analogy/religious language LIMBUS

Question 1

(1) religious language (general)

(2) 3 main issues (religious lang)

(3) cognitive vs non-cognitive

Answer 1

• (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)

Question 2

(1) vienna circle, logical positivism

(2) verification principle (+strong/weak principles)

(3) a.j. ayer

Answer 2

• (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

Question 3

(1) weaknesses/strengths of VP

(2) falsification principle + flew

(3) falsification principle’s strengths and weaknesses

Answer 3

• (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)

Question 4

(1) aquinas + 3 kinds of lang

(2) aq+ analogy, an of attribution, an of proportionality

(3) ian ramsay

Answer 4

• (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’

Question 5

(1) strengths/weaknesses for analogy

(2) mitchell + hare’s views

Answer 5

• (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’