analogy/religious language LIMBUS Flashcards
1
Q
(1) religious language (general)
(2) 3 main issues (religious lang)
(3) cognitive vs non-cognitive
A
- (1) G, religion, rel exp (moksha, doctrine, incarnation); human lang to describe non-human/divine = issues; lack of shared experience = exclusionary
- (2) lack shared context/experience; language used differently (‘have you been washed in the blood?’)
- (3) ‘cognition’ (emp, obj, RL cognitively = statement believed true); CgT (realist, obj, emp, v/f); NCgT (pictorial, subj, emotive, not v/f)
2
Q
(1) vienna circle, logical positivism
(2) verification principle (+strong/weak principles)
(3) a.j. ayer
A
- (1) 1920s, Wittgenstein/Shlick; V/F via science/maths; outside logical tenets = meaningless/inside = ‘tautological/self-expl’ (verifiable/a priori/emp); ‘language mirrors the world’
- (2) ‘to prove something true’; VPs/RS (tautological, analytic, mathematical, synthetic)
- (3) 1936; infl by Wittgenstein/Russell; G’s claims can’t be contradicted, so aren’t valid propositions; can’t be rationally demonstrated; ‘G’ is metaphysical term, can’t be proven
- VPs: strong/weak
3
Q
(1) weaknesses/strengths of VP
(2) falsification principle + flew
(3) falsification principle’s strengths and weaknesses
A
- (1) W: paradox of invalidity, weak principle verifies all (ward, hick runzo); S: accessible, provides linguistic structure, facilitates verifiability (cuppitt, smith allen)
- (2) fals over verif; a principle scientific if disprovable; RS meaningless, as can’t be challenged; ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’; Gardener parable
- (3) S: VP strengths; W: validates all statements irresp of falsifiability, meaning can exist through intention (hick, richmond, davies)
4
Q
(1) aquinas + 3 kinds of lang
(2) aq+ analogy, an of attribution, an of proportionality
(3) ian ramsay
A
- (1) univocal, equivocal, analogical,; A> rejects Via Negativa; analogy is a compromise; G unknowable, properties attributed
- (2) attribution, proportionality/’in ratio’
- (3) always experiencing G/creation encounter; ‘models’, ‘qualifiers’, ‘disclosure models’
5
Q
(1) strengths/weaknesses for analogy
(2) mitchell + hare’s views
A
- (1) S: accessible, avoids reduction of G, avoids anthropom G (brown, runzo, hume, schwartz); W: G still empirically unquantifiable, subjective, analogy requires comparison/unable with G (ayer, flew, blackstone, hume, evans, swinburne)
- (2) Mi> provisional hypothesis, vacuous formulae, sign article of faith; Ha> ‘bliks’