Religious language Flashcards
what does Wittgenstein suggest about how philosophical problems can be solved?
- if the language people used was more precise and limited to statements which could be used for evidence
quote from Wittgenstein?
“whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent”
what does “whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent mean”
- people claim their religious claim is of supreme importance, even though they cannot be supported
- cant make claims if their not descriptions of facts
what do logical positivists believe?
- there are only two types of meaningful language
- synthetic propositions- dependant upon evidence
- analytic propositions- true by definition
what do logical positivists conclude?
- that metaphysics and theology are meaningless as there is 1. no evidence to support. 2. not true by definition
what does A.J Ayer argue about statements such as ‘god exists’
- its meaningless because there’s no sensory evidence to support them
- cannot be verified in practice or principle
what is a cognitive statement?
- if it conveys factual information
what is a non-cognitive statement?
- may convey emotions, give an order, moral claims, a wish etc
what is the verification principle?
a statement is meaningful if it is
- analytic (true by definition)
- empirically verifiable
for ayer how can a statement be verifiable?
- through practice or in principle
what is the basis is verification in practice?
- there’s direct sense experience to support a statement
what is verification in principle?
- when we know how a statement can in principle be tested empirically
- E.g. ‘there’s intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy’
- one day such experience may be possible
quote from Ayer
“no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent God can possess any literal significance”
strengths of the VP?
- straightforward in what it demands
- in line with science: observe the world empirically
- demands a sense of reality in what we say about the world
weaknesses of the VP?
- the demands are too narrow, rules out all sorts of language as meaningfulness
- religion makes clear propositions about God and the origin of the universe
further challenges to Ayers VP?
- some argue the bible can supply verification in principle for religious statements, Gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts of life after death
- it is itself not verifiable in principle, by its own criteria its meaningless
what is the challenge of falsification?
Popper
- the more evidence in favour of something, the more likely it is to be the case
- science also makes progress by proving existing theories false
- only scientific if its least possible there could be evidence to show its false
quote from Popper
“in so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable”
what is the falsification principle?
- a sentence is factually significant if and only if there is some form of evidence which could falsify it
strengths of the falsification principle?
- where religion makes important factual claims, these are empty, as all evidence against such claims are ignored by the believer, the die “the death of a thousand qualifications”
- believers do not appear to know what will falsify their assertions
weaknesses of the falsification principle?
- when religious believers make claims about God, they’re not making wild and unrealistic speculations, they assume there’s a truth to be known
what are responses to challenges from verification and falsification principles?
- John Hick: facts of religion are verified archaeologically (at the last judgement)
- Hare: religious truths are not factually assertions, they’re non-falsifiable but deeply meaningful ‘bliks’
what does Hick argue with eschatological verification?
- facts of christian religion will be verified after death
- eventually salvation will be universal
strengths of Hicks eschatological verification?
- the statement, ‘there is life after death’, must either be true or false
- christian truth claims are cognitive/factual, if we wake up in a resurrected body we know these claims are true
weaknesses of life after death?
- the atheist will focus on the extent of the evil in the world, therefore Hicks argument is no stronger than that of the atheists
- if they are false, they can never be falsified, the individual will never wake up to know that they are false
conclusion of Hicks eschatological verification
- Hicks claim, ‘there’s life after death’ is verifiable in principle, not falsifiable
what does Hare argue with reference to Bliks?
- argues religious language is essentially non cognitive and non falsifiable.
what is a Blik?
- refers to a framework of interpretations, a view of the world that is non-cognitive and non falsifiable
what is a religious blik what does it cause?
- a common and powerful view, if i have one and am sincere in believing and following where it leads
- no amount of persuasion will make me think differently
what does Flew reply to Hare about Bliks?
- Flew rejects Hare’s view
- as believers do see their statements about God as cognitive
what does Flew further say about Hares Bliks?
- most Christians believe their assertions and meaningful
- intend their assertions to be factually significant, however, they’re non-falsifiable and therefore, meaningless
strengths of Hares theory of Bliks?
- they’re deeply meaningful to those who have them, value is in their personal meaning
- believers see the evidence through the framework of their bliks
weaknesses of Hares theory of Bliks?
- most believers don’t see their ideas as non cognitive
- if there are no factual truths about Christianity, its value reduces to its physch and socio benefit
what is Wittgensteins say about language?
- the meaning of language is found in the way its used and language is a tool for getting something done
- look at how words are used
quote for language games, Wittgenstein
“don’t think, look”
what is Wittgensteins language game?
- language works by creating different games in different situations
- the words only make sense when you understand the nature and purpose of the activity
what does Wittgensteins language game follow?
- rules for the use of language are therefore, neither right now wrong
- you cannot criticise other peoples use of language without understanding the full intention
example of a language game?
- if i play chess, the words within this only make sense in this language game
what is the implication of religious language?
language games
- RL is its own language game, e.g. prayer etc
- RL regulated the believers life
- RL is meaningful to those who want to us that game
strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games?
- avoids the confusion that results from mistaking what language is trying to do
- it allows a variety of meaning
weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games?
- discourages debate with secular thinkers, isolated religion from external criticism
- religious statements n longer need to be true or false
- assumes there can’t be evidence for metaphysical beliefs
what are strengths of cognitivism?
- makes factual claims that are clear and open to examination
- most religious believers are congnitivist, holds their beliefs are factual
strengths of non-cognitivism?
- avoids the kind of challenges mounted by verification and falsification
- reflects the distinctive views and commitments of religious people
- acknowledges there can be many different ways in which language can be meaningful
what is an analogy?
- an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference frame
what is Aquinas analogy of attribution?
-
what is Aquinas analogy of attribution?
- both a human and God may be describes as ‘powerful’, but we assume that the meaning of powerful in each case is proportional to their respective natures
strengths of using analogy to talk about God?
- literal, univocal language is inadequate to talk about God, this reduces him to the status of one thing, Analogy avoids this
- avoids anthropomorphising God
- pushes words beyond their ordinary meaning
- uses ordinary human experience and qualities
weaknesses of using analogy to talk about God
- for the analogy of attribution and proportionality to work, you have to have prior knowledge of God
- analogy can prove that God is evil, ‘God has what it takes to produce evil in humans’
what is apophatic theology?
- the denial of a positive description of God
what is kataphatic theology?
- uses positive terms about God
what does the apophatic approach suggest?
- the idea that Gods reality is beyond all description
how does Wittgenstein define the apophatic approach?
“whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent”
what is the via negativa?
- god is somehow known but yet remains beyond knowledge
whats an argument for the via negativa?
- argues God is so transcendent, therefore, beyond meaning of words we use to describe him
- there is nothing we can say about him in a positive way without diminishing him
why did Dionysius develop the via negativa?
- separate him from any literal description which could limit him or identify him with the changeable things in the world
what does Maimondes insist?
- God was not comparable to anything else
- to say God is the most powerful being reduces God to a thing which can be measured
- only negative attributes bring us closer to understanding God
strengths of the via negativa?
- avoids anthropomorphism, it focuses on Gods transcendence
- if god is the creator of all things, its reasonable to suggest God cannot himself be a thing `
weaknesses of the via negativa?
- for only saying what something is not gives no indication of what it actually is, cannot understand him at all
- Flew complains that defining God in this way amounts to a definition of nothing, “dies the death of a thousand qualifications”
- is it possible to worship a God who is described entirely in negative ways
what does Tillich argue the 4 main features of symbols are?
- they point to a reality beyond themselves
- they participate in the power to which they point
- they open up levels of reality which would otherwise be closed to us
- they open levels of the soul which correspond to those realities
what does Tillich add to his features of symbols?
- they cannot be produced intentionally, grow from human unconscious
- they’re produced and die within a culture
what does Tillich say a symbol is?
- points beyond itself
- participates in the power of that to which it points
for Tillich how do we discover the true nature of religion?
- through religious experience
- can only be expressed through symbolic language
what does Tillich say religious symbols open up?
- open a level of reality that otherwise is not opened up at all
for Tillich what is the first essential features to the God that appears through religious experience/symbol?
- God is ‘being-itself’
- an experience which gives meaning to everything else
for Tillich what is the second essential features to the God that appears through religious experience/symbol?
- God is our ‘ultimate concern’
- God demands total attention and commitment
strengths of using symbolic language to talk about God?
- can relate religious ideas to ordinary/everyday experiences such as love
- allows us to make only one literal statement about what we mean when we speak of God
