religious language in 20th century

Question 1

cognitive language

Answer 1

the table is made of wood

Question 2

non cognitive

Answer 2

saying ouch to express feeling of pain

Question 3

who coined the term positivism

Answer 3

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

Question 4

whats logical positivism

Answer 4

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

Question 5

who was ayer influenced by

Answer 5

the vienna circle

Question 6

what did ayer not believe

Answer 6

attack on rationalism which formed basis for religious belief

Question 7

why does ayer think a stalemate exists

Answer 7

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

Question 8

whats the verification principle for ayer

Answer 8

a sentence is only meaningful is you can verify its proposition

Question 9

whats the only way a statement can be meaningful

Answer 9

if it can be verified by sense experience

Question 10

problems with verification principle

Answer 10

dismisses history
-music
art

Question 11

whats god according to ayer

Answer 11

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

Question 12

strength- verification fits with scientific understanding of reality

Answer 12

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-historical documents and findings can be verified and be weakly verified

Question 13

weakness- weak verification opens door to arguments for god

Answer 13

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

Question 14

evaluation defending verificationism

Answer 14

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

Question 15

evaluation criticizing verificationism

Answer 15

-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
-

Question 16

aristotelian metaphysics

Answer 16

aristotle claimed essence or formal cause of human is rational thought

Question 17

direct verification

Answer 17

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

Question 18

indirect verification

Answer 18

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

Question 19

strength- verification cuts through stalemate in debate over gods existence

Answer 19

-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

Question 20

weakness on verification- escathological verification

Answer 20

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

Question 21

evaluation defending verificationism

Answer 21

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

Question 22

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

Answer 22

-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

Question 23

weakness verification principle self defeating

Answer 23

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

Question 24

evaluation defending verificationism

Answer 24

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

Question 25

evaluation criticizing verificationism

Answer 25

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

Question 26

what did karl popper conclude

Answer 26

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

Question 27

antonys flews application of falsification to religious language

Answer 27

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

Question 28

flews ideas simplified

Answer 28

-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.

Question 29

flews parable of the gardener

Answer 29

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

Question 30

strength- parable of gardener strength for falsification

Answer 30

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

Question 31

weakness- religious belief falsifiable

Answer 31

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

Question 32

evaluation defending falsification

Answer 32

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

Question 33

evaluation criticizing falsification

Answer 33

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

Question 34

strength - falsification good test of rationality

Answer 34

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

Question 35

weakness- basil mitchels response to flew

Answer 35

-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

Question 36

evaluation defending flew

Answer 36

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

Question 37

evaluation criticizing flew

Answer 37

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

Question 38

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

Answer 38

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

Question 39

swinburnes weakness of flew

Answer 39

-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

Question 40

evaluation defending falsification/verification from swinburne

Answer 40

-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

Question 41

evaluation criticizing verificaiton/falsification from swinburne

Answer 41

-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

Question 42

strength- ayers verificationism and flews falsification based on reasonable claim

Answer 42

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

Question 43

weakness- Hares non cognitivism

Answer 43

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

Question 44

whats hares blik

Answer 44

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

Question 45

evaluation defending ayer and flew

Answer 45

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

Question 46

evaluation criticizing ayer and flew

Answer 46

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

Question 47

strength of non cognitive approach- humes psychology

Answer 47

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

Question 48

whats religious language for hare in relation to blik

Answer 48

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

Question 49

weakness - humes theory of human psychology is controversial

Answer 49

-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

Question 50

evaluation defending non cogniticvism

Answer 50

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 -

Question 51

whats picture theory meaning

Answer 51

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

Question 52

whats the theory of language games

Answer 52

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

Question 53

whats our social reality composed of according to wittgenstein

Answer 53

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

Question 54

whats a game

Answer 54

social practise governed by rules

Question 55

how does our behaviour develop according to wittgenstein

Answer 55

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

Question 56

how do we know the meaning of a word

Answer 56

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

Question 57

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

Answer 57

-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

Question 58

weakness- language games lead to theological anti realism

Answer 58

- 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

Question 59

evaluation defending witt

Answer 59

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

Question 60

evaluation criticizing witt

Answer 60

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

Question 61

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

Answer 61

-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

Question 62

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

Answer 62

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