religious language Flashcards
via negativa ( apophatic way )
that since we cant understand god, the only meaningful way to talk about god is to say what god is not
via positive ( cataphatic way )
only meaningful way to speak about god is to be positive through analogy etc
pseudo-dionyisus on via negitiva
positive language limits god that’s why it can only be negative language eg god is not evil
tilich on symbols
it trys to connect minds to god not explain
maimodenies example
the ship, you can say its not a circle etc
brian davies on negative language
only allows to gain knowledge in “special cases” most cases including god is not that
Aquinas believes
you can speak about god in positive terms if we speak analogically
aqunias analogy of attribution
we can attribute qualities to the creator of a thing that are analogous to those of its creation
uses the healthy bull urine, we can then assume that the bull is healthy
so similarly humans have qualities like power and love so we can assume our creator did too
aqunias analogy of proportion
a being has a quality in a degree relative to its being a virus have a life, plant have a life, humans have life, god has live
so god is like us but proportionally greater
univocal language
words only have one meaning
equivocal language
different meanings for different people
genesis quote
we are made in gods “image and likness”
what does karl barth think the theory does
puts too much pressure on reason
brummer on gods nature
we dont know gods nature so we cannot know the way in which god is loving
tillich on symbol
most religious language has symbolic meaning rather than literal
illustration of a national flag
it isnt a random sign pointing to a country it shows power and dignity of a nation it connects citizens to their country
tilichs four elements to symbolic meaning
pointing to something beyond itself
participation
reality
soul
what are symbols about
spiritual connect eg the crucifix
randall symbols do four things
arise emotions and motivate action,
blind communities together,
communicate aspects of experience that cannot be expressed with literal meaning, evoke feelings of the divine
non-cognitive
feelings and opinions
cognitive
factual
the Vienna circle
group of philosopher’s including Ayer and wittgenstein
logical positvism
claim that only scientific language is meaningful as it has evidence
verificationism
a statement is meaningful only if empirically viable
how can language being meaningful for Ayer
if its cognitive and analytical
direct verification
a statement that is verifiable by observation
indirect verification
when a direct verifcation supports a statement which has not being verified but in principle know how to eg this is iron
hicks parable of the celestial city
one thinks city at the end while other does not by the end someone will be correct and someone will be wrong
falsificationism
a claim that is falsifiable if we can imagine what would prove it false
flews parable of the invisible gardener
explain this to someone
mitchell on religious language
religious belief actually is based on rational evidence so that religious language is cognitively meaningful
mitchells parable of the solider
explain this to someone
swinburne on meaningful stuff
everything is meaningful to different people
hare
its a blik
blik
someones unchanging belief
the paranoid student
explain
humes argument for non-cognitivism
the cognitive part of our mind is controlled or enslaved by our non-cognitive feelings
wittgenstiens language games
its only meaningful to thoses in the game!
wittgenstienian fidelism
religion is purely a matter of faith
