Religous Language Flashcards
Cognitive statements
True or false
Non cognitive statements
Opinion or subjective, not true or false
Religious language
Richard Dawkins
Religious language is cognitive and false
Religious language
Via Negativa
Process of negation, working out what God is not
It’s not possible to say what he is, he’s beyond our understanding
Religious language
Mysticism and Via Negativa
Knowledge only comes from mystical experiences
Negation via meditation etc
Religious language
Neoplatonism on Via Negativa
Plotinus
God is beyond description and language
Image less and apopthatic meditation
Religious language
Pseudo Dionysius on Via Negativa
Language becomes restricted as thought becomes more complex
All terms must be denied of God
All language to describe God is evocative and non cognitive
Religious language
Process of Via Negativa
1- Start with the assertions of the lowest of creatures
2- Progress to deny god of the attributes of these creatures
3- Ascend into the divine realm via progressive denials
Religious language
Moses Maimonides on Via Negativa
Denying every attribute of god brings you closer to him
Talking of god in any other way anthropomorphises him which of forbidden for Jews
Religious language
Aquinas on Via Negativa
First cause underpasses human understanding and speech
Must acknowledge what falls short of what god is
Religious language
WR Inge criticism of Via Negativa
To deny god his positive descriptions would annihilate the relationship between god and man
Religious language
Pros of Via Negativa
Human ideas of God are poor
Positive talk limits him to a body and human attributes
Allows understanding of equivocal language
Religious language
Cons of Via Negativa
Is the highest reality is beyond words why speak of it
Says nothing about god, just things about nothing
Undermines the positive descriptions of god in scripture
Religious language
Via positiva
Cataphatic way
Positive language to describe God
Religious language
Eastern Orthodox Church on Via Negativa and Positiva
Use via Negativa and positiva
Theosis - unity of god
Leads to an ultimate understanding
Religious language
Pierre Teilhard on Via positiva
Finding god through our material sense is gods plan
It make senses to talk of Gods love through the love we experience
Religious language
Aquinas on Via possitiva/ analogy
We can speak analogically of god because he is the cause of all things
Eg) ‘God is good’ is okay because he created goodness
We understand God’s perfection and use our language as analogies
Religious language
Aquinas analogy of attribution
When one thing is applied to a second thing because one causes the other
Eg) a sickly look due to sickness
Religious language
Aquinas analogy of proportionality
A word referring to a quality that a thing possesses in proportion to its reality
We understand god as all powerful with our human idea is power, god is proportionally more powerful
Religious language
Hume criticism of Aquinas on analogy/ Via possitiva
All descriptions of god fall into the danger of anthropomorphism
Religious language
Ian Ramsey concept of analogy
Models = our idea of things like goodness
Qualifiers- gods ideas, the qualifier is infinity, gods greatness is infinitely greater than ours
Religious language
C Brown on analogy
God has travelled himself in action therefore can be described analogically
Religious language
Criticisms of analogy
Analogy presupposes the existence of God
Analogy must lead to shared understanding, not possible when talking of God as he’s beyond human understanding
Religious language
Aquinas crit of equivocal language
Conveys no info about god
There is a link between god and humans
Religious language
Aquinas crit of univocal language
Fails to take into account the transcendence of god
Religious language
Remotion and excellence in language
All creaturely concepts are removed from a word so the quality has no defects when applied to god
Religious language
Symbols
Carry Emotional powerful messages
Religious Language
Paul Tillich on symbolic language
Symbolic language transcends the capacity of any finite reality to express it directly
Religious language goes beyond the external world and into the internal reality
Religious language
JR Randall on symbolic language
Religious language isn’t factual it takes us beyond the ultimate reality
Religious language
Erika Schubert on symbolic language
Symbol expresses what is beyond rational recognition
Distinguishes humans from animals
Religious language
Raran Williams on symbolic language
Religious language needs a symbolic foundation
Religious language
Criticism of symbols- P Edwards
Symbols do not convey factual info = meaningless
Can’t be verified empirically
Religious language
Verification principle
Verified statements are meaningful
Religious language
Schlick on VP
Pointless to talk of anything that can’t be proved empirically
Religious language
3 forms of verifiable statements in VP
Analytical
Synthetic
Mathematical
Religious language
AJ Ayer on VP
Talk of god must be nonsensical
The notion of a person who’s essential attributes are not empirical is not an intelligent notion
Religious language
Keith ward crit of VP
Just because we can’t verify god doesn’t mean he isn’t verifiable
“If I were god I could verify my own existence”
Religious language
Criticisms of VP - Richard Holder
Vp creates false conclusions
Assumes polar bears are all white, and a brown chimpanzee proves polar bears are white
Religious language
AJ Ayers weak verification principle
A statement has a form of observation acting as proof
Allows historical statements
Religious Language
Criticism of weak VP - Keith Ward
VP excludes nothing since all experiences are allowable under weak vp
Religious language
Falsification principle - Anthony Flew
Religious statements have no facts
Statements only meaningful if evidence can count against it
Religious believers will never let anything discredit their beliefs
Religious language
Criticisms of FP - Hick
Eschatological verification - religious statements are proved/disproved upon death
Religious language
Swinburne crit of FP
We can never prove toys move when we aren’t looking
We understand the meaning behind the concept of them moving even if we can’t falsify the act
Religious language
Crit of FP - Basil Mitchell
Partisan and stranger parable
Meets a double agent, tho their actions suggest he is on the opposite side, the person knows they are truthfully on their side
Can’t be proved false - therefore religious statements are factual
Religious language
Wittgenstein on language
Language creates imagery that differs from person to person
Coherence of truth - a word has meaning if it has meaning to you
Religious language
DZ Phillips in support of Wittgenstein
Religious statements are expressions of opinion
Religious language
Crit of DZ Phillips
Rules out gods existence as flawed belief
Religious language
Hare crit of FP- BLIKs
Things are meaningful to those who believe in them
Religious language
Language games - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Language is a game with rules, those outside the game don’t understand the rules
Problems occur when language is used outside its own set of rules
Non cognitive
Religious language
John hick criticism of BLIKs
There are sane and insane BLIKs, which is which in religion?
Religious language
Pros of language games
Mc cutcheon - “you can do that = you can say that”
Religious language
Cons of language games
All humans are part of different games, must have common ground for all
