Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Philosophy of religion > RL 2 > Flashcards

RL 2 Flashcards

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

what is the Vienna circle

A

a group of philosophers who were logical positivists/empiricists in the 20th century

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

what did the Vienna circle conclude in regards to God

A

we cannot talk meaningfully about God

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

what did the Vienna circle begin their investigation with

A

hume’s fork

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

what is Hume’s fork

A

Hume argued all knowledge fell into 2 categories
matters of fact
relation between

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

what did the logical positivists claim from Hume’s fork

A

there’s only 2 types of meaningful statements
analytic propositions
synthetic propositions

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

what is an analytical proposition

A

true by definition, self evident

e.g. 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried men

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

what is a synthetic proposition

A

dependent on evidence
e.g. grass is green
empirically verifiable

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

examples of cognitive and non-cognitive statements,

and logical positivist’s view on the latter

A

cognitive - Kim k has brown hair

non-cognitive - I like Kim k’s hair
not-checkable, not analytic or synthetic, essentially meaning less

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

what makes religious language meaningless and what’s this called

A

the Verification Principle
religious language is meaningless because:
there is no evidence to support religious claims
they’re not true by definition

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

what is the basis of the verification principle

A

the meaning of a statement being contained within it being verifiable

if you can’t give an account from sense experience about the truth of a statement, it’s meaningless

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

who is Schlick

A

he is in the Vienna circle

founding father of logical positivism and the verification principle

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

what was Schlik’s take on language

A

the meaning of a preposition depends on how its verified (verification principle)
if we can’t say how a statement is proved true or false, then it’s meaningless

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

what are 2 weaknesses of Schlick

A

we find unverifiable statements meaningful all the time e.g. art discussions

we can’t verify historical statements logically or through sense experience, e.g. Battle of Hastings happening in 1066

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

What dies Ayer agree that

A

a statement is only meaningful if analytical or synthetic

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

what are the two ways a statement can be verified e.g.

A

in practice, or in principle
e.g. there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy
this can be verified empirically, it just hasn’t been yet

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

two categories of verification for Ayer

A

strong verification - can be proved instantly

weak verification - associated verified empirical statements can confirm

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

what is God talk for Ayer? (4)

A

unverifiable both in practice and principle, strongly and weakly

no empirical observations that can show religious propositions to be true or false

‘God’ corresponds with nothing in the real world

‘not an intelligible motion at all’

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

what is the boo-hurrah theory

A

Ayer
Moral utterances do not have truth value
express the feelings of the speaker, with nothing to back it up
in the same way God-talk is unverifiable, so are moral statements

19
Q

Hick’s argument against the verification principle

A

God talk is eschalogically verifiable

20
Q

3 strengths of verification principle

A

in line with science, demands we look at the world empirically

demands justification for religious claims

logical to say it is impossible to prove God’s existence

21
Q

wards argument against the verification principle

A

God can verify his own existence

22
Q

argument against the verification principle to do with Swinburne

A

statements can be meaningful/understood without being verified
e.g. toys come alive in cupboard at night

23
Q

criticism: what does the VP only do

A

only questions a statement’s meaningfulness, not truth

24
Q

criticisms of VP to do with science and morality

A

VP has narrow demands, which rules out moral statements

lots of science cannot be directly observed, science does not work exclusively through verification

25
Q

what is not irrational - as a criticism of VP

A

the universe either created itself/was done by an external mind

we have creative minds, could be a supremely creative one

26
Q

what does ayer say moral prepositions are and what is a flaw of this

A

emotional ejaculations

dismisses what’s important about human thinking: art, music, poetry

27
Q

weak verification loophole as a criticism of VP

A

if weak verification principle allows historical statements to be verifiable, should allow religious statements to be
e.g. Jesus’ resurrection weakly verified from documentary evidence from New Testament

28
Q

most fundamental flaw of verification principle

A

the verification principle itself is not verifiable in principle by its own criteria

29
Q

what did Karl popper distinguish between

A

science - einstein, predicts future, falsifiable, confirms

pseudo science - freud, manipulated evidence to fit findings, must at least be possible to disprove

30
Q

who came up with the falsification principle

A

karl popper

31
Q

popper quote about the falsification principle

A

in so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality

32
Q

what did Anthony few come up with

A

the parable of the invisible gardener

33
Q

what is the basis of the parable of the invisible gardener

A

believers/christians won’t let anything falsify their beliefs, they manipulate their evidence (pseudo science)
believer has to keep changing and adding to their definition of the gardener in order for him to exist

34
Q

what is Flew’s argument

A

statements are only meaningful if they are cognitive/factual,
only can be if there’s a situation that would be falsify them

if they can’t be falsified, they don’t relate to the world at all

35
Q

2 weaknesses of the falsification principle

A

many areas of human experience that are non-falsifiable, yet meaningful, e.g. personal opinions

universal statements can be unfalsifiable and meaningful, e.g ‘all events are caused’

36
Q

what is a realist view

A

religious claims are meaningful because they are factual and can be proved true like any other claim

37
Q

what is an anti realist view

A

religious claims are not factual, still meaningful, some is stating what they believe influenced by where they live
e.g. Hare

38
Q

what does hare create as response to the falsification principle

A

Bliks

39
Q

what is hare’s stance on language

A

non-cognitive and anti-realist

40
Q

what is a blip

A

result of childhood influences
e.g. growing up in a Christian household creates a Christian blik

filter through which we measure further information and assimilate other view points
e.g. many Christians accept God created the universe through Big Bang, matching scientific evidence to suit religious blik

41
Q

what is religious language for hare (4)

A

non-verifiable
non-falsifiable
non-cognitive
but deeply meaningful Bliks

42
Q

what parable does hare come up with

A

the parable of the lunatic

43
Q

what is the parable of the lunatic

A

lunatic at Oxford thinks the dons want to murder him, which is an unfalsifiable blik
people are kind, which causes lunatic to think they’re being cunning
opposite of flew’s gardener analogy: lunatic=atheist

44
Q

what does Hare think about Flew’s take on religious language

A

flew thinks religious language is meaningless

Hare thinks he has mistaken the nature of religious language, it is not necessarily factual but deeply meaningful

Philosophy of religion (12 decks)

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