = they will keep going forever and neither will be proved correct
Hick’s eschatological verification conclusion
“God exists” is not necessarily meaningless as it is eschatologically verifiable
if “God exists” is true, then it can be verified after death
if “God exists” is false, then it is unfalsifiable
What is R.M Hare’s “Bliks”?
According to Hare, religious statements are not things that can just be shows to be true or false. Instead, they are part of someone’s view of the world - Hare calls these attitudes “Bliks”
To illustrate what “Bliks” are, what does Hare use?
The example of a paranoid student who thinks University lecturers are trying to kill him
“Paranoid Student” conclusion
No amount of evidence/reassurance will convince the student that his “blik” is false. In other words, their blik is unfalsifiable
According to Hare, is religious language meaningful?
Despite being unfalsifiable, Hare argues that bliks are still meaningful to the person who holds them. Hare argues that religious language is the same: “God exists” may be unfalsifiable to people who have this blik, but it clearly means something to them. For example, people who believe “God exists” might pray or go to Church - it means enough to them that it effects their behaviour
Ludwig Wittgenstein theory
(logical positivist)
Language game (German - Sprachspiel)
What are Wittgenstein’s language games?
He contends that words acquire meaning by their use - the meaning and use of language are shaped by the social activities and contexts in which it is employed
Critique of language games
- how can everyone be correct (delusion?)
- reduces the word of God to that of witches and wizards
What is the Via Negativa?
apophatic
Pseudo-Dionysus argued that God is “beyond every assertion”, beyond language. He therefore cannot be described in positive terms i.e by saying what he “is”. God can only be described negatively or “via negativa” by saying what God is “not”
Aquinas’ theory of analogy
It is possible to speak meaningfully about God by drawing analogies between human language and attributes and the divine, recognising that our language falls short of fully capturing the nature of God
What is univocal language?
Statements that have a single and unambiguous meaning for both God and humans (e.g. God’s love and my love means the same thing)
What is equivocal language
The use of words and phrases that have multiple meanings or interpretations
Why can’t we interpret God univocally and equivocally?
univocal = we are anthropomorphising him, how could words describing us apply to a transcendent and infinite being?
equivocal = It leaves us unable to understand what our words mean when applied to God since we do not know God - that would leave religious language meaningless
Analogy of attribution (Aquinas)
We can attribute qualities to the creator of a thing that are analogous to those of its creation. We humans have qualities like power, love and knowledge, so we can conclude that our creator (God) also has qualities of power, love and knowledge that are analogous to ours
Analogy of proportion
God has qualities analogous to ours but he has them in greater proportion. So God’s love/ knowledge/ power is like ours but proportionally greater
Religious language as symbolic according to Tillich
Paul Tillich thought that religious language could be meaningful by being symbolic and that most religious language was symbolic. Consider what happens when a Christian looks at a crucifix. It means something to them. A crucifix is not a word, but it still inspires meaning in the mind of a person who sees it. Tillich thinks religious language functions like that - when a person hears religious language, the effect on their mind is just like the effect of seeing a crucifix. The meaning they feel is as a result of the words functioning symbolically
