Religious Language - Log Pos And Witt

Question 1

Log pos context

Answer 1

Hegelian philosophy
Wittgenstein
Comte, philosophy replaced god in gap left by science
Hume, sophistry and illusion

Vienna circle

• led by Schlick
• empiricism, apply scientific method to philosophy
• cognitivsit view of Lang

Question 2

Log pos general and Ayer

Answer 2

Only meaningful if analytic or synthetic
If not verifiable then it snmeaningless eg. Metaphysical claims

Weak verification

• verifiable in principle eg. Pluto is made of cheese
• putative prop

Religious language remains meaningless

• metaphysical
• refutes religious experience. Ineffability means you don’t reveal what you know
• religious language is no more than emotion. Boo hurrah

Question 3

Ayer analysis

Answer 3

+Weismann
+Carnap

• Tillich
• Witt part 2
• hick, escha verif
• braithwaite literature
• Hughes god can verify himself
• plantinga, justifies in belief
• flew, meaning until falsified
• hare, bliks
• cannot stand up to own scrutiny
• brummer, religious statements are not same as science
• Swinburne toys

Question 4

Witt

Answer 4

Stage 1
Picture theory 
Only talk about Lang you can conceptualise
Pictures sow aspect of reality 
Influential on log pos

Stage 2
Metaphysics can be used meaningfully
How language is used
Depends on context
Language games
Participation

Religious statements are ungrounded
But they still have meaning
Even more when in community
Problem is when language goes on holiday

Question 5

Analysis of Witt

Answer 5

+ Donovan. Context. Conflict.
+ Philips. Game. Sin doesn’t work outside game.
+ cupitt. Meaning of god in peoples lives

• fideism

Question 6

Analogy vs. Witt

Answer 6

Cog vs non cog

Both being used in particular way, based on context. How language is used

Analogy fakes language as given vs. Witt, language makes though and activity, precondition