Religious Language - 20th Century Flashcards
What was the Vienna Circle
Group of scholars in the 1920s and 30s who debated on what statements were meaningful and worth discussion
What school of thought was the Vienna Circle and what did they use
Logical Positivism and they used the strong verification principle
Tautology
A statement that is always true that holds its meaning within it, the round circle
what was the strong verification principles terms for meaning
- Could be empirically verified
- True by definition or tautology
What are the weaknesses of logical positivism
- Can’t make statements about history
- Scientific laws are meaningless
- Ignores symbolic things like poetry or art
How does Swinburne criticise logical positivism
Universal statements like all ravens are black have meaning but can’t be empirically verified
What did Aj Ayer develop
the weak verification principle
What does the verification principle deem statements about god
meaningless
What was the Weak Verification Principle
Ayer argued that statements like scientific and historical could be verified in principle because they are known to be true just not empirically provable.
What was the evident flaw in Ayers Weak verification principle
Anything could be verified in principle
How does Hick criticise Ayer in his eschatological verification
God and heaven can be verified in principle because believers will see death as a means to verify if heaven and god exists.
Hicks parable of the celestial city
two men walk down a path yet one believes it leads to a celestial city and the other believes it is pointless and leads nowhere yet neither is right or wrong
how do empirical and historical arguments in verification principle weaken it
- Jesus can be verified historically through bible
- Paleys design argument uses empiricism to prove god exists
How does DZ Phillips criticise the verification principle
- DZ Phillips says that religious language shouldn’t be treated like scientific statements but more symbolic like poetry
Explain Swinburne’s toys in the cupboard analogy
Toys in the cupboard come alive at night but return before anyone sees, this isn’t meaningless just impossible to verify empirically
What are Wittgenstein’s language games
meaning of a word depends on the context or ‘game’ it is being used in
example of wittgentsteins language game
Key could be a metal object for a door, button on a piano, symbols and their meaning on a map, depends on the context
How was Wittgenstein’s language games applied to religious language
religious language is its own game and can’t be criticised by atheists as they don’t understand the context they are in another game
What is wrong with language games
prevents discussion between games which is important to encourage thinking and developments
non cognitive
non factual statement that isn’t true or false more symbolic or emotional language
How did Cupitt develop language games to show religious language has no meaning
All language games are non cognitive as true and false have no objective meaning, The meaning depends on the wider context or form of life of the language game and so each game creates its own reality, God isn’t objectively real but within the religious language game he is a created reality.
How does Phillips use language games to show religious language does have meaning
God is a reality beyond the scope of philosophy, philosophy shouldn’t question truth of religious statements but clarify their meaning. He argues that language can be cognitive and non cognitive and both are meaningful but it depends on the context or form of life.
form of life
the wider context in which statements are used
Reasons why language games allow religious language to be meaningful
- Religious language is meaningful for those inside the religious language game
- Cannot be commented on or criticised by other language games
- Phillips
Reasons why language games don’t allow religious language to be meaningful
- Anything could be meaningful with an agreed understanding, unicorns exist.
- Cupitt
- Geach argues the game is circular and meaningless as the word takes its meaning from the game but the game takes its meaning from the words in it
strengths of Aquinas and weaknesses of Wittgenstein
- Hick argues by looking at Jesus we get a clear image of god
- Analogies allow positive statements about god whilst avoid anthropomorphism and agnosticism
- religious language game can’t be challenged can lead to dangerous beliefs
- religious believers use the game to express truth and reality but Wittgenstein intended meaning
strengths of Wittgenstein and weaknesses of Aquinas
- Religious statements have meaning in the context of their own game
- language games create reality
- Games can’t criticise games
- Aquinas analogy is too weak as nothing is truely known about god
- Analogy also makes an assumption of similarities between god and humans
Traditional bible interpretation
The bible contains gods authentic messaged every word is literal factual truth, cognitive approach
Liberal bible interpretation
non cognitive approach that understands the bible as a human document than needs to be studies in modern context looking at the symbolic messages
Fundamentalist bible interpretation
recent bible movement that interprets the bible as factual in a cognitive approach
How does Bultman explain a non cognitive approach to miracles
Supernatural elements of miracles are products of a pre scientific world so by removing them it leaves us with Jesus moral teachings
Reasons why religious texts should be interpreted non cognitively
- Should be interpreted within the context of the game or community not as universal truths
- Should be interpreted by faith community and only within that game as these are the only people with use for them
Reasons why religious texts should be interpreted cognitively
- non cognitivism undermines events like resurrection
- message in the bible shouldn’t be diluted as it is truth
- god is an objective reality and the bible is his word that transcends time and place
Who created the falsification principle
Karl Popper
What was the falsification principle
Aims to separate scientific and non scientific statements by looking at any evidence that would falsify the statement not a checklist to verify it.
What is the falsification symposium
Series of essays by Flew, Hare, Mitchell that discuss falsification in relation to religious language
How does Flew explain the falsification symposium
He uses John wisdoms parable of the invisible Gardner, says religious statements like god created earth seem scientific but religious people refuse any evidence to count against it.
What is Flews quote and example and what does It mean
He suggests that when talking about suffering in the world religious people will add that it is gods plan, by adding to their statement it has changed or ‘died the death of 1000 qualifications’
What is Flews conclusion
Religious believers don’t allow anything to count against their statement so it can’t be falsified or stated so isn’t a genuine claim
Blik
basic unfalsifiable belief
How does Hare explain the falsification symposium
In his parable of the lunatic he has a blik that the professors want to kill him, religious statements are bliks because they express a belief or view and have a great effect on ones life
What is Hares conclusion
Bliss can’t be falsified because they have such a big impact on the life of the believer, the believer will ignore all evidence otherwise
What was Mitchells parable
in WW2 the partisan meets a stranger and trusts him accepting his help even when evidence suggests he is a Nazi general
What does Mitchells parable express
that religious believer don’t simply discount or refuse to acknowledge evidence against their claim as this would fail faith and logic. They have an underlying reason for their faith, their beliefs are based on reason.
Reasons why falsification helps to understand religious language
- Flew argues it helps us to falsify religious language through the death of a thousand qualifications
- Helps to clarify which statements are scientific and not
- religious statements aren’t scientific so are cognitive
Reasons why falsification doesn’t help to understand religious language
- Hare suggests it isn’t like scientific claims that can be falsified it is a blip.
- Mitchell argues that religious claims aren’t falsifiable because they are based on reasoned faith in god
- religious statements are not like scientific claims they are more symbolic
Scholars that express weaknesses of falsification in religious language
Popper - should only be for science
Gould -
Alston -
Swinburne - Toys in the cupboard
Wittgenstein - its own language game so holds no authority over religion
cognitive
Claims that can be known and empirically verified, they are either true or false
How does Ramsey support Aquinas cognitive view of religious language
series of straight polygons at some point will look like a circle, at some points religious will move beyond literal language beyond reality where it becomes revelatory
How does verificationism support cognitive approaches
logical positivists treat religious language like scientific assertions in a cognitive way to decide if it is meaningful or meaningless
how does verificationism support non cognitive approaches
religious language is non cognitive as it is beyond scientific criteria, it isn’t true or false but still has meaning like poetry or art
how does falsification support cognitive approaches
Flew argues religious claims are made like scientific assertions about what is true, so it should be treated cognitively and be able to be falsified like scientific postulations
how does falsification support non cognitive approaches
Hares bliks show that religious language is a blip which isn’t true or false but still has meaning on ones life
How does Aquinas support cognitive approaches
Analogies show accurate description of god and assert the truth in his existence
how do language games support non cognitive approaches
Cupid argues religious language is only objectively true within its own language game so it is non cognitive
