Quiz
Religious Language Edexcel A Level
Crie uma conta grátis para terminar este quiz
Salve seu progresso e veja sua nota final.
Já tem uma conta? Inicie sessão
Perguntas do quiz (28)
1Why is it difficult to talk about God?
- AThe Epistemic Distance separates us and God because God is wholly different.
- BGod is outside our frame of reference. For example, we are imminent whilst God is transcendent.
- CThere is nothing to say about God.
- DGod won't let us talk about him.
2What is a key question to ask when studying the topic of Religious Language?
- AIs God really able to talk?
- BCan religious language ever be meaningful?
- CCan religious language help our lives>
- DIs God real?
3Flew developed the Verification Principle.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
4In order for a statement to be meaningful, what criteria does it have to meet?
- AA statement must be analytic (true by definition) and thus contain their own verification.
- BA statement must be mathematical.
- CA statement must be subjective and thus can be interpreted by individuals.
- DA statement must be synthetic and thus it can be subjected to empirical testing.
- EA statement must be theoretical and untested.
5What was Ayer's book (1936) called?
- ALanguage, Truth and Logic
- BLanguage, Logic and Truth
- CTruth, Language and Logic
- DTruth, Logic and Language
- ELogic, Truth and Language
- FLogic, Language and Truth
6How does the Verification Principle and Ayer's views effect religious language?
- AStatements about God and religion are rendered meaningless because they cannot be analytically true or empirically tested.
- BStatements about God and religion are meaningful because they can be analytically true or empirically tested.
- CStatements about God and religion are rendered meaningless because they cannot be empirically tested but they can be analytically true.
- DStatements about God and religion are meaningful because they can be analytically true but not empirically tested.
7Ayer believes that since the concept of God is nonsensical that any talk about God, whether as a theist, agnostic or atheist, is meaningless.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
8How does the verification principle and Ayer's views impact language in general?
- AAny opinion or emotions is invalid and meaningless. For example, an expression of love would be meaningless.
- BAny opinion or emotions is valid and meaningful. For example, an expression of love would be meaningful.
- CScience cannot be 100% true even if it can be empirically verified.
- DHistorical statements and events cannot be verified by sense experience so become invalid.
- EScience dominates our world since it can be absolutely verified.
9The weak form of the Verification Principle argues that if it is possible to know what would, in principle, verify a statement, then it is meaningful. This allows for historical and scientific statements to be accepted but not religious language or ethical language.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
10What does Flew and the Falsification Principle say about religious language?
- AStatements about God and religion are only meaningful if they can be falsified.
- BStatements about God and religion are only meaningful if they can be verified.
- CStatements about God and religion are only meaningful if they cannot be falsified.
- DStatements about God and religion are only meaningful if they cannot be verified.
11Why does Flew uses Wisdom's Parable of the Gardener?
- ATo demonstrate how religious believers are never going to allow any evidence to count against the existence of God. If they did doubt the evidence for God's existence, then they are allowing their definition of God to "die the death of a thousand qualifications". If religious language can be made to fit any challenge, then it is meaningless and has no real significance.
- BTo demonstrate how religious believers are always going to allow any evidence to count against the existence of God. If they didn't doubt the evidence for God's existence, then they are allowing their definition of God to "die the death of a thousand qualifications". If religious language cannot be made to fit any challenge, then it is meaningless and has no real significance.
12How did Hare challenge the Falsification Principle?
- AHare said that religious statements are 'bliks'. This is the idea that although something may not have cognitive value (cannot be verified nor falsified), it still has non-cognitive value to the individual. Theists will not be dissuaded from their belief in God even if he cannot be falsified.
- BHare said that religious statements are not 'bliks'. This is the idea that although something may not have cognitive value (cannot be verified nor falsified), it still has non-cognitive value to the individual.
- CHare said that religious statements don't need to be falsified because they cannot be verified and that is enough to justify their meaninglessness.
13Tick two scholars and their corresponding arguments that DISAGREE with Hare's theory about religious 'bliks'.
- AHick believes that religious belief is based on reason and evidence, such as scripture and experience, therefore theists believe that they can justify God's existence. Also Hick argues that religious bliks are inconsistent because we cannot verify whether they are right or wrong.
- BAyer argues that religious belief is meaningless because it cannot be analytically or empirically verified. Therefore, the idea of bliks doesn't make sense.
- CMitchell uses the Parable of the Resistance Fighter to demonstrate how theists do acknowledge the doubts in God's existence, but still choose to believe in God, even if he can be falsified. Theists believe that the peculiar and problematic parts of their religious belief will be revealed in the after-life (Hick's eschatological verification idea). Thus bliks are unnecessary since the theist is fully aware of problems in their faith.
14Who created the Via Negativa? Does the Via Negativa believe we can speak meaningfully about God.
- APseudo-Dionysius created the Via Negativa.
- BAnselm created the Via Negativa.
- CPlato created the Via Negativa.
- DAristotle created the Via Negativa.
- EThe Via Negativa does believe we can speak meaningfully about God.
- FThe Via Negativa does not believe we can speak meaningfully about God.
15The Via Negativa's main argument is that God is beyond our understanding and knowledge. Therefore, the only way we can speak about God without limiting him to our human ability is to say what God is not. We should accept that God is a mystery and try to understand him by ruling out what God is not. For example, 'God is not love' doesn't limit God to our human understanding of love. We understand that God is greater than our human love.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
16Tick THREE strengths of the Via Negativa.
- AWe don't limit God and accept his transcendence.
- BThis may guard against religious fundamentalism.
- CWe avoid taking scripture and God's actions literally
- DIt satisfies the moral absolutist.
- EWe can know God by the time we get to heaven.
- FTheists are able to prove atheists wrong finally.
17Tick THREE criticisms of the Via Negativa.
- AThe Via Negativa doesn't actually help us understand God and we get no closer to defining God.
- BDavies points out that we need to know what the possibilities are otherwise it is an endless guessing game.
- CBy saying what God is not, this could be mistaken for being similar to the atheist's argument.
- DThis doesn't satisfy the moral absolutist.
- EHume argues that the Via Negativa ommits the is-ought gap.
18Equivocal language is where words are used to mean the same thing in all the situations where they are used. For example, black board, black hat, black cat.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
19Why did Aquinas say we need to use analogy to understand and talk meaningfully about God?
- ABecause univocal and equivocal language limit God to our understanding.
- BBecause analogies are easier for understanding God because they exist in everyday life.
- CBecause our language is too broad and amazing to use for God and we need something simpler, like analogies.
20What is the analogy of attribution?
- AAquinas assumes that God is the source of all things in the universe and that God is universally perfect. Everything in the universe reflects something of God's character because it was made by him. For example, when we interpret human wisdom, that gives us an insight into God's wisdom.
- BAquinas assumes that God is not the source of all things in the universe and that God is not universally perfect. Everything in the universe doesn't reflect something of God's character because it wasn't made by him. For example, when we interpret human wisdom, we can see we have wisdom in ourselves.
- CWe possess qualities of God because we were created in his image and likeness (Genesis 1:26), but because we are inferior to God, we possess those qualities in lesser proportion to God.
- DSince God is a mystery, we reflect this mystery and this is why humans can never understand each other.
21The analogy of proper proportion was developed by Hick.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
22Tick THREE criticisms of Aquinas' Analogy.
- AIf we don't accept Aquinas' assumptions that God created the universe then the foundations of Analogy fall apart.
- BHume criticises Aquinas for committing the is-ought gap.
- CMoore states that Analogy commits the naturalistic fallacy.
- DIf creation reflects God's attributes to a lesser extent, then evil in our world hints at God's cruel nature.
- EAnalogy can tell us nothing new about God, as it is based upon things that are already in existence.
23Tillich says that we can speak meaningfully about God because religious language is symbolic in nature. The symbolism of religious language allows humans to articulate ideas that are difficult to express in cognitive terms. Thus religious language is still meaningful in a non-cognitive way, as symbols connect and provide understand on a much deeper and richer level. Symbols point towards the ultimate reality of 'Being-Itself", the vision of God.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
24Tick TWO criticisms of Tillich's argument about Symbols.
- AThere is a risk that symbols can be taken literally.
- BSymbols may become objects of worship, detracting from the value of the ideas and teachings of the religion.
- CCommits the naturalistic fallacy, according to Moore.
- DThey are not accessible universally.
25Myth is a symbolic approximate expression of truth, which express claims that are difficult to express in a cognitive way. Myths convey important ideas that are other-worldly and highlight moral truths.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
26Tick TWO criticisms of Myth.
- ABultmann claims that in order to access the kerygma/abiding truth of God's word, we need to abandon myths (demythologise) in order to avoid taking them literally. Myths are confusing and lack clarity.
- BMyths are open to different interpretations.
- CMoore accuses Myth of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
- DMyths are old stories that don't make any sense.
27What approach was Wittgenstein taking to language?
- Apost-modern
- Bmoral
- Cethical
- Dold-fashioned
28Wittgenstein's Language Games argues that there are different games in language and they have their own rules. So Wittgenstein says that we can speak meaningfully about God because it is within the religious language game and make sense within that field. Using scientific language to criticise religious language doesn't make sense.
- AVerdadeiro
- BFalso
Informações
- Descrição
- Revision Quiz on the topic Religious Language from Unit 3 Philosophy A2 Religious Studies Edexcel
- Autor
- fstok
- Idioma
- English
- Visualizações
- 1.160
- Etiquetas
- Avaliação
- 3,0 de 5 · 1 avaliação Avalie este quiz