Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

RS Year 2 > Religious Language > Flashcards

Religious Language Flashcards

1
Q

religious language

A

propositions like ‘god created the world’ or concepts like ‘heaven’ or ‘sin’
- ritual and emotional and ethical language use may have a different function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is the problem of religious language for abrahamic religions

A
  • problem for Abrahamic religions as it can undermine them
  • they proclaim truths on God in written texts and oral teachings –> speech on God is essential to personal religious faith and organised celebration in these traditions
  • without solution to problem of RL, speech on God is questioned –> if you cannot speak about b
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

main arguments for and against the religious language debate

A

DOES RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE MEAN ANYTHING
- for: old tradition of the religious that you can speak/write about God as he is a reality
- Against: logical positivists, statements about God have no meaning because they dont relate to anything that is real

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

cognitive language (and relation to meaning)

A
  • communicates knowledge and facts
  • correspondence theory of truth
  • bivalent: true or false
  • ‘the door is in the corner’ –> factual belief that can be known as true or false
  • determines meaningfulness of a statement (more cog more meaning)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

non cognitive language

A
  • can be interpreted in others ways
  • symbols, metaphors, non-literal
  • coherence theory of truth
  • non bivalent, could be true or false
  • I believe in love, expression of value I hold not known
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Summarise a theory of meaning

A
  • constituent parts of a sentence needs to be recognisable for the sentence to be meaningful
  • meaningfulness needs two conditions: words are menaingful and are combined in ways that follow certain rules (like the rules of grammar)
  • also need to try and communicate something –> cannot be empty of significance, needs to be clearly communicating something
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

religious language and the metaphysical

A
  • general interpretations of life
  • claims on the supernatural: cannot be accounted for by ordinary metaphysical world
  • cannot be explained with natural language, science or empirical facts (metaphysics)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

challenges with religious language

A
  1. religious propositions are often contradictory or paradoxical –> does it means claims like ‘God is omnipotent’ are incoherent and meaningless
  2. God is transcendent: God is a concept beyond our understanding so our language is inadequate for describing him
  3. how can we talk about God anthropomorphically if he is a being out of space and time
  4. how do we interpret uses of religious language –> is it literal or is there another layer of faith
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

early wittgenstein views on language

A
  • philosophical problems would be solved if the language people used was more precise and limited to statements for which there could be evidence
  • language is a picture to the world –> words let us make pictures of facts
  • whatever can be shows to correspond to some observable reality cannot be meaningfully spoken about
  • approach to language presented as precise but narrowly defined tool for describing the phenomenal world (world we experience)
  • ‘the world is all that is the case’

problems with lang:
1. we dont know what we mean, so we confuse others
2. people may take what we mean too literally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what parts of religious language are non cog

A
  • truth claims
  • concepts
  • supernatural and metaphysics –> do not correspond in reality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what parts of religious language are cognitive

A
  • religious facts
  • being able to prove truth claims (if i die then i can know if there is a god)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

is witt work cog or noncog

A
  • meaningful lang is cog
  • cognitive: believes it should be limtied to statements with evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

discuss ‘the world is all that is the case’ (early Witt on religious lang)

A
  • all we can talk about is what we can see
  • metaphysics is disregarded by witt as we cannot meaningfully talk about it
  • this is because they extend beyond the world
  • rel lang is non cog, problematic and meaningless
  • BUT could have different meaning as COHERENT truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

should we discuss the mystical parts of life

A

yes –> easier to communicate, cannot affect us as not physical, words are meaningless
- words are not the way to encounter metaP
- gods transcendence is supported by religion
- importance of silence in religion: ‘be still and know that I am god’ in psalms
- early witt against rel texts

no –> limits humans, robotic communications is cognitive fact but loses value, words signpost to the point of metaphysics
- can get new way of thinking with each interpretation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

humes fork

A
  • relations of ideas and matters of fact (analytic and synthetic) statements are the only meaningful statements
  • rel texts are neither so are useless and should be burned
  • they contain knowledge not worth knowing
  • ‘commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

explain relation of ideas

A
  • apriori
  • analytic
  • a bachelor is an unmarried man
  • necessary relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

explain matters of fact

A
  • aposteriori
  • synthetic
  • not necessarily true, but can be verified by what we can see in the world –> EMPIRICALLY TESTED
  • possible relationship
  • all bears are brown
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

logical positivism in the vienna circle

A
  • concerned with the relationship between the use of language and knowledge, rejecting non cog claims as meaningless
  • believed that theological interpretations of events and experiences belonged in the past, in an unenlightened world when god was used as an explanation for everything that science had not yet mastered
  • any discussion about anything that could not be logically be proven to be true was meaningless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

why was the verification principle developed

A
  • LPs argued that language should be scientific and give us information about the factual world
  • argued for an empirical view of language, and should report on what was seen with 5 senses
  • aj ayer developed verification principle
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what is the verification principle

A

a statement is held to be meaningful if and only if it is analytically or empirically verifiable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

how does the VP work

A
  • verify if a statement is analytically verified
  • verify is a statement is empirically verified
  • if it is verifiable by either of these two it is meaningful, if not NO MEANING (non sensical)
    ‘a statement which cannot be conclusively verified is simply devoid of meaning’
22
Q

VP and religious language

A
  • God exists is not analytically or empirically verified
  • god does not exist is not analytically or empirically verified
  • this is because the statement is synthetic, and any empirical evidence used to prove it has unknown conclusions
  • therefore, speaking about God is meaningless due to the VP,
  • aj ayer: ‘god is a metaphysical term’
23
Q

why does ayer think ‘god talk’ is meaningless

A
  • god cannot be factually observed or logically deduced
  • rel language seems to be telling us something about the world but isnt
  • has no factual or logical content at all, doesnt communicate anything
  • this extends to all religious language like the afterlife, soul (metaphysical assertion), religious experience (cannot be validated empirically)
  • however 50 years rejected LTL and LP –> ‘logical positivism died a long time ago’
24
Q

problems with logical positivism

A
  • all statements of preference become meaningless
  • you cannot prove some statements physically (checking ALL ravens are black)
  • cannot say historical events occured because you wouldnt personally experience them
25
Q

strong verification principle

A
  • verification in practice
  • verified conclusively using empirical evidence
26
Q

weak verification principle

A
  • verifiable in principle
  • ik what i would have to do to verify it –> possible to gather evidence for it
  • meaningful is statement is probable
27
Q

is humes fork right

A

yes: religion is not knowledge as you cannot understand it
no: there is a metaphysical way to look at religion, diff type of knowledge

28
Q

What are the strengths of the verification p

A
  • simplifies language
  • spend time on what is meaningful —> cuts through stalemate of atheism and theism as the conversation is not meaningful and is avoided altogether
  • useful in scientific study
  • supported by Locke and Hume, truth and knowledge known by senses
  • weak verification allows for historical and preference statements
  • fits in with a scientific understanding of reality —> only talk about what is in reality
29
Q

Weaknesses of the verification principle

A
  • strong vp is too rigid, does not allow for historical or preference language —> consent language is ignored here too
  • VP fails its own rules —> this is why it is rejected as a theory for the meaning of language
  • universal statements and scientific statements cannot be verified as we cannot physically prove it (all humans are mortal)
  • comparative statements are meaningless as opinions cannot be verified empirically or logically
  • eschatological verification gives meaning to religious statements
  • RL can be verified in principle using evidence (religious experience etc)
30
Q

Describe John hick’s parable of the celestial city (defence of religious language)

A
  • two men travelling on road, one believes leads to celestial city and one does not think there is a destination
  • neither has been this way before and do not know what is around the corner
  • one sees journey as pilgrimage to celestial city but other sees as aimless ramble
  • the right one will become apparent when they turn the corner
31
Q

Meaning of hicks celestial city

A
  • at the end if time we can know if there is life after death
  • synthetically verified, cognitive and meaningful
  • verification in PRINCIPLE
32
Q

Strengths of the eschatological verification

A
  • fits with Christian theology, but he was also a pluralist
  • directly targets Ayers theory by showing that god can be verified in principle
  • does not need to undermine the VP but only show that religious language is verifiable
33
Q

Weaknesses of eschatological verification

A
  • only works if we have a physical or spiritual view of the afterlife —> reincarnation? Where you forget your previous life
  • the celestial city is still a possibility, not proven —> not justifiable in practice
  • verification might not be appropriate for viewing religious language (faith and Kierkegaard)
34
Q

‘Religion can adequately respond to the challenges of the verification principle’

A

For
- coherence theory of truth: meaningful in a different way, anselm and rel experience can verify religious language
- understanding limitations of humans allows us to arrive at an answer, basis of discovery
- Hick’s eschatological principle, will know when you die, verified in principle by weak VP

Against
- not analytic or synthetic so meaningless
- does not improve upon physical issues, like science does
- does not correspond to something in reality
- unknown conclusions, not a basis of meaning
- early Wittgenstein says we should be silent about god
- it is only possibly true, not verified in practice

35
Q

‘Ayer is right all god talk is meaningless’

A

Agree
- it does not prove physical things like science, religion historically limited scientific progress
- rel ex is ineffable, religious believers think you cannot talk about god
- does not correspond to something in reality
- rel believers does not let anything falsify their belief, causing it to stagnate

Disagree
- strengthens faith for rel believers
- talking helps arrive at truth —> understanding from basis of limitation
- miracles and rel exp are meaningful empirically
- VP is false itself

36
Q

What is the significance of falsification

A
  • language can be meaningful if it can be falsified —> we need to know what evidence would falsify the statement in principle
  • science tries to verify things by seeing it can be disproved - > avoid bias
  • it proves things by falsifying them, not confirming them
  • pseudo science: can be proved right by anything, illogical and not meaningful as it cannot be falsified
37
Q

What is the falsification principle

A

Any statement that cannot be falsified would be empty in meaning - flew

38
Q

Flew and religious language - falsification

A
  • flew thought religious language was meaningless because there is nothing that can count against religious statements
  • believers would refuse to accept any evidence that might falsify their beliefs
39
Q

How is religious language re qualified and why does it lose meaning

A
  • moral and natural evil: free will, Adam and Eve and punishment requalify this
  • theodicies requalify Gods goodness
  • these claims have becomes different from the original claim, so it loses meaning
40
Q

what is flews parable of the garden

A
  • 2 people see a garden with flowers and weeds
  • one says that there must be a gardener and the other says there is no gardener
  • they never see a gardener, but the believer says he is invisible
  • the gardener is never detected, but the believer says he cannot be hurt and invincible to things that could detect him eg barbed wire
  • the non believer asks the first what remains of his original assertion, as his requalified gardener is no longer the same as the gardener they began with
41
Q

what does flews parable of the gardener mean

A
  • flowers and weeds are good and bad in life –> flowers are beauty, complexity, order eg order qua regularity in the design argument of paley; weeds are disorder and suffering eg problem of evil
  • the person who does not believe is the sceptic, who does not believe without evidence, like Hume
  • the person who requalifies is the religious believer, who continues to requalify the characteristics of the gardener (god) to reaffirm his belief
  • despite evidence to the contrary, it is ignored by requals –> this reduces the meanings of the religious statement (there is a god/gardener)
  • flew: requalifications cause religious statements die a ‘death by a thousand requalifications’
  • these meaningless truth claims are dangerous as they are often lived by as a doctrine ‘theological utterance’
42
Q

requalifying the statement: there is no god

A
  • no need to falsify in the same way as religious language
43
Q

difference between science and religious language when falsifying (for and against)

A
  • science can be falsified and we can make progress
  • rel language makes no progress because of this
  • RL is a different encounter with the world, not logically, cannot measure by the same standard
44
Q

hare and bliks (hares response to flew)

A

PARABLE OF THE PARANOID STUDENT –> firm belief that all dons want to kill him, and will not be persuaded otherwise
- argues that everyone has their own personal spin on their worldview, which cannot be falsified and cannot be tested at all
- bilks do not make factual claims about the world that can be tested
- this blik has an impact on how I act, and no evidence can change this
- religious language, like ‘god loves me’ is a blik
- does not matter if this belief is true or false, but matters if it brings about a consequence: meaning is concerned with CONSEQUENCE

but
- does language convey perspective or truth
- saying all knowledge is equally valuable reduces an opportunity for knowledge to develop

45
Q

mitchell and significant articles of faith (response to flew)

A

PARABLE OF THE PARTISAN –> he finds it difficult to change his view despite evidence that might weaken it as he has dedicated his life to this view
- beliefs you are committed to; things that make a big difference to how you live your life
- ideas you have invested alot in and dont let go of easily
- reasonable religious beliefs fall into this category
- thinks rel believers are in constant danger of letting their beliefs become vacuous formulae

46
Q

what 2 approaches to understanding rel lang does mitchell disregard and why

A
  1. provisional hypothesis: scientific ideas, can be disregarded as soon as contradictory evidence is provided; irrational to hold onto an idea in the face of evidence against it –> Antony Flew
  2. vacuous formulae: beliefs that never change based on experience and make no difference to life (bliks), requalified statements with flew
47
Q

flews response to mitchell

A
  • agrees with the fact that rel believers do not always qualify their belief as soon as contradictory evidence turns up
  • parable of the partisan does not contain a successful analogy for God as the partisan may have perfectly good reasons for the strangers actions, like siding with the police for his own safety
  • God does not have these restrictions so the religious believer doesnt have the same excuses to trust in God
  • believes that if ‘relentlessly pursued’ mitchell would have to admit god does not exist or requalify God
48
Q

flews response to hare

A
  1. bliks are a ‘wholly unorthdox’ way for christians to view their language
    - blik means that someone views the world AS IF god created it, but flew does not think this is what christians mean when they say God created the world
    - bliks insinuate rel lang is PERSPECTIVE, but flew says it is viewed as TRUTH
  2. deceitful to treat rel lang as a blik when religion tells people how to live their lives and why things are the way they are
    - rel ideas may be ‘fraudulent’ if they sound like important reasons to etc not have an abortion, but were peoples bliks/perspectives all this time
    - silly to base your life that is a matter of perspective, not something concrete and absolute eg there is a god and he loves me
    - may allow wrong blik to become influential and people will base their life off of this false claim
    - 1984: rel believers are party members in Orwells book who convince themselves that the party is always right, even when they know it is wrong (doublethink)
49
Q

wittgenstein

A
  • meaningful language is non cognitive
  • meaning of language is found in the way it is used and language is a tool for getting something done
  • this leads to an internalist account of meaning –> meaning lies in use, not a reference to some external existing entity
  • need to view it in context to see which is correct
  • we have to pay attention to how religious language functions, not dismiss it as bogus, or outdated science
50
Q

language games and witt

A
  • language has meaning has a meaning in a particular social context, and each context is governed by a set of rules; in the same way that different games are governed by different rules
  • language only makes sense when you understand the purpose of it
  • rules for the use of language or not right or wrong, but are useful for the job you intend them to do
  • you cannot criticise other people’s use of language without understanding the full intention, context and meaning of that use
51
Q

language games and rel language

A
  • rel lang is its own language game, with rules such as praying, praising, extolling, blessing, cursing
  • contains a multiplicity of language games within its own context, language of believing community
  • rel lang regulates the believers life, but can be used or left alone –> I believe in God and I do not believe in God are not contradictory
  • not like scientific lang, using evidence is not part of the game –> verification and falsification principle are irrelevant
  • their mistake is to take the language game of science and apply to religion
  • religious language –> meaningful to those who want to use that game by immersing themselves in the religious ‘form of life’
52
Q

how do we understand religious language through witt’s language games

A
  • we should not try to separate the meaning of religious beliefs from the community of people who use them and live by them
  • ‘God’ is therefore not to be understood as a scientific hypothesis about the possible existence of a being, but a word used within the religious community to denote the creative power within everything
  • god is what god means for religious peple

RS Year 2 (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions