Unit 4 Flashcards
(23 cards)
Aquinas on analogy
- univocal language: words have the same meaning regardless of context
- equivocal language: words change meaning depending on context
- analogous language: comparing 2 things to explain a separate concept
Aristotle on analogy
- if 2 things share a common attribute, then what may be true for one will be true for the other
4 criteria:
1. The strength of the analogy depends on how similar the two things being compared are
2. Can be found only in things which have the same properties
3. Sound analogies will have a strong denominator
4. Good analogies do not rely on assumed knowledge regarding the common denominator
Analogy of attribution
The made and the maker must have commonalities and we can ascertain things about the maker by looking at the made
Analogy of proportionality
An analogy that uses the same word to describe 2 different things but the word is used in a different sense
E.g. god love us - gods love infinitely higher
Strengths of analogy
- allows positive statements of god
- consistent with the view held by Christian’s that god is transcendent and beyond our understanding
- allows descriptions of god that are not univocal and limit gods nature or involve anthropomorphism
Weakness of analogy
- unclear
- terms have to be translated into univocal language
Via negativa/ apophatic argument
- the idea that we cannot use human language to effectively describe god as he goes beyond our understand
- avoids anthropomorphism
Physical symbols
- hugely important facet of religious life, practice and dialogue
- for Christian’s the cross is considered to have much more meaning than just a roman execution method
Paul Tillich on symbol
- emphasised importance of symbols within RL
- drew a distinction between symbol (point to s much deeper meaning) and sign (a practical necessity communicating basic info)
- symbols have a life cycle and are subject to change
- his thoughts on symbol are COGNITIVE as it is reasonable to enquire about the truth of these statements
Hicks criticism of Tillich
- symbols participate in the deeper meaning they point to arguing it is unclear
- symbol could potentially be less meaningful depending on who’s using it e.g. atheist saying ‘Jesus is the bread of life’
General weaknesses of symbol
- might need modernising
- could become outdated
- could become the focus of worship
- may be interpreted differently
- only make sense in certain communities/contexts
- can become trivialised and original meaning lost
Categories of statements (verification)
- contingent (statements which are true or false depending on the context)
- synthetic (statements which do not contain meaning and evidence within themselves but are related)
- analytic (statements which contain meaning and evidence within themselves e.g. tautologies)
The Vienna circle and logical positivism
- group of western philosophers who championed logical positivism (1924-1936) when members disbanded due to WW2, their thoughts heavily influenced Ayer and his verification ideas
- logical positivism: a philosophical idea that argues knowledge is only true when empirically proved or analytic, a method of verifying statements
Ayer - verification principle
- any statement which cannot be empirically or analytically verified is meaningless, including all RL
Ayer - weak verification
- to address issue of history and science being deemed meaningless
- strong statements have been proved in existence
- weak statements could be THEORETICALLY PROVED
- but does this make RL meaningful?
Criticisms of the verification principle
- empirically evidence cannot be trusted as humans are flawed
- with the exception of tautologies it is impossible to make any statement of meaning
- it would render the entirety of philosophy meaningless
- logical positivism would itself be meaningless
- views science as they only way to garner truth
Brummer - can’t compare religious and scientific statements
Eschatological verification(hick)
Parable of the celestial city
Flew - falsification
The sceptic explorer does not believe in a gardener because there is no evidence but the believer chooses to ignore it
Uses a parable to explain his ideas
He despairs that believers SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS and DIE A DEATH OF A THOUSAND QUALIFICATIONS when facing contradictory evidence like the problem of evil
Through the analogy flew argues that theists must admit there is evidence which could disprove god or admit there is nothing that would change their minds
Hares response to flew
- used his own analogy about a madman who believes all dons want to kill him
- hick argues the madman might be looking at the same evidence as his friends who try to convince him no one is trying to kill him, but they’re interpreting it different
- hare terms such ideas BLIKS (something which affects you world view) which he argues are unfalsifiable
Mitchells response to flew (partisan)
- Mitchell agrees that statements about god should be assertions like flew and insists that evil does count against the assertion that god loves us
- believers believers are mistaken
- the believer in god, like the believer in the stranger of his parable, has an attitude of trust + faith, the actual evidence is ambiguous
- the partisan has been moved by the stranger enough to trust that even when it seems otherwise, the strange really is on his side
Flews response to hare and Mitchell
Hare: bliks are ‘unorthodox’ for Christian’s, just personal worldviews not asserting anything proper about god, make religious belief sound ‘silly’ and fraudulent
Mitchell: just delaying the inevitable as the FP must be answered at some point, parable is a poor analogy
Language games
- cognitive (ones which express propositions and therefore can be said to be either true or false)
- non-cognitive (ones which cannot be true or false)
- miscommunication e.g. idioms, words people use to communicate ideas are as important ass the ideas themselves
Wittgenstein
- developed language game theory
- argues that theists and atheists discuss religion and god as if they’re speaking another language
- it is not about the meanings of words but how they’re used
- compares it to the game if sports, context it’s important
- if true, theists and atheists are playing different games with different equipment
- this helps believers to navigate conversations without philosophy while not compromising belief
