philosophy Flashcards
(4 cards)
freud/jung (9)
(1) freud
- (1800-1900) ath/jewish/abuse, god projection
- reductive psychoanalysis/sexual disturbances
- ego/id/superego, primal horde, OC, wish-ful/helplessness
(2) freud’s cases, strengths/weaknesses
- S: hypnosis/darwin’s tofev, palmer/smith/marx
- W: lack of empirical evidence, not universal (evans, kung, popper)
- studies: schreber, little hands, wolf man
(3) jung
- (1800-1900) swiss christian, freud pupil/disagreed, valued religion
- reductionist/’analytic psychology’, ego/personal unc (shadow)/collective unc
- archetypes, individuation, god within
(4) jung’s strengths/weaknesses
- S: clinical observation/a posteriori/experience, religion as a tool (winnicott, durkheim, ward)
- W: lacks empiricism, few overt predictions (popper, allport, hall, brown)
(5) atheism
- atheos/’no god’, negative/positive/protest/new atheism
- humanism, naturalism, materialism, rationalism
(6) agnosticism
- gnostic/’without knowledge’/middle/third way (strong, weak)
(7) new atheism
- NA: 9/11, abolish entirely, science/tech/empiricism, harris/dawkins/dennett/hitchens
(8) NA’s challenges
- non-thinking/intellectually irresponsible (harris, dennett), infantile (segan), impedes science (darwin, hitchens)
(9) religious responses
- science+religion can work (tennant/anthropic, behe/psyllia)
- inc in popularity (dr morgan, british humanist association/rise)
- inc religious apologists (eagleton, myers, wilson)
miracles/religious experience (10)
(1) miracles (general)
- ‘miraculum’/wonder
- subj/3 (against reg occurence, significant, ascribe religious signif)
- G: omnib, omnip, omnis; montgomery
(2) aquinas (definition)
- ‘a violation miracle’; only G can perform, bc ‘un-created’; Ms beneficial to recipient
- 3: G did/nature can’t; G did/N can but not in this order; G did without workings of N
- G as primary cause (direct intervention) vs G as secondary cause (human agents)
(3) hume (definition)
- M: violation of LofN; M: intervention by external agent/express divine cause; M: violations of laws by G
- H> hard: LofN hard/fixed; if broken, just misstated LofN vs soft: LofN have exceptions/’could’, but proving is impossible
(4) r.f. holland (definition)
- 1920-2013/’a contingency miracle’; coincidence interpreted as miracle = a miracle
- interpretation/subj, Ms valid irrespective of LofN
(5) swinburne (definition)
- 1934/’a violation miracle’; supports H, replaced phrase: ‘violation of LofN’»‘occurrence of non-repeatable counter-instance to a LofN’
- S> M must contribute to religious ends+quick timescale; not violate FW
(6) support for belief in miracles
- sacred texts; Genesis, Exodus
- witnesses ought to be respected/nature of M is to be exceptional
- LofN may be fluid; LofN descriptive, not prescriptive (broad, polkinghorne, pannenberg)
(7) challenges to belief in miracles
- can’t be cross-checked; projection; subjective (becker, hick, vardy)
(8) david hume + challenges (general)
- classical, empiricist, a posteriori, ‘laws of nature’
(9) hume challenge 1 (+swinburne’s response)
- H> Ms impossible to prove, but not inherently impossible; never enough evidence (atkins, hick, moore, dawkins)
- S^> trust witnesses/principle of evidentiality/until proven untrustworthy
(10) hume challenge 2 (+swinburne’s response)
- lack of reliable testimony; subj/bias; lacks empiricism/rational inquiry/conflicting claims (angels, ross, , atkins, howard)
- S^>standards too high/Ms reported internationally (Buddha, Daosim, Muslim); H> only valid is Ms conflict/incompatible
(11) criticism of hume’s challenges
- claims+corroborated physical evidence (davies)
- miracles may support other miracles (howard)
- polkinghorne, swinburne
analogy/religious language (13)
(1) religious language (general)
- abt G, religion, religious experience (moksha, doctrine, incarnation, karma)
- human lang to describe non-human/divine = issues; lack of shared experience = exclusionary
(2) 3 main issues (religious lang)
- (1) lack of clarity/shared experiences/lang to describe G, as G+humans don’t share experiences (metaphysical/3-dimensional complications)
- (2) rel lang not normal lang; ‘have you been washed in the blood?’; not universal/relatable
- (3) lang experience-based; time, concept, understanding varies
(3) cognitive vs non-cognitive
- Cognition: empirical, fact, sense, objective; RL in cognitive sense = statement believed to be true/not to be objectively scrutinised
- CT: realist, factual, objective, empirical, verifiable/falsifiable
- NC: pictorial, subj, emotive, not empirically-verifiable/falsifiable
(4) vienna circle, logical positivism
- 1920s, founders Wittgenstein/Schlick; Carnap, Ayer
- v/f dialogue/debates, lang analysis, scientific/logical formulations; ‘lang mirrors the world’
- ^> outside logical/scientific tenets = meaningless; inside = tautological/self-explanatory statements (verifiable; a posteriori/empirical)
(5) verification principle (+strong/weak principles)
- ‘to prove something true’; tautological (self-explanatory), analytic (a priori by definition), mathematical (maths; all errors human errors), synthetic (a post/can be v/f empirically)
- (1) ‘Dogs bark’ (emp test, but true)
- (2) ‘Swans are green’ (emp test, but false)
- (3) ‘Peter has brown eyes’ (emp test)
(6) a.j. ayer
- 1936, infl by russell/wittgenstein; spread LP to BR
- G claims can’t be contradicted, so aren’t valid propositions; G can’t be rationally demonstrated; G metaphysical term, can’t be proven
- Strong VP: statement verified in practise+present day> meaningful
- Weak VP: statement may be false, but still meaningful if method of verification found
(7) weaknesses/strengths of VP
- W: paradox of invalidity; VP can’t verify itself; VP deems overly meaningful statements as meaningless; weak principle makes all experiences verifiable (ward, hick, runzo)
- S: provides language structure; facilitates verifiability for religious statements; allows all religious statements to have a form of meaning (cuppitt, smith, allen)
(8) falsification principle + flew
- ‘to prove something else’, Anthony Flew (BR philosopher)> falsifiability over verifiability; a scientific principle only so if inherently disprovable (Popper)
- F> religious statements meaningless, as can’t be disproved/challenged; ‘dies a death of a thousand qualifications’
- F’s ‘Gardener’ parable (jungle seems tended, gardener vs no gardener; invisible vs not real = different reactions to same facts)
(9) falsification principle’s strengths and weaknesses:
- S: apply VP strengths + provides a method> can’t be falsified, can’t be meaningful
- W: statement understanding exists irrespective of it being falsifiable (toys moving/’toys in the cupboard’, Swinburne); meaning can exist through intention; hick, richmond, davies
(9) aquinas + 3 kinds of lang
- G unknowable, properties can be attributed
- (3): univocal (same word, same meaning in dif contexts), equivocal (same word, dif meaning), analogical (causal link/all G-derived)
- Aq> analogy is a compromise, two things compared
- Aq> rejects Via Negativa (process of elimination about G), equivocal (doesn’t convey info of G), univocal (reduced G)
(10) aq+ analogy, an of attribution, an of proportionality
- attribution: humans derive from G, G all things; attributes divinely inspired (link to cosmological’ first cause/uncaused causer)
- proportionality: ‘in ratio’; hierarchy, but all have things proportionate to them (G infinite/omni, so infinitely divine); hick
(11) ian ramsay
- bishop; all experience continuous G/creation encounter; models (understood concept) +qualifiers (aid in understanding model), disclosure models (‘penny drops’/e.g. understanding divine in spite of it being ineffable)
(12) strengths/weaknesses for analogy
- S: analogical lang bridges humans/G; analogy avoids reduction of G; avoids anthropomorphising G (brown, runzo, hume, schwartz); Aq/IR facilitate linguistic/conceptual gateways, anchored in physicality
- W: G’s meaning remains empirically unquantifiable; goodness is subjective, so judging G’s greatness problematic; analogy presupposes G’s existence; analogy requires basis of comparison, not possible with G (ayer, flew, blackstone, hume, evans, swinburne)
(13) mitchell + hare’s views
- M: treat it as a provisional hypothesis (discard if flawed), vacuous formulae (experience makes no dif), significant article of faith (open to challenge)
- Hare: ‘bliks’; meaning from impact of thing, not on its v/f
symbols/religious language (12)
(1) non-cog/symbolic language (general)
- ‘sumballo’/to throw together; metaphors/symbols to understand (picture, myths, actions)
- cross (christianity), flags (national identity), jesus
(2) tillich + tillich’s 6 characteristics
- T> faith as state of being ‘ultimately concerned’; symbols provide G understanding via lang excluding literal assertions
- (6) transcend facts; are in reality of what they present; can’t be produced intentionally; are fluid and changing
(3) randall + randall’s signs vs symbols
- 1958; R> S unified, gave identity, shared values; R> science+religion to develop simultaneously
- cog vs non-cog symbols; (sciences vs arts/religion); motivators (religious S disclose/reveal; distinguishes them from other symbols)
(4) 4 functions of symbolic language
- (4) motivate, social, communicative, disclosive
(5) strengths of SL
- superior communication vs RL/A; solves univocal/equivocal lang; evokes participation; insight not found in literal/cognitive lang
- (ward, williams, ramsey, mcfague, donovan)
(6) weaknesses of SL
- derived from non-cog lang; isn’t v/f = meaningless; lacks empiricism; if relative/fluid, how valuable; universal, but culturally determined/less reputable (alston, macquarrie, edwards)
(7) non-cog/mythological language (general)
- form of SL; imagery/symbolism (analogies, metaphors); universal, non-cog interpretation; explored religious concepts; ‘a myth is a story of origin’ (peters)
(8) purpose, biblical support for myth lang
- communicates/conveys; cross-cultural/universal; multi-generational capacity; emotional/psychological concepts (vardy, eliade, peters)
- biblical: noah flood; virgin birth; ramayana; puranas
- freud, tillich, hoffman, barbour, morrison, plantiga
(9) bultmann’s view + scholarly criticisms
- 1884, theologian; >all scripture myths removed, leftover essence used (‘demythologisation’)
- strauss, wette, miller, dawkins (‘god delusion’), hick (‘myth of god incarnate’), burrows
(10) challenges to myth
- not completely universal; superior forms of RL; relative/subj = unreliable; incompatible with science; no criteria consensus
(11) theories: correspondence, coherence, language game
- CSP: realist, true/meaningful by relationship with external world (empiricist, like v/f)
- CHT: anti-realist, truth determined by interpretation from group/group consensus
- LGT: wittgenstein philosopher, post-modern; how words are used, not words themselves; non-cog
(12) strengths/weaknesses of LGT
- S: explore religious concepts; accessible; provided initial value irrespective; mutual respect (donovan, phillips, vardy)
- W: lacks empiricism; exclusive, explanation of lang has to be given in a lang; inflexible, subj; G has no objective meaning, so valid dialogue can’t be made (rhees, howard, ashley)
