Studied by 1 person
What are analytic statements?
Statements true or false by definition
What are synthetic statements?
Statements true or false by experience/evidence
Define cognitive language
Language which conveys factual information
Is generally synthetic
Define non-cognitive language
Language which is not intended to provide factual information
For example emotions, orders, morals etc
List a few problems with talking about God
God is beyond our understanding
By nature he is ineffable
Our word limits him and anthropomorphises him
Evidence we have for him is less than what he have for ourselves
Hence we cannot be certain it’s cognitive
What is the Verification Principle actually concerned with?
Whether a statement is meaningful, not whether it is true/false
Who were the Vienna Circle and what did they develop?
A group of early 20th cent. philosophers led by Moritz Schlik
They developed a view known as logical positivism
What was the starting point for logical positivism?
Hume’s fork which said that we only have knowledge of two sorts of things
1 - Matters of fact (synthetic)
2 - Relations between ideas (analytic)
This lead to the verification principle
Explain the verification principle
A statement only has meaning if you have a way of verifying it.
Their view was that anything that could not be verified is meaningless
How would we apply the verification principle to God/ religious language?
It suggests that any discussion about God is meaningless as we can’t prove our statements either way
What are the strengths of the verification principle?
Takes an empirical approach then uses reason
We shouldn’t say things without evidence
Being rational is more efficient and purposeful
More scientific
What are the weaknesses of the verification principle?
The Verification Principle can’t be proved by its own theory
Emotion does have meaning and value - we cannot avoid this
Disregarding morals could lead to chaos
Makes more sense to discuss subjective topics
Discounts things of the past/future that are factual
Discounts scientific statements that are true but cannot be evidenced
What is the difference between verification in practise and verification in principle?
Verification in practice = can be verified right now
Verification in principle = we know how it could be verified, including past and future events
In which book did Ayer write his version of the Verification Principle?
Language, Truth and Logic, in which he describes a statement is meaningful either in practice or in principle
What was Ayer’s view on religious language?
If something is not factually significant it holds no meaning
Therefore phrases like “God loves you” are meaningless because there’s no way of verifying them
He finds “God exists” to be neither true nor false, just meaningless due to lack of evidence
The same is said for “God does not exist”, so atheists also fail to say anything meaningful
What was Ayer’s view on moral statements?
He dismisses them as they are merely expressions of approval or disapproval
What are some criticisms of Ayer?
He still argues morals and emotion are meaningless
We could resurrect in the future and find out if God exists making religious language meaningful
In the past we could have seen Jesus’ resurrection
Who started challenging religious language through falsification?
Popper, who argued that science works primarily through falsification
Induction is method where evidence is collected and evaluated = a hypothesis leading to a theory
If evidence is found in favour of the theory it gives it credibility
However evidence against it is also sought, and if not found gives the theory greater credibility
Hence Popper said something is only scientific if it’s accepted it could be wrong
Summarise John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener
Two people come across a garden and one explorer says there must be a gardener tending to it but the other explorer disagrees
They watch for the gardener but none is seen
Explorer 1 says he may be invisible so they patrolled with bloodhounds and even though they don’t find anything, the believer (E1) remains unconvinced
Explorer two (the non-believer) asks the difference between an invisible gardener and no gardener at all
What does the parable tell us about religious and scientific minded people?
Those who are religious will stick to their belief whatever the case
Those who think scientifically are open to the concept of their being wrong
Define the Falsification Principle with examples
A statement is meaningful if you know what would have to happen to falsify it
E.g: Water boils at 100 degrees is meaningful because if it boiled at 99 then it would be false
Equally “God is good” is not meaningful as we don’t know what would have to happen to disprove it
What did Flew think about theists ultimately?
They are constantly qualifying/ adapting their beliefs even when there is falsifying evidence
Give a quote by Flew in regards to religious language?
it “dies the death of a thousand qualifications”
What are the strengths of the Falsification Principle?
It’s more scientific
Recognises that theists aren’t open to any critical analysis if their beliefs
What are the weaknesses of the falsification principle?
Compares two very opposite things: science and religion
It’s too rigid and narrow
Religious language could be meaningful and non-cognitive
Many theists argue religious language is cognitive and meaningful
Flew became a theist
Doesn’t recognise the meaning of emotions
Summarise Hick’s parable in response to the Verification Principle
Two men are travelling on a road, one believing it’ll lead to the celestial city and the other that it leads no where
Neither have been this way so neither can be sure
They face good and bad times along the way and one believes its the journey to the city but the other thinks it is an aimless journey
When they turn the last corner its clear one was right and the other wrong
Define Eschatological Verification
The facts of Christianity will be verified after death
How is Hick’s parable a response to the VP?
It responds to AJ Ayer’s development which allows for future events to be meaningful
What kind of language is Hick assuming religious language is?
Cognitive as it can become factual
What are the strength’s of Hick?
Says religious language is factual and fits Christianity
There must either be life after death or not
We all evaluate and interpret the evidence our own way but there will be an answer
What are the weaknesses of Hick?
It is written from the perspective of the person who reaches the city
If heaven doesn’t exist, we can’t verify it in the first place
Summarise Hare’s parable in response to the Falsification Principle?
There is a lunatic convinced all the professors at uni want to kill him
His friends introduce him to the nicest professors and asks if he has decided he is wrong but the lunatic remains convinced
No matter how many nice professors he meets, nothing changes his mind
How is Hare’s parable a response to the FP?
The lunatic refuses to be proven wrong even if there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise
Why is this parable still saying religious language is meaningful?
Hare notes that religious belief is an internalised faith and faith will remain regardless of if it can be verified or falsified
What is a blik?
Your framework of interpretation, which is non-cognitive and non-falsifiable
Who was Wittgenstein?
He influenced the logical positivists which focused on how language should be precise in the way it describes reality
Later became more concerned with the intention and context of the person speaking so we could understand its significance
What did Wittgenstein famously say?
“Don’t think, look”
He wanted us to look at how the words are used rather than just understand the meaning
What was Wittgenstein’s focus?
The use of language and the people it is used with as they need to understand the “rules” of the game
Each “game” has its own patterns, rules, meaning and values
You cannot criticise someone for being wrong if you’re basing it on a different game
What were Wittgenstein’s views on religious language?
RL is meaningful and non-cognitive
Truth is agreed in communities; it is meaningful if you discuss Islam in a mosque but not in a church
Religious people can only be criticised if people muddle up the games e.g: I’m Christian and I believe in Allah
How does the language game idea respond to the VP and FP?
Something can be meaningful when it makes sense within a community
What are the strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games?
Allows people to live in harmony, all views accepted
Language has power and meaning to those who use it
Context does drive language
What are the weaknesses of Wittgenstein’s language games?
Allows for anything to be equally meaningful as long as it coheres with each other
Intention of language can be interpreted differently
There’s no ultimate truth so reduces religion to a game
What is univocal language?
When a word means the same thing in each situation
E.g: When i said “God is good” and “my dog is good” good would mean the same thing each time
The problem is it limits God as he is reduced to normal things
What is Equivocal language?
When a word means a different thing in a different situation
E.g: “God is good” and “my dog is good”, good means something completely different
Problem is we can’t tell what “good” means in each situation and God is beyond our understanding so we can’t check
What was Aquinas’ opinion on univocal and equivocal language?
He thought it limited in describing God
His approach was to use analogical language
What are the two forms of analogy?
Analogy of attribution
Analogy of proportion
Explain analogy of attribution
If the bull is healthy the urine will be too
An attribute of the creator is in the created
Therefore if the world is good God must be too as he created
We don’t have to meet the bull to know he is healthy and we don’t have to meet God to know he is good
Explain analogy of proportion
What is meant for a dog to be good is different for what it means for God to be good
They are differently good according to criteria for each
God’s goodness is proportionately different to ours as God is perfectly good according to his criteria, we just cannot understand this criteria
What are the strengths of analogical language?
Doesn’t limit God
Allows us to talk confidently about God
Factual element, it is meaningful and cognitive
What are the weaknesses of analogical language?
We still don’t fully understand God
Creator doesn’t always have attributes of the created
We could say the world is evil so God is too?
Maybe assuming existing knowledge of God
What are the two approaches to faith?
Katapathic way
Apophatic way
Explain the katapathic approach to faith
Being positive/ affirming/ being active
E.g: Actions likr praying through thanking and asking
Language - God is good
This does not mean positive it just explains what something is
Explain the apophatic way
Denying/ using negative language/ being passive
E.g: actions - silent meditation
Language - God is not evil/temporal
Not meaning unkind, just explaining what something is not
Define the via negativa
The way of the negative. This means describing God in terms of what he is not (rather than criticising him)
E.g: God is unlimited, God is not temporal, God is not immortal, God is not ineffable
Who are two key scholars for the via negativa?
Pseudo Dionysius - a 6th cent. Greek mystic who wanted to emphasise God’s transcendence
Miamonides - a 12th cent. Jewish philosopher who wanted to emphasise God’s power was incomparable to anything else
Says that those who affirm attributes of God lose their belief.
What are the strengths of the via negativa?
Keeps the epistemic distance and unknowable nature of God
Can have an understanding of God
Openness for personal interpretations
Links to mystical and individual experiences
What are the weaknesses of the via negativa?
Too broad, could be anything/ any variation
Before we say what he isn’t, we decide what he is first
Not practical for religion, believes worship what something is
What are Paul Tillich’s 6 characteristics of symbols?
They point beyond themselves to something else
It participates in that to which it points
Opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed for us
Symbols cannot be provided intentionally
Unlocks dimensions and elements of our souls which correspond to the dimensions of reality
Consequence of the fact that symbol cannot be invented
Note 
Flashcard (162)