religious language: 20th century perspectives (9)

Question 1

logical positivism

Answer 1

also known as Vienna circle were a group of mathematicians, scientists and philosophers who met in 1920/30s. analysed language, particulary scientific statements, to see what was meaningul and meaningless.

Question 2

what made statements meaningful

Answer 2

• verified by an actual experience, I can verify that I am sitting on a chair because I can see this
• true by definition (analytic statement, a triangle has 3 sides)

Question 3

talk of God

Answer 3

must be meaningless as it was not true by definition or not verifiable.

Question 4

weaknesses of strong verification principle

Answer 4

• cannot make statements about history because no current observations
• scientific laws would be meaningless , you cant be in more than one place so no way to know
• art and music is opinion, not fact

Question 5

Swinburne

Answer 5

argued that universal statements, like all ravens are black, cannot be verified in practise but are considered facts.

Question 6

Ayer’s weak verification principle

Answer 6

accepted statements which were verified on principle. under the WVP, science and history not meaningless because they ca be verified in principle. ie water boils at 100 degress could be verifies if take temp of all water.

Question 7

Ayer and God

Answer 7

still believed statements meaningless because they cannot be verified in principle and not worth discussing

Question 8

Ayer’s rejection of WVP

Answer 8

anything could be verified in principle, no matter how impossible.
Hick argued that God and existence of Heaven could be verified. like travellers who dont know their destination but will when they get there, religious people could.

Question 9

religious language is meaningless

Answer 9

• SVP argues that since religious language cannot be verified by sense experience it cannot be true
• SVP argues that ‘God is good’ is not true by definition, not analytic
• WVP outlines which statements worth discussining, religious cannot be verified.

Question 10

religious language is not meaningless

Answer 10

• underlying assumption of verification principle is that only science can give meaning but may be too narrow
• Hick suggested religious people could verify God, not meaningless
• Swinburne uses example of toys coming alive at night but returns. just not epiricalluy justified doenst mean never.

Question 11

Wittgenstein

Answer 11

noticed important context when we use language. same words used equivocally can mean different things. meaning depends on how it is used.

Question 12

language games

Answer 12

there are ‘family resemblences’ between phrases in different contexts. games are the ‘same’ but rules show how different. can be applied to religious language, language depends on the situation its understood. this is a shared understanding and often unspoken.

Question 13

example of language games

Answer 13

to say ‘God is love’ is meaningful for those in the Christian ‘game’, not the atheist ‘game’. means that those outside the game cannot criticise, only play a different game. all the games are equal and language is based off context. Wittgenstein says no ultimate rule about language.

Question 14

Cupitt language developments

Answer 14

argued that all language, including non religious, is non-cognitive because true/false no universal meaning- dependent on form of life. meaning, God is not an objective reality for those outside faith- each game makes own reality.

Question 15

Phillips

Answer 15

claimed ‘God’ was a reality but beyond the scope of philosophy. philosophers arent meant to question whether truth but clarify. he claimed language can be cognitive or noon cognitive depending on form of life- ‘Manchester is in England’ is cognitive but asking whether music is wouldnt make sense as it is non cognitive use of language.

Question 16

language games allow religious language to be meaningful

Answer 16

• talking about God is meaningful for those in the same language game and understand the rules
• meaning depends on the group in which the language is being used. no one from outside the group can criticise.
• religious language is beyond the discussion of fact.

Question 17

language games dont allow religious language to be meaningful

Answer 17

• anything can be meaningful if there is agreed understanding. language is subjective
• Geach argues that language games is a circular argument, the words take the meaning from the game, the game the words
• Cupitt says language games say it is non cognitive and no objective meaning

Question 18

Aquinas approach to religious language makes more sense

Answer 18

strengths: - Hick argues the teachings and actions of Jesus give us ideas what to say about God
- analogies allow something positive to be said without anthropormophism
weaknesses of Witt: - language is used to express truth so it doesnt work
- if you cant challenge beliefs lead to faith without reason (fideism)

Question 19

ways to interpret religious texts:

Answer 19

conservative- everything in the Bible is an authentic message of God and objective
liberal- Bible is a human document that needs interpretating in own time
Fundamentalism- read it is factual and cognitive. God created world in 6 days

Question 20

Wittengenstein’s approach to religious language makes more sense

Answer 20

Strengths: - religious statements have meaning in context
- do not reflect reality and it is subjective
- no critisms, you are playing a different game
Weaknesses of Aquinas: - analogy is too vague as dont know if speak well
- makes assumption there is similarity between infinite and finite humans

Question 21

advantages of non cognitivism

Answer 21

meanings of words depend on their use then how we interpret texts also does. religious texts can be non-cognitive, interpretation of life and community. Scholars recognised there are different types of Biblical literature

Question 22

interpretations of miracles

Answer 22

non cognitivism allows for different understanding of miracles. Bultmann claimed miracles reflect pre-scientific world view so supernatural elements should be stripped back and replaced with moral values. others disagree and say myths may be original part of the tradition.

Question 23

religious language should be interpreted non-cognitively

Answer 23

• religious texts needs to be interpreted by those who understand them. better done in a faith community.
• Wittgenstein’s focus on the context of language can be applied to texts. should be in form of life of community.

Question 24

religious language should not be interpreted non-cognitively

Answer 24

• religious texts transcend time and place, they are relevant to everyone because God is objective.
• fundamentalists argue that the texts should be interpreted in a cognitive, literal way.

Question 25

falsification principle

Answer 25

Karl Popper's idea to descrivbe how scientific and no scientific statements can be seperated. unlike logical positivists, fasification only needs evidence to prove it is incorrect. test hypothesis to see if it is wrong.

Question 26

falsification symposium

Answer 26

Flew applied falsification to religious language this way.

Question 27

A. Flew

Answer 27

adapts John Wisdom's original parable of 2 jungle explorers. Flew argues this is how believers use religious language. they make a seemingy scientific claim but refuse to accept evidence that would falsify it. ie God must have created a world above suffering, but we cannot understand.

Question 28

invisible gardener

Answer 28

Flew's idea. original assertion had completely changed, 'died the death of a thousand qualifications'. since believers dont allow their statement to be questioned it is not scientific.

Question 29

R.M Hare

Answer 29

says deluded student has a blik, a belief about a professor that cannot be changed, no matter the evidence. Hare argues religious statements arent scientific as they express worldly belief. Bliks can be right/wrong, but they have an effect on our lives and cant be changed. Hare says Flew has misunderstood.

Question 30

Falsification doesnt help us understand religious language

Answer 30

- religious language is not like scientific claim so cannot be tested. Hare suggests religious statements bliks. - Mitchell argues that religious claims arent falsifiable but believers do seriously consider the evidence - religious statements are not like scientific claims.

Question 31

B Mitchell

Answer 31

parable set during WW2 when resistance fighters worked uncover against Nazis. The Partisan has reason to trust stranger despite evidence to the contrary. theologians grapple with God being loving, dont discount evidence or refuse but instead dont allow evidence to change their underlying reason.

Question 32

Falsification helps us understand religious language

Answer 32

- Flew argues that believers think religious language is used in the same way as science. this is wrong because wont allow evidence - helps to clarify which statements are scientific and non - if religious language isnt scientific, it could be none factual

Question 33

Falsification doesnt help us understand religious language

Answer 33

- relligious language is not like scientific claims which can be tested, Hare suggests they are bliks - Mitchell argues that although religious claims are not falsiable, believers do consider evidence but do not accept - religious statements are not true or false is different question

Question 34

is Aquinas' view still relevant today

Answer 34

Aquinas views still important, cognitive still evident catholicism and fundamentalism where believers use language to assert truths.

Question 35

ramsey

Answer 35

Ramsey argues religious language is like a disclosure situation. we move beyond literal language to reality beyond. language is cognitive and revelatory.

Question 36

non cognitive approaches

Answer 36

non cognitivists argue language has meaning in its own context. Hare's bliks express a perspective that has an impact on word views. Don Cupitt used language games to support their approach.

Question 37

cognitive approaches to religious langauge make more sense

Answer 37

- Aquinas used religious language cognitively, analogies accurately describe God - logical positivists say it is not whether its true/false but whether its meaningful - Flew argues that believers make statements that sound like genuine claims

Question 38

non cognitive approaches to religous language make more sense

Answer 38

- language games show us meaning of words depend on their context - verfication wrong as we shouldnt treat all language the same way, its not true or false - falsification wrong as Hare's bliks show how things may be important but not a universal claim.