Religious Language

?
  • Created by: 11wardem
  • Created on: 24-10-17 10:21
View mindmap
  • Religious Language
    • Logical Positivism
      • Strong Verification Principle
        • Accepts only direct verifiable statments
        • Vienna Circle
          • A fact is either true or false
          • Meaningful statements
            • Analytical propositions
              • Contain all info within the statement (2+2=4)
            • Synthetic statements
              • Factual statements confirmed by a posteriori
          • Statement of fact = meaning and need to be verified
      • Weak Verification Principle
        • A statement is factual if sense experience can go some way to confirming it
        • AJ Ayer
          • "If the term God is a metaphysical term then it cannot be probable that God exists. The statement isn't true or false, so it's meaningless"
            • Denies God's existence as no way to prove it
            • Empirical statements fell short of VP as they can't be verified empirically
      • Argue that statements about God have no meaning as they don't relate to facts
      • Statements only have meaning if they're verifiable or tautologies
      • Believe the aim of philosophers should be analysis of language
      • Evaluating the Verification Principle
        • Could be argued that 'statements are meaningful if they are verified by sense experience' cannot be verified by sense experience
          • John Hick supported eschatological verification; a statement can be verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false
        • It's possible for statements to be meaningful without being verified
          • Swinburne uses the toys in the cupboard analogy. It's a meaningful statement because it can be understood
    • Falsification Principle
      • To assert something is to deny something else
      • R.M Hare
        • Religious beliefs are 'Bliks'
          • Because of the impact they have on the way people look at the world.
        • Parable of the lunatic
          • Lunatic convinced all dons want to kill him regardless of friends showing him nice dons
            • Thinks the dons are plotting against him
        • Criticisms
          • John Hick
            • Religious beliefs based upon reason
            • Hare claims distinction between sane and insane 'bliks' but also claims they're unfalsifiable
              • If we can't prove/disproe then we can't call them sane/insane either
      • Antony Flew
        • Parable of the Gardener
          • 2 explorers. 1 thinks gardener tends to land, other doesn't. Put up defences but no proof of Gardener. 1 still thinks gardener exists.
        • Religious statements are pointless
          • Statements are meaningful if can be verified or falsified
      • Basil Mitchell
        • Parable of the Partisan
          • Stranger meets resistance worker and trusts him even though the worker seems to be going against stranger
        • Flew was wrong; religious statements are meaningful
          • Believers don't allow anything to conclusively falsify God
            • But they show there are problematic parts of religious belief that'll be revealed at the end of time
        • Criticisms
          • Weak analogy of faith in God when it comes to the problem of evil
          • Debatable of the extent the stranger gets over the problem of falsification
            • As relgious believers won't allow anything to go against their faith
      • Evaluation
        • Swinburne = factual statements can be falsified but existential ones cannot
          • Supported by R.M Hare's bliks
        • Ayer was against: statements cannot be conclusively falsified any more than they can be verified
        • Is it right to compare religious language with scientific statements?
          • Religion is not to do with assertions but rather it should be understood as symbolic
    • Via Negativa
      • The 'Negative Way': a way of talking about God which says what he is not rather that what he is
      • Attempts to address the issue that God is transcendent so we cannot say what God is
      • Evaluating Via Negativa
        • It recognises that  it's difficult to imagine what our concepts can mean when applied to God
        • Does it actually get us any closer to understanding the true nature of God?
        • Avoids anthropomorphism and supports the ideas of God's transcendence
          • How can we be sure there is anything to be talked about? (Flew's gardener)
        • Our understanding of the word 'good' is usually linked to what it is for a human to be 'good'
          • God is not human so what can 'good' mean when it is applied to him?
    • Symbols
      • Symbols can lose their meaning if societies change
      • Paul Tillich
        • Religious language is symbolic, God cannot be known personally but symbols help
    • Analogy
      • Aquinas
        • Equivocal language is meaningless
        • Univocal language is problematic as it limits God
      • Analogy of Attribution
        • Words may be applied to God and humans
      • Analogy of proportionality
        • Words used of God are proportional to Gods extended rationality
    • The Language Games
      • To be part of the game you must know the rules
      • D.Z. Phillips
        • Developed Wittgenstein's approach
        • Religious statements cannot be understood in a literal way
      • Strengths
        • Enables different peoples beliefs to be meaningful
        • Truth is understood to be relative
      • Weaknesses
        • Any statement can become meaningful
        • It alienates those outside of the game

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all Religious Language resources »