20th centuray perspectives religious language

Question 1

analytic statements

Answer 1

• a statement that is true by definition

- e.g. ‘bachelors are unmarried ‘

Question 2

synthetic statements

Answer 2

• a statement which needs eternal evidence to verify if it’s true or false
• e.g. all swans are white

Question 3

background on the Vienna circle

Answer 3

• the logical positivists
• group of philosophers in the 1920’s who were members of the origin circle
• Includes Schlick and Neurath
• built on empirical such as Lock and Hume

Question 4

what is the verification principle

Answer 4

the belief that statements are only meaningful if they can be verified by the senses. Verified by experience or tautology

Question 5

define tautology

Answer 5

a logical statement that we can know to be true by definition

type of analytic statement

Question 6

explain the strong verification principle

Answer 6

• it can be verified by an actual statement
• if it’s is a tautology = a logical statement true by definition
• therefore, religious language cannot be verified by experience and is not a tautology so religious language is meaningless
• e.g. ‘a round circle’ is meaningful as it is a tautology
• e.g. ‘all Ravens are black’ is meaningless as it cannot prove it at this moment

Question 7

4 problems with the strong verification principle

Answer 7

• cannot make statements about history because you can’t prove them through your experiences at this moment. E.g. no empirical observations now that can verify the facts about the life of julius Caesar
• scientific laws become meaningless. E.g. ‘gravity is constant in all places on earth’ - cannot be verified as cannot be in two places at once
• expressing an opinion about a piece of art becomes meaningless
• not left with much to talk about

Question 8

swinburnes argument against the strong verification principle

Answer 8

• universal statements cannot be known in practice

- e.g. ‘all Ravens are black ‘

Question 9

explain Ayer’s weak verification principle

Answer 9

• a statement is only meaningful if ; it can be verified by principle ( you can describe what observations would be needed even if they are not possible ) of if it is a tautology
• e.g. ‘all swans are white ‘ is meaningful as can be verified by principle. I could find every swan in the world and see if they are all white
• e.g. ‘a circle is round ‘ is meaningful as it is a tautology
• e.g. ‘love your enemies’ is meaningless as it isn’t a tautology and it cannot be verified by principle

Question 10

why are morals, opinions, science, historical statements and religious statements meaningless according to Ayer’s weak verification principle

Answer 10

• aren’t tautologies and cannot be verified by principle

Question 11

what is a criticism of Ayer’s weak verification principle ?

Answer 11

• could be argued that religious statements can be verified in principle
• as can look at accounts, read the bible, just in the same way we do with historical statements

Question 12

what is Hick’s argument

Answer 12

• at the point of death we will have evidence of gods existence as we will perceive God
• God will be shown to exist to those who already thought God did exists
• he calls this ‘eschatological verification ‘

Question 13

what is Swinburne argument against the logical positivist

Answer 13

• a statement can be meaningful even if there is no way of empirically verifying it
• analogy from toy story : toys in a cupboard. Toys come out at night when no one observes them. Situation is still meaningful even though it is unverifiable

Question 14

explain Flew’s argument on the falsification principal

Answer 14

• parable of the garden by John wisdom
• one explorer believes there is a gardener, the other doesn’t
• set up trade but no gardener is found
• believer continues to believe there is a gardener but story has now changed; must be an invisible gardener
• suggesting that religious claims about the world aren’t really claims at all as they cannot be testified
• when challenged, the believer waters down their claim. Religious claims suffer ‘the death of a thousand qualifications’
• strength = can see believers watering down claims. E.g. problem of evil. Claim that ‘ God loves people’ is then reduced to ‘God loves people but allows free will’

Question 15

explain Hare’s argument for the falsification principle

Answer 15

• lunatic convinced that all professors want to kill him
• friends show him the kindest professors but he still isn’t convinced
• still has a blink (belief that isn’t altered despite evidence against it) that professors want to kill him
• suggests that religious beliefs are blinks
• we all have blinks that are individual to us
• blinks are non cognitive and cannot be proven to be false ( falsified )
• counter argument to Flew as suggesting that you cannot apply scientific criteria to religious language ( evidence )

Question 16

explain Mitchell’s argument on the falsification principle

Answer 16

• during wars resistance fights meets a stranger who persuades him that he is a secret commander of the resistance despite sometimes working undercover
• the stranger sometimes helps but it also seen in the uniform of the opposition
• when challenge the partisan says ‘ the stranger knows best ‘
• suggest that there is evidence which counts for and against belief
• however, believer doesn’t allow the evidence to count against belief as they have faith

Question 17

define popper’s falsification principle

Answer 17

• a principle for assessing wether statements are genuine scientific assertions by considering whether any evidence could ever disprove it

Question 18

define blink

Answer 18

• a basic belief that is not altered despite empirical evidence against it

Question 19

why did Karl Popper devise the falsification theory

Answer 19

• as a test for what is science and what is a theory that is pretending to be science

Question 20

explanation of Karl Popper’s falsification theory

Answer 20

• when scientists make a claim, they invite others to test their hypothesis to see if it can be disproved
• you only need 1 piece of evidence to go against your hypothesis to prove it to be false.
• this is unlike the verification principle which suggests you need all the evidence to disprove it.
• ‘all swans are white ‘ according to the verification principle would mean you would need to find all the swans if the world to see if it was true
• with the falsification theory you would just need to find 1 black sawn to prove the statement to be false

Question 21

summary of Hare

Answer 21

• bliks
• parable of the student who believes professors want to kill him
• counter to Flew as Hare is suggesting that you cannot apply scientific criteria ( evidence) to religious language
• weakness= bliks are different for everyone
• weakness = may seem inadequate as believes claiming that ‘God loves us’ aren’t just claiming a subjective truth; they believe to be making a claim about reality as a whole

Question 22

summary of Flew

Answer 22

• parable of the gardeners
• religious statements cannot be tested
• believes water down their claims so they cannot be falsified
• strength = can see believes watering down their claims, E.g. problem of evil or why God doesn’t answer our prayers
• strength against believes qualifying their assertion = if God is perfect you wouldn’t have to qualify him

Question 23

summary of Mitchell

Answer 23

• parable of resistance worker and stranger
• evidence counts for an against belief. Don’t allow every dense against belief to over rule as have faith in God due to connection
• rejects idea that religious beliefs are blinks
• recognises the role of evidence in a way that hare doesn’t
• weakness = how long does something cause doubt before we suggest it’s false ?
• supports Flew’s idea that religious statements are claims but sees a genuine role in faith
• weakness= if believes don’t give up on their religious assertions then surely they are qualifying God too
• counter = Mitchell’s would reply saying they aren’t qualifying their statements because they are allowing counter evidence

Question 24

what is Wittgenstein quote

Answer 24

‘philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday ‘

problem happen when you use words in the wrong context

Question 25

explain Wittgenstein’s language games theory

Answer 25

• it is a way of explaining that language is like playing a game with rules
• within society we have rules about how words are used
• e.g. if I point at a chair and say hamster then someone would correct me in the same way if I moved a chess piece incorrectly
• for religious statements there is not a difference of opinion where one viewpoint is right and one is wrong, there are just two different ways of seeing it
• e.g. saying ‘God is loving’ fits in with the rules of the Christian religion but not with atheism. The way we use language depends on the context
• we have to be a part of someone’s game in order to understand the meaning of their language

Question 26

2 examples to explain Wittgenstein’s language games theory

Answer 26

• ‘sound’ means good according to teenage slang. But it means noise according to the older generation. Context dependent
• Islamic religion sees ‘Jesus’ as prophet but for Christians it means the son of God

Question 27

3 criticisms of hare

Answer 27

• believers claiming ‘God is love’ aren’t just claiming a subjective truth- they believe they are making a claim about reality as a whole
• not all blinks are equal, they are some sane and some insane blinks. Insane = hitter is good. Sane - God is loving. We need to be able to distinguish the difference
• blinks are different to each person

Question 28

2 strengths and one weakness of flew

Answer 28

• strength = if God is perfect you wouldn’t have to qualify your assumptions (Flew’s argument against believes )
• strength = we can see believes qualifying their arguments . E.g. ‘people pray for healing but it does not happen ‘ try to justify it by saying that God has a plan, he answers prays indirectly and he can’t answer all prayers etc
• weakness = not all believers are like this. Some believers would allow falsification. This is Mitchell’s argument against flew

Question 29

weakness and counter argument of Mitchell

Answer 29

• how far does something cause doubt before we suggest it’s false? If believers dint guys up in their assertion then surely they are qualifying their statements also
• Mitchell would respond saying they aren’t qualifying their statements as the are allowing counter evidence

Question 30

how does Mitchell support flew ?

Answer 30

• the idea that religious statements are claims but sees a genuine role for faith

Question 31

’ You cannot step outside the game, just play another game so there can be no judgment of meaning or value ; no criticisms between games ‘

2 reasons why this can be seen as a strength of language games and 2 reasons why this can be seen as a weakness of language games

Answer 31

• strength = don’t have to treat them in the same way as science. Religious statements are separate
• strength = it recognises that there are beliefs we hold for which we cannot give reasons - yet thus are important to us and shape how we see the world
• weakness = can’t share ideas between games so discussion is difficult
• weakness = it would seem unfair that we couldn’t criticise a racist game for example

Question 32

‘religion cannot be analysed by either verification or in a scientific way’

2 strengths and one weakness of this

Answer 32

weakness = religious language is non cognitive but believers use religious statements as true claims, they want to make cognitive statements

strength = recognises that language is different to scientific language and so should be treated differently

strength = religious language is meaningful but non cognitive.

• however, this could be dangerous as it could lead to a lack of rational questioning and a belief in fideism (faith alone)
• also, can result in anti-realist approach. God is not an objective reality. God is real only in the context of faith. Believers wouldn’t like this because they want God to be real always, not just within faith.

Question 33

D.Z. Phillips on Wittgenstein

Answer 33

• uses ‘form of life’ to mean language games
• you cannot access philosophical ideas such as ‘are we real?’. Form of life contains a reality beyond the remit of philosophical questions
• religious statements are not literal but have a deeper meaning, such as ‘souls’
• he things Wittgenstein moved beyond seeing religious language as cognitive or non cognitive

Question 34

is analogy cognitive or non cognitive

Answer 34

cognitive

Question 35

are language games cognitive or non cognitive

Answer 35

non cognitive

Question 36

key words to compare analogy with language games

Answer 36

analogy

• comparing God to something else
• Aquinas
• analogy of promotion / attribution
• strength = uses positive language
• weakness = risks anthropormphising God

language games

• within groups there are rules about how words are used
• Wittgenstein
• strength = your belief doesn’t get questioned
• weakness = can’t have debates on religious statements

Question 37

does cognitivism or non cognitivism make more sense of religious language

3 points for cognitivism
4 points for non cognitivism

Answer 37

cognitivism

• Flew
• Evidence that counts for and against belief
• Aquinas

non cognitivism

• Ayer
• Weak verification principle
• religious language meaningless
• Wittgenstein - but debate on whether he was a non cognitvist

Question 38

biblical ideas on religious language

Answer 38

• textual criticism
• historical criticism
• source criticism
• tradition criticism
• form criticism

fundamentalists = take the bible literally. Believe it is cognitive. e.g. God did actually create the world in 6 days

liberals = look at text and reinterpret it. non cognitive

conservative = the bible is the message from God but doesn’t take words literally or as factually true

Question 39

what is Bultman’s argument

Answer 39

• De mythologise Nt and end up with the core teaching of Jesus.
• this ends up as a set of moral values
• he was a liberal

Question 40

4 criticisms of Bultman

Answer 40

• shouldn’t remove myths as may have deeper meaning. It could just be a metaphor that we need to analyse
• he could just be ‘cherry-picking’ choosing what parts of the bible he what’s to keep hand which ones he wants to get rid of
• miracles may be part of the original tradition
• different interpretations may depend on the culture of the interpreter

Question 41

what is hicks argument

Answer 41

• rejects the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event
• Jesus is the perfect example of a fully human response to go
• he was a liberal

Question 42

what is a cognitive view of scripture

Answer 42

• Aquinas understands the biblical text as cognitive. It makes claims that are true
• many religious believers would disagree with the non cognitive approach because it lessens the importance of key parts of Christianity, such as the resurrection
• many believers interpret texts symbolically . The texts are important because of what they tell us about faith, God and how they function in the community

Question 43

to what extent is Aquinas view of theological language relevant in modern philosophy

key points

Answer 43

• Analogy
• cognitive
• support with fundamentalists views
• non cognitive against

Question 44

what is modern philosophy

Answer 44

Vienna circle
cognitive
none cognitive