Karteikarten
Religious Language
Karten in diesem Stapel (63)
- 1Ludwig WittengensteinBook: 'Tracatus Logico Philosophicus
Believes religious language has to be precise, accurate, meaningful, logical and based on evidence.
Logical positivist
Came up with language games - 2Tracatus Logico-PhilosophicusWittgenstein speaks about how you can logically talk about the world. His opening line is 'the world is all that is the case' - whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality cannot be meaningfully spoken about.
- 3The definition of metaphysicalPhilosophical concepts beyond the physical, i.e. discuss what is the nature of time, space and reality.
- 4The definition of supernatural'Above what is natural. Something which cannot be described by the laws of nature.
- 5Logical positivismThe philosophical approach taken by the Vienna Circle. The logical positivists claimed that metaphysical and theological language are literally meaningless, because they are neither matters of logic nor provable by empirical evidence.
- 6Vienna CircleGroup of logical positivists who took up the ideas of Wittgenstein's idea of logical positivism.
Mutual member of the Vienna circle was Moritz Schlick - 7Moritz SchlickArgued that the meaning of a statement is its method of verification. This resulted to the Verification Principle.
- 8Hume's 2 pronged forkHume argued that we can have knowledge of just two sorts of things: 1) matter of fact 2) the relations between ideas - e.g. mathematics.
- 9Synthetic propositionsPropositions that are dependent upon evidence. e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow
- 10Analytic propositionsPropositions that are true by definition/by the words used and these are meaningful because they are self-evident. e.g. frozen water is ice.
- 11Verification PrincipleThe meaning of a statement is its method of verification. Verification is by sense experience - for example, sight. This shows that there is no way that you could give an account of it in terms of sense experience, therefore it is meaningless.
- 12Logical positivistsTook their starting point from Humes 2 pronged fork. From this they claimed there were only two types of meaningful language; synthetic propositions and analytic propositions.
- 13Logical positivists' conclusionThey concluded that metaphysics and theology are meaningless because 1) there is no evidence to support them, they are therefore not synthetic 2) they are not true by definition/words used.
- 14Aj AyerPromoted logical positivism in his book; Language, Truth and Logic. Makes the point that theism and atheism are equally nonsense, since neither can be shown to be true on the basis of evidence. God is a metaphysical being, so is undiscoverable by sensory experience or describable using scientific language.
- 15What do Wittgenstein, Schlick and Ayer conclude?They conclude religious language is meaningless.
- 16Cognitive- Language is cognitive if it contains factual information
- Most cognitive statements are synthetic because they've shown to be true/fale by evidence.
- Testable by evidence
- You've used logic/ reason.
Concludes that religious language is meaningless - 17Non-cognitive- The truth does not depend on any experience or evidence
- Might be statements of emotion, morals and wishes...
Challenges the view that religious language is meaningless - 18Strengths of the verification principle1) It is straightforward - statements can be checked with evidence
2) It agrees with science - uses scientific method. focusing on what we can empirically prove.
3) Focuses on what we know about the world and our reality - we only talk about the things we know - i.e. the world, but not God. - 19Weaknesses of the verification principle1) It is too narrow - you can't never talk about God/afterlife/miracles - it might concentrate on the facts but you can't write everything off as meaning less. What about ethics, miracles God and the afterlife.
2) Does it really agree with science? - science is only inductive... we haven't disproved or proved anything - 20Karl PopperArgued that science works primarily through falsification rather than verification. If you consider that nothing could ever prove your claim to be false then it is not scientific.
- 21Falsification PrincipleLooks for evidence against a statement
If you want to make a factual, cognitive claim then you have to be able to specify what it is that could falsify that claim. - 22Parable of the GardnerA story developed by Flew in which Flew applies Popper's idea about falsification to religious language and decides that it is meaningless.
- 23Analysis of the Parable of the GardnerBeliever in the parable i'll allow nothing to falsify his belief that there is a gardner who loves and looks after his garden. In the same way, the religious believer will allow nothing to falsify his belief that there is a God who looks after the world.
"God dies a death of 1000 qualifications" - 24Flew and the Falsification PrincipleStatements about God are therefore 'vacuous' according to Flew, if you do not admit that there is some sort of evidence that could falsify your belief.
- 25Strengths of the Falsification PrincipleReligion seems to make claims as if they are fact - by trying to falsify them it gives them meaning. - Flew suggests that religious claims are empty because all the evidence against such claims is ignored by a believer. By trying to falsify the claims, they actually become more meaningful as a debate and discovery can take place.
- 26Weakness of the Falsification Principle1) A religion isn't just about facts - so why are we consumed to verify/falsify facts? - religion is about a relationship with God, an experience. Making it about facts belittles the religion.
2) Religion is not like science - so it shouldn't be treated like science.
3) Religious believers believe they have evidence for the truth - their faith and biblical evidence prove God's existence. How could there be evidence against that? - 27Eschatological Verification with reference to HickRefers to Hick's view that the 'facts' of the Christian religion will be verified or falsified at death.
Takes a cognitive view to religious language. - 28Parable of the Celestial CityTraveller who believes in celestial kingdom has no evidence to determine whether or not it exists but is still committed to its existence - will be shown to be right or wrong at the end of the journey.
- 29Replica TheoryHick establishes that resurrection of the body is at least logically possible so the believer has grounds for hope.
- 30Strengths of Hick's argument1) Gives a real possibility that there is a heaven - the idea of 'life after death' must be either true or false.
2) Based his argument on experience - Christians experience God everyday, so there is evidence to support his verification.
3) Interpretation is taken into account - people see religious experiences and miracles in different ways. This idea allows for the idea that everyone could be true and religious claims are factual. - 31Weaknesses of Hick's argument1) Hick writes in the perspective of a believer - an atheist would interpret religious claims as false. Claim there is no life after death, so no truth can be revealed to us - this concludes religious claims are meaningless.
2) Hick's religious claims is verifiable in the afterlife is not a normal claim - it can't be verified through normal/scientific means.
3) Hick's claim that there is life after death is verifiable in principle, but not falsifiable - so Flew and Popper would discount it. - 32Hare - Religious statements as Non- Falsifiable and Non-Cognitive BliksHare argues that religion consists of a set of assumptions about the world. He calls these assumptions 'bliks'.
Bliks cannot be used as evidence within a debate so must be non-cognitive. It goes beyond reason and evidence.
He argues that we cannot reason religious claims, because all religious claims and all evidence is open to interpretation. - 33Parable of the LunaticThere may be different types of bliks - insane ones, sane ones and religious ones.
Religious bliks are so powerful that well meaning philosophers cannot make believers think differently. - 34Flew vs Hare1) Flew argues statements are intended to be factual/cognitive.
2) Hare argues statements are ' bliks' - non-cognitive and non-factual.
3) Flew argues religious believers always think their statements are true.
4) Hare thinks that everyone can have different views. - 35How did Flew respond to Hare?Flew rejected Hare's view; "If Hare's religion really is a blik, involving no cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator, then surely he is not a Christian at all?"
Flew is making the point here that if everyone believes in different things, then surely there can be no idea of a collective religion like Christianity. - 36Strengths of Hare's argument1) Hare's concept of bliks helps explain why different religions make different factual claims - it seems simpler to accept this view than to work out why/how different religious ideas seem to contradict each other.
2) By thinking of religious claims as bliks, it helps religious believers keep their faith.
3) Hare is correct in saying that people view the world in different way. - 37Weaknesses of Hare's argument1) Most believers do not see their belief and religious claims as non-cognitive - they believe there is evidence in the Bible and that the belief in God is a cognitive and factual claim which they have reasoned through.
2) If there are no factual beliefs in Christianity, its value reduces to statements of psychological and sociology. - 38Wittgenstein's Language GameUse and context of a statement govern its meaning according to Wittgenstein
Different activities (e.g. chess) are 'forms of life' and only make sense when the nature and purpose of the activity is understood.
Language is therefore an indefinitive set of social activities each serving a different kind of purpose - language game - 39Language GameReligious language can only be understood in the context and the way it is used. If everyone understands what you're talking about, then it is meaningful.
Each context is governed by rules in the same way different games are governed by different rules. The meaning of a statement is not defined by the steps you take to verify or falsify it, but by the context in which it occurs, so use and context govern meaning.
Separates religious language from scientific language. - 40Strengths of the Language Game theory1) Avoids verificationist and falsificationist confusion about what religious language is trying to do.
2) Allows a variety of meaning (e.g. artistic) without demanding that everything should confirm to a scientific/empirical norm.
3) Wittgenstein sees the religion is about the reality of God in the life of the believing community. - 41Weaknesses of the Language Game theory1) Isolating belief from external criticism is not a good thing.
2) Language Games are supposedly self contained but many Christians are committed to dialogue with those outside their language game.
3) Most believers do agree with Wittgenstein about the nature of the religious language game. Religious statements no longer have to be true or false but most believers want to make what they see are true claims.
4) Assumes that there can be no evidence for metaphysical beliefs but existence of laws of nature imply metaphysical explanation for universe terms of a creative mind. - 42Strengths of understanding Religious Language as cognitive1) Cognitive religious language makes factual claims that are clear and open for examination by anyone.
2) Most religious believers are cognitivists - they hold that their beliefs are factual, a view supported by Hick. Believers are committed to those beliefs precisely because they believe them to be factual, not because they think they are non-cognitive. - 43Strengths of understanding Religious Language as Non-cognitive1) It does not pretend that religious language is scientific, so it avoids the kind of challenges mounted by verificationists and falsificationists.
2) It reflects the distinctive views and commitments of religious people: their religious bliks, as Hare would put it.
3) It acknowledges that there can be many different ways in which language can be meaningful. - 44Thomas AquinasBook - Summa Theologica
Argues that because we can't fully understand God, we have to use analogies to explain what God is like. Therefore, religious language is analogical. - 45Religious Language as AnalogicalReligious language is neither univocal or equivocal - it is analogical.
God is different from the universe but God is the creator so there must be a casual relationship between universe and God. - 46AnalogyAn analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand by comparing it with something that is more securely within our reference-frame.
- 47UnivocalIf it means exactly the same thing each time - e.g. if you describe both a coat and a lump of coal as black.
- 48EquivocalIf it means different things when used in the different situations - e.g. if you use the word bat to describe a something used to hit a cricket ball; you can also use it to describe a flying mammal.
- 49Analogy of attribution1) God is completely different from the universe. Nevertheless, there is a relationship between the universe and God - since God is the creator and this gives meaning to language about God.
2) Aquinas uses the Bull and urine as an example.
3) From this example you can conclude; 1) although we have no idea what it means for God to be good, the assertion that God is good is meaningful.
2) The language is anthropomorphic, so we have to use it as a metaphor and not as an exact description. - 50Bull and the UrineAn example by Thomas Aquinas
1) States the bull is healthy; and the bull's urine is healthy - the health of the bull's urine relates to colour, smell and taste; the health of the bull is completely different; however there is a link between the two because the bull produces urine.
2) Similarly; God is good, wise and loving, Willow is good, wise and loving. - so God is responsible for Willow's goodness, wisdom and love. God has what it takes to produce those things.
Because of this , those attributes are meaningful. The fact that God is innately 'good' is meaningful in itself. - 51The Analogy of Proportionality1) Obviously God is so much greater than humans.
2) So when we describe God as kind, it obviously means much more than if we describe a human as kind.
3) This is why our language has to be an analogy, so that we understand that actually the words mean so much more when we're talking about God - the greatest being. - 52Hick's dog example to support the analogy of proportionality1) We can describe the equality of faithfulness in a human, and we can understand similar characteristics of faithfulness in dogs.
2) That faithfulness is neither completely different nor the same, so the language we use to compare then is neither univocal nor equivocal - it is analogical.
3) The analogy is 'downwards' in the sense that there is a big difference canine faithfulness and faithfulness in humans, since the latter is based on self-conscious deliberation (a quality dogs don't have)
4) We can also make an analogy 'upwards' to the faithfulness of God, but the time the analogy is reversed: faithfulness in humans is at best a remote approximation to faithfulness or any other quality in God. - 53Strengths of Aquinas analogical approach1) A literal, univocal language is going to be inadequate to talk about God since we don't have human comprehension or understanding of God. In this sense, an analogy avoids this problem.
2) An analogy avoids anthropomorphising God too and limiting him to our human description.
3) Religious experiences take people beyond words, analogies allow them the freedom to go beyond words. Explaining a religious experience might be difficult using literal words.
4) Analogies help transcend human qualities. - 54Weaknesses of Aquinas' analogical approach1) In order to give a proper analogy, we have to have a proper understanding of God and have proper prior knowledge of God. You can't say that God is like 'love' and use the analogy of love, when we can't even agree on what 'God' is.
2) Some say the analogy of attribution can be used to prove God is evil. If you say 'God has what it takes to produce love in humans', then you could say that 'God has what it takes to produce evil in humans.' - 55How does Aquinas respond to these criticisms?Aquinas responded to the last weakness; he says that evil does not exist, he says that evil is just an absence of good. Aquinas was building on Augustine's belief that evil was a privation of good.
- 56The Via Negativa - the negative wayWe should describe God by saying what he isn't like
Takes an apophatic approach - describing in a negative way, way of denial
You don't limit to human words - 57Who came up with the Via Negativa and what were his thoughts?Developed by Pseudo-Dionysius
God is not comparable to anything else, e.g. God is not evil, God is not nasty, God is not human, God is not understandable. - 58Strengths of the Via Negativa1) Avoids seeing God as a thing among other things
2) Focuses on God's transcendence so avoids anthropomorphism when talking about God
3) Focus of Via Negativa supported by mystical tradition of numinous - 59Weaknesses of the Via Negativa1) In Flew's Parable of the Gardener - this takes the same approach as the Via Negativa. According to Flew all that does is kill the idea of the gardener/God by death of 1000 qualifications.
2) Mystical experiences may support the Via Negativa but how do we know that such experiences are of God as opposed to being produced by the brain?
3) Is it possible to worship a God who is described only in negative ways? - 60Religious Language as Symbolic - TillichBelieves that God is in the world
Main features of his argument
1) Something which point to a reality beyond themselves
2) They 'participate' in the power to which they point - i.e. religious language contains some divine power
3) They open up levels of reality which would be closed to us
4) At the same time they open up levels of the soul which correspond to those realities
5) Symbols cannot be produced intentionally; they grow out of the human unconscious
6) Symbols are produced and die within a cultural context. - 61Religious language as symbolic analysis1) God is not being put a 'Being itself' - God is our ultimate concern
2) Symbols are self transcending, meaning that they point to a higher/greater reality. Symbolic language, according to Tillich, is the only kind of language that can express this self transcending quality.
3) Religious symbolism does not give us factual information about another world or supernatural realm - it shows profound religious significance of features within this world.
4) 'God is love' - 'God' becomes a name we give to the reality revealed by love in this world. - 62Strengths of symbolic language1) Symbolic language can relate religious ideas to ordinary/everyday experiences, such as love.
2) Allows us to make a cognitive claim about God - 'Being itself'.
3) Reflects what we know through religious experiences - tells us the issues that are central to our lives. - 63Weaknesses of symbolic language1) Hick questions whether Tillich's view that a symbol 'participates' in the reality to which points and complains that Tillich does not clarify what this means.
2) Hick rejects Tillich's idea that complex theological claim such as 'God does not depend for his existence upon any reality other than himself' come from the unconscious mind.
They surely come from the conscious theological reasoning - the same is true of the kind of theology expressed in the Cosmological and Design arguments for the existence of God.
3) Many Christians do not share Tillich's views that God is 'Being itself', preferring to see God as a transcendent being who is the ground for all existence (as with Aquinas).
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A level Philosophy Karteikarten am Religious Language, erstellt von Willow Jones am 13/11/2019.
- Erstellt von
- Willow Jones
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung