Religious language

Question 1

Analogical

Answer 1

Analogical is an inference where information or meaning is transferred from one subject to another based on similarities or comparison.
An analogical argument relies on analogy to show that due to similarities between the 2 subjects some further conclusion can be inferred.

Question 2

Cognitive language

Answer 2

Language which conveys a knowledge claim or factual information which can be shown to be true of false (synthetic) depending on evidence. Tested through empirical (in nature) evidence

Question 3

Examples of cognitive language

Answer 3

1) The Eiffel tower is in Paris

2) The houses of parliament are located in westminister

Question 4

Non-cognitive language

Answer 4

Language about which it inappropriate to ask whether it is true or false in a factual sense. This includes, statements of emotions, myths, moral claims or metaphors. (Not dependent on whether it can be empirically true)

Question 5

A question could possibly ask about verification in with the falsification principle ( bear in mind)

Define: Verification principle

Answer 5

Idea that the meaning of a statement lies in the method of its verification - so that any statement that cannot, even if only in theory can be verified, is meaningless.
EG:
With “love”: cant be measured
“God” metaphysical

Question 6

Falsification principle

Answer 6

Belief that the meaningfulness of a statement lies in the method of its falsification. A sentence is only factually significant if there is some evidence to falsify it.

Question 7

Symbolic

Answer 7

A view of religious language which sees words representing a reality to which they point, and in which they participate, but which they cannot define.

Question 8

Via negativa

Answer 8

The “negative way”, mainly associated with Thomas Aquinas. He argues that human language is inadequate in describing God; therefore we can only speak of him in terms of what he is not.

Question 9

Blik

Answer 9

Term used by R.M Hare to describe a religious frame of reference within which everything is interpreted. (Your outlook on the world)

Question 10

Language games

Answer 10

The name given by Wittgenstein to his claim language has meaning within a particular social context . Each context is governed by rules, in the same way that a game is governed by rules. The meaning of a statement is defined by the context in which it is used.

Question 11

A.J Ayer (modern philosopher)

Answer 11

1) Influenced by Kant (theory related to the ontological divided into synthetic + analytical) and Hume.
2) member of the Vienna circle, was a logical positivist
3) not an ashiest, agnostic nor theist
4) Book 1936; language, truth and logic
5) Developed

Question 12

What is the Vienna circle of logical empiricism?

Answer 12

A group of philosophers who to tried to revolutionize modern language.

Question 13

What was A.J Ayer claiming, through verification principle?

3 types

Answer 13

For a statement to be meaningful, it has to be verified using empirical methods
- Analytical statements are true be defintion
- Synthetic statements are empirically verifiable.
- All other statements are empirically verifiable.
Concluded: Any statements unverifiable in practical or principle have no factual meaning. called these statements “pseudo-proposition”
- Ethical statements are simply statements of approval or disapproval.

Question 14

A.J Ayer quotes

Answer 14

• “The term “god” is a metaphysical term. And if “god” is a metaphysical term, then it cannot even be probable that God exists” Language truth and logic.

“If you disapprove of stealing, whereas I approve of it… we are both expressing moral sentiments rather than factual statements”

“God talk is evidentially nonsense”. Doesn’t commit to consistency in writing about God, an emotive structure of writing.

Question 15

Examples

Answer 15

Analytical; All unmarried men are bachelors + 2+2=4
Synthetic
Historical statements are weak verification ( repeated in history ) no evidence in present nature.

Question 16

Sentence starter

Answer 16

Ayer was concerned with whether language was meaningful/meaningless + not with whether it was true/false….

Question 17

STRENGTHS of the verification principle

Answer 17

1) Straight forward, focusing on the facts that can be directly or indirectly verified. (logical theory)
2) VP is in line with science + scientific method, since it demands we observe the world empirically.
3) VP demands a sense of reality in what we say about the world; points out major issue with religious language.

Question 18

CHALLENGES to VP

Answer 18

1) The theory itself doesn’t pass the test as a meaningful statement, it is not a tautology (a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form) + is not verifiable in principle. (not empirically verifiable)
- BY its own criteria, it is meaningless + cannot be used to comment on the meaningfulness of religious language.
- Thus, Ayer was forced to say it was a recommendation, hence it doesn’t make a factual claim.
2) NO. of problems to say its in line with science;
science deals with entities that cannot be directly observed, eg: quarks, so how can their verification be verified?

Question 19

What is the falsification principle?

Answer 19

• Born out of the failure of the VP
  -Based on scientific approaches
  -Hypothesis - tested to be true or false.
  -modern day principle
  Definition: The more evidence in favour of something the more likely it is to be the case.

Question 20

Karl Popper

Answer 20

Influenced Anthony Flew; disliked “pseudo-science” of Marxism.
Advocated tolerance in society.
-Scientist; claims science work primarily through the falsification principle.

Question 21

Anthony Flew

Answer 21

• Developed own version of FP from Karl Popper
• Initially a “negative atheist”
• Modern philosopher
• Article; “ theology and falsification” referred to parable

Question 22

The “parable of the invisible gardener” by John Wisdom

Answer 22

Quote; Anthony Flew;
“ God (gardeners existence) dies a death of a thousand qualifications”
- 2 explorers come across garden
- 1 qualifies weeds and imperfections
- Each test carried out fails to give empirical evidence of a gardener, 1 insists there is one by giving reasons for imperfections.

Question 23

What can we conclude from the parable?

Answer 23

• Moral people qualify what they believe in with nonsense, qualify things out of existence. They go towards the most illogical explanation.
• The theist wont accept anything that questions God, Faith without proof = belief.
• concept of God gets lost the more you qualify it.
• Statements about belief in God are thus “vacuous” (meaningless) (quote)
• Believer will allow nothing to falsify his belief that there Is a gardener who loves + looks after their garden. Believer wont let anything falsify God who looks after world.
• Flew claims falsifying strengthens a hypothesis, reinforcing the statement. In Science after somethings discovered try to disapprove it.

Question 24

Challenges to the Falsification principle?

Answer 24

1) Flews’ category is too vivid

Question 25

What is Hick’s eschatological verification?
AO2, always use this in an AO2 to do with V.P and F.P
- An attack on the VP and FP

Answer 25

1) Hick challenges the claim by Ayer that there are claims that can in principle be verified.
2) (Verifiable in principle.) A proposition (a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion.) can be verified after death
3) Only works if we retain our consciousness + personal identity at the end of time.
4) Argues = not verifiable now but in the future can be verified (in principle its verifiable)

Question 26

What is the parable of celestial city (heaven)?

conclude?

Answer 26

2 Travellers, on a journey who have different attitudes. 1 thinks that he is going to celestial city + 1 thinks he is going nowhere.
- point- There is no evidence, while men are making the journey, to determine if there is a celestial city or not.

However, 1 believes in the city and is positively influenced with dealing with events on journey. Thus, commitment + view influence everything + is meaningful, at the end of time we will be shown one or the other. It will be true or false.

Question 27

Who was Hick?

Answer 27

• Pluralist and theist
• Believed statements about God were = factual + meaningful.
• Used Ayer’s weak version of the VP to argue in favour of R.S being meaningful.

Question 28

Challenges to Hick’s principle.

Answer 28

1) Hick was writing from the perspective of a believer, for whom, in the end, celestial city, will be reached.
For atheists, look at the extent of evil in the world, the possibility of the city seems so remote as to not being worth considering. Believer + non-believer interpret evidence differently, Hicks argument is no stronger than an atheist.
2) They can never be “falsified”, if we have no consciousness. For example, if I claim “ there is a tiger drinking tea” and I find the tiger the statement is verified if not then the statement is falsified- I have knowledge of that. Normal falsification works this way.

Question 29

Strengths of Hick’s arguments

Answer 29

1) Idea of celestial city being real seems undeniable. Statement of life after death will either be true or false.
2) “Near death” experiences and alleged reincarnation memories by children, provide evidence for continued consciousness after death. (get examples)
3) “experiencing-as”, he shows interpretation is an essential element of factual experience . We experience things “as” something, then when we talk about them we are interpreting them.
- Thus, Hick cannot show that the factual claim that “there is life after death” is a normal factual claim, subject to falsification. Since if there’s no continue after death we wont know.

Question 30

R.M Hare

Answer 30

• theist
• Responded to Flew’s challenge to explain how R.L is meaningful, if it isin’t falsifiable.
• Introduced Bliks (they are falsifiable, but meaningless ideas)
• Argument was to defend religion

Question 31

Parable of the lunatic

Answer 31

• used to illustrate idea of bliks
• unfalsifiable belief that that Dons (lecturers) want to kill him, cannot be proven wrong even if don is genuine.
• “my teachers are plotting to kill me” cannot be proven false to him being paranoid. Thus “asserts nothing” as far as Flew’s concerned.
• Hare- affects student (skip class) + teacher( concern on student) behaviour
• we mark him as a “lunatic” so means something to us.
• Lunatic = religious person, belief in Dons killing = belief in God.

Question 32

Synoptic link with Ayer

Answer 32

-like his non cognitive approach to Emotivism on meta ethics, thought propositions can only be meaningful if can verified or falsifies.

Question 33

Religious games

Answer 33

Gh

Question 34

T

Answer 34

Hare concludes that Flew has made a mistake about what religious statements really are. He has been treating them like scientific statements when they are not like that at all

Question 35

Moses Maimonide exponent of Via negative

Answer 35

1) Jewish philosopher + strongly supported V.N
2) Describing Gods attributes in negative terms = we move closer to approaching what he is.
3) He used example “Guide for perplexed”
Ship 10th is the closet idea of ship “It’s not a liquid”
4) Unconsciously lose belief in God; state attributes of God lack of sufficient knowledge of creator.
5) Human language is only useful defining + distinguishing in finite world.

Question 36

Pseudo-Dionysuius

Answer 36

• supports V.N, as its the only way to talk about God.
  “He is beyond all being + knowledge”
• Argued people should recognise God is a MYSTERY because
  “The perfect + unique cause of all things”
  -Until people except this they Will describe God in positive terms, to end up with a God too small.

Question 37

Aquinas

Answer 37

• Exponent of V.N
• Argued that reducing possibilities of something isn’t, you gain an understanding of what it could be.
• “ This is the ultimate in human knowledge of God; to know what we do know about him”
• Even when we use words eg: PERFECT to describe God we do it by negating, as we can understand perfection as lacking nothing.

Question 38

LEVEL 5; Key vocabulary 
APOPHATIC theology ( way )
KATAPHATIC theology (way)

Answer 38

1) APOPHATIC- Via negativa- Buddhists go with this approach - R.E dialogue after as almost impossible to say experience. (Denial) - St Teresa of Avila (says she had R.E but couldn’t talk about it.)
2) KATAPHATIC- Traditional western prayers eg:creed - It is basically AFFIRMATION - affirming what God is rather than saying what he isint- created because of limitations of language gives. Eg: Islam; 99 names for Allah, builds positive affirmations about Him.

Question 39

Strengths to V.N

Answer 39

• By saying what God isint, allows subjective point if view. Helps increase relationship with God.
  1) Avoids pitfall of anthropomorphism
  2) Conveys essential mystery + transcendence of God ( Synoptic link to Hick’s Epistemic distance.
  3) Avoids interpretations issues using + language Eg; what does it mean for God to be all-loving.

Question 40

Challenges to V.N

Answer 40

• Results in limited understanding
• Doesn’t reflect how theists speak about God.
  3) can be seen as a logical contradiction- Are you really describing God at all.
  4) Opposes idea of revelations about nature of God (through R.E)
  5) Flew problem of God dying a death of a thousand qualifications.