Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

philosophy of religion > religious language in 20th century > Flashcards

religious language in 20th century Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Religion Crash Course flashcards
1
Q

cognitive language

A

the table is made of wood

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

non cognitive

A

saying ouch to express feeling of pain

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

who coined the term positivism

A

comte to refer to empirical data and generalisations that can be explained

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

whats logical positivism

A

extension of scientific positivism not just into intellectual practise but in all language

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

who was ayer influenced by

A

the vienna circle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what did ayer not believe

A

attack on rationalism which formed basis for religious belief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

why does ayer think a stalemate exists

A

because its impossible for empiricists to disprove the possibility of a priori

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

whats the verification principle for ayer

A

a sentence is only meaningful is you can verify its proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

whats the only way a statement can be meaningful

A

if it can be verified by sense experience

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

problems with verification principle

A

dismisses history
-music
art

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

whats god according to ayer

A

metaphysical term
-beyond empirical world
-hes not an atheist because atheist dont believe in god but give word god meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

strength- verification fits with scientific understanding of reality

A

positivism from comte and mill shows success of science means only valid source of knowledge
-theory criticised for being overly restrictive
-ayer made weak verification
-historical documents and findings can be verified and be weakly verified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

weakness- weak verification opens door to arguments for god

A

teleological argument infers gods existence from experience in world
-similar to weak verification
-ayer fails attempt to show religious language is unverifiable and meaningless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

evaluation defending verificationism

A

ayer admitted weak verification means allowing meaning to any indicative statement
-developed direct and indirect verification

-rules out possibility of verifying god
-even if we see complexity and purpose we cannot verify god

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

evaluation criticizing verificationism

A

-wants to provide meaning which eliminated metaphysical statements
-meaning itself is metaphysical concept
-Quine- verificationism is modern liguistic form of aristotelian metaphysics
-we dont know what thought, rationality, meaning is
-

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

aristotelian metaphysics

A

aristotle claimed essence or formal cause of human is rational thought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

direct verification

A

statement verifiable by observation
-i see a key directly verifiable so has factual meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

indirect verification

A

when direct verification supports statement which we havent directly verified by know how to verify
-key is made of iron

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

strength- verification cuts through stalemate in debate over gods existence

A

-religious people find it hard to prove god exists and atheists find it hard to disprove gods existence
-ayers approach means we shouldnt debate meaningless terms like god

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

weakness on verification- escathological verification

A

hick said we can verify god when we die
-he doesnt undermine verification but ayers claim RE is unverifiable
-hicks parable of celestial city
-atheist and religious person walk and when they reach end they will see whos right
-religious langauge verifiable because we know in principle we can die and see god

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

evaluation defending verificationism

A

we cant be sure there is celestial city at end of road
-after life where we can verify god only possibility
-ayers mountain on moon can be verified because they know how to verify it
-hick only shows RE is possibly verifiable not in principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

strength- logical positivists theories like verificationism based on reasonable claim about meaning

A

-for statement to be about reality it must refer to reality
-reference must be in principle testable
-if someone claims to be talking about reality but cannot show- it denies their language has cognitive meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

weakness verification principle self defeating

A

principle must itself be analytic or empirically verifiable to work
-hard to see how it can be
-you can deny principle without contradiction
-empirically- not restricted to analytic or empirical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

evaluation defending verificationism

A

ayer says verification principle cant be factual statement about meaning of statements but methdological stipulation
-tool that logical positivists adopt
-

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

evaluation criticizing verificationism

A

tools of empiricism dont disprove rationalism
-means a priori metaphysical statements meaningless for particular tool not overall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what did karl popper conclude

A

empiricism operates by falsification
-claim is falsifiable if we can imagine what could prove ot false

27
Q

antonys flews application of falsification to religious language

A

RE fails to make assertion about reality
-claims about reality are falsifiable
-could be false because what they denied could be true instead of what they asserted

28
Q

flews ideas simplified

A

-All our beliefs about reality could be false (empiricism is true)
-So, a belief that cannot be imagined to be false, cannot be about reality.
-Religious belief cannot be imagined to be false.
-Therefore, religious language fails to express beliefs about reality.

29
Q

flews parable of the gardener

A

two people see clearing in forest
-one says gardener tends to it
-other suggests waiting and seeing if its true
-believer says there is invisible gardener- try to set barbed wire
-believer says gardener non physicsl

30
Q

strength- parable of gardener strength for falsification

A

-religion edits belief rather than admit theyre wrong
-illustrates god of gaps

31
Q

weakness- religious belief falsifiable

A

st paul said if jesus didnt rise from dead faith pointless
-christianity could be proven wrong if evidence that jesus didnt rise
-

32
Q

evaluation defending falsification

A

parable of gardener- says if we discover jesus body
-christians might make excuse as to why its not valid test
-

33
Q

evaluation criticizing falsification

A

john frame turns parable of gardener
-shows flews approach fails because belief in atheism also unfalsifiable
-if jesus appeared- atheist would say its a hallucination
-falsdiability not valid test

34
Q

strength - falsification good test of rationality

A

good test for whether persons belief is about reality or not
-if you ask someone if they are holding on to belief just for faith
-person with rational belief based on evidence will be able to answer question

35
Q

weakness- basil mitchels response to flew

A

-argues Religious belief based on rational weighing of evidence so RL cognitively meaningful
-most religious people dont blindly follow
-christians recognise evil is evidence against god
-people go through evil and stop believing in god
-limit for amount of evil- limit means RL falsisiable

36
Q

evaluation defending flew

A

we cannot justifiably claim belief falsifiable if falsification for it cannot be given-
-religuous experience and personal relation not evidence of god
-

37
Q

evaluation criticizing flew

A

flews gardener parable fails to capture way religious belief functions
-based on personal experience and is falsifiable
-language falsifiable even if it cannot be known

38
Q

strength- for belief to be about reality it must be true or false

A

facts can be true or false= logical positivism
-for statement to be about reality- must be a way to verify or falsify it
-

39
Q

swinburnes weakness of flew

A

-if we understand words in scentence and significance- meaningful to us
-dont have to test it through experience
-we might not be able to falsify god but as long as concept can be understood its meaningful
-physicists use current knowledge to make models like inflation and string theory
-cant verify or falsify theories but meaningful to scientists

40
Q

evaluation defending falsification/verification from swinburne

A

-ideas like string theory may be understandable but verificationists can still plausibly claim they lack cognitive meaning
-reality factual
-representation of reality either false or true
-cant understand unverifiable/unfalsifiable statements as factually significant

41
Q

evaluation criticizing verificaiton/falsification from swinburne

A

-evidence for for god can be in laws of physics and religious experience
-logical positivism to radical to form empiricism even for scientists
-wrong about scientific meaning
-can involve ideas we dont know how to test

42
Q

strength- ayers verificationism and flews falsification based on reasonable claim

A

for word to have meaning it must refer to somehting in world we can test in principle
-valid to call something meaningless if we cant test it

43
Q

weakness- Hares non cognitivism

A

RMHare disagrees with this
-argues they see RL as expression of belief that attempts to describe reality
-if not trying to describe reality then not statement at all
-RL non cognitive expression of person blik
-hares- paranoid student who thought professor were trying to kill him
-student didnt change mind when he saw they werent trying to kill him
-RL might appear cognitive on surface but actually non cognitive

44
Q

whats hares blik

A

meaning their personal feelings and attitude
-expression of attitudes not attempt to describe world
-therefore cannot be true or false since bliks affect our beliefs and behaviour - they are meaningful

45
Q

evaluation defending ayer and flew

A

hares argument unsuccess he sacrifices ability for RL to have meaning factually
-when religious person says god exists- they are expressing attitude rather than claiming objectively god exists

46
Q

evaluation criticizing ayer and flew

A

hares success because peoples conception of reality just an aspect of their blik
-saying god exists serves to add phychological force and grandeur to what is actually their attitude

47
Q

strength of non cognitive approach- humes psychology

A

hare was influenced by hume
-cognitive part of our mind controlled or enslaved by our non cognitive feelings
-when we have strong emotion- our mind creates reason that justifies belief and acting on it= rationalism
-explains why people refuse to go against deeply rooted beliefs like paranoid student

48
Q

whats religious language for hare in relation to blik

A

has an apperance of cognitive meaning but actually expressing emotions (blik) their belief is rooted in

49
Q

weakness - humes theory of human psychology is controversial

A

-kant rejected it arguing humans were capable of putting emotions aside and acting out of purely rational motives
-psychologist jonathan haidt thinks hume was closer
-although RL often rooted in non cogintive attitudes= reason can affect out coginitve attitudes
-long term reason controls emotions
-so hare wrong to say religious language can be only rooted in non coginitve emotions

50
Q

evaluation defending non cogniticvism

A

examples like flew who changed his mind about god due to logical argument rare
-most religious believers follow faith because of family or culture
-suggests hume and hare correct about majority
-

51
Q

whats picture theory meaning

A

words get their meaning by connecting to the world similarly to how a picture represents reality
-logic of our language reflects logic of reality

52
Q

whats the theory of language games

A

claimed that works get their meaning by connecting to the social reality not the physical reality

53
Q

whats our social reality composed of according to wittgenstein

A

of different types of social interaction which are different games we play

54
Q

whats a game

A

social practise governed by rules

55
Q

how does our behaviour develop according to wittgenstein

A

we are induced into various social games and we learn consciously and unconsciously what behaviour is considered socially correct in that context
-words type of behaviour

56
Q

how do we know the meaning of a word

A

how its used i a particular social game
-not on its reference to physical reality

57
Q

strength- wittgensteins theory captures and explains disconnect between religious and scientific meaning

A

-religion ourely faith
-separate from language game of science which is a posteriori reason
-tertullian- what has athens to do with jerusalem
-philosophy has nothing to do with christian faith
-viewing them as separate forms of life makes sense of their disconnect

58
Q

weakness- language games lead to theological anti realism

A
  • his theory suggests when person says god exists they are just expressing their participation in certain form of life not that he exists scientifically
    -religious people say their RL is cognitive not participation in social game
    -aquinas and arguments and fine tuning argument developed
    -witt wrong in saying scientific meaning disctinct from religious meaning
59
Q

evaluation defending witt

A

we could response that partcular fusion of religious and science its own unique language game
-polkinghorne and fine tuning not playing scientific language game as most scientists reject his view

60
Q

evaluation criticizing witt

A

Rl cant be completely reduced to expression of adherence to form of life
-it expresses cognitive belief
-we can say religious belief is false or meaningless but cant say there is only non cognitive feeling but no actual religious belief

61
Q

strength- language games does accurately capture the way social life works

A

-makes sense to see different social interaction as different games and rules of languages
-each social context has specific rules
-explains different religions as language games or forms of life 1

62
Q

weakness there are elements of religious differences witt struggle s to explain

A

claims one can only understand language game by knowing rules
-have to explain how people convert and inter faith dialogue if you have to be member of religion to under stand game
-
language games overlap and connect in ways which seem impossible to calculate or charecterise

63
Q
A

philosophy of religion (10 decks)

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