2666945
Descripción
Fichas por Alanis Harridine , actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Alanis Harridine
hace más de 9 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Why would Religious Language be considered meaningless? | Human language that we use to describe and understand with is not adequate for a transcendent God. Therefore leads to misunderstanding, misinterpretations and confusion. |
| What is the Verification Principle? | It was created by the Logical Positivists in a group called the Vienna Circle - who argued for something to meaningful, it must be based on factually verified assertions e.g. maths and sciences (things that can be explained through sense experiences and can be empirically tested) |
| Who was the logical positivist who supported this? | A. J. Ayer, he believes that RL's are meaningless because they cannot be verified because God is metaphysical term and so has no literal significance. |
| What does non-cognitive/anti-realist and cognitive/realist mean? | Non-cognitive/anti-realist - shouldn't be taken factually e.g. myths, moral commands, symbols and metaphors (& RL). Cognitive/realist - they must be taken factually (for anything to be provable it must be verifiable) e.g. for believers 'God exists'. |
| What is the difference between Ayer's Strong and Weak verification? | Strong verification - that there is no doubt the statement is true e.g. the pope is catholic. Weak verification - that there is no absolute certainty e.g. historical statements and scientific theories like the Big Bang Theory. |
| What did Flew argue? | He agreed with Ayer that RL's are meaningless. He came up with Falsification this is where believers have knowledge of the arguments against their beliefs but refuse to stop believing. |
| Which parable did Flew use? | He used the Parable of the Gardener: one person would not allow the person to count against (obvious design in the garden) and refused the other persons evidence to say otherwise (no gardener). He concluded that for something to be meaningful it has to be verified. |
| What did Basil Mitchell argue? | He argues that believers do this because of the 'significant articles of faith' behind falsification. |
| Which parable did Mitchell use? | He uses the Parable of the Partisan and the stranger as an example: even when there was proof that the stranger was with the soldiers, the partisan still believed him because of the significant articles of faith. |
| What are the problems with symbols and myths? | Symbols and myths can get outdated and even trivialised. E.g. myths are so old fashioned they have no meaning in modern society. For symbols the cross can be worn by people as a fashion accessory, not recognising its significance. Sometimes symbols can even distract worshippers from worshipping God e.g. Saints. |
| What did Richard Dawkins and Bultmann argue? | They argued that RL's are meaningless as the bible is 'nonsense' and that it is just 'plain weird' examples of stories 'cobbled together...by anonymous authors.' They concluded that the bible should be stripped away of its myths. |
| What did Bultmann think? | Bultmann however, thought that after the myths have been stripped away (demythologise), the bible will still have significant values left. |
| Who was Weittgenstein and what was his argument? | Weittgenstein a former logical positivist, argued a theory that words and language are part of an anti-realist approach. Religious statements are not intended to be true or false, for everyone within that 'form of life' (language games). |
| What are Language Games? | They are ways in which philosophers/believers can talk about things using RL without being criticised. They have rules and guidelines in which we must follow called 'criteria of coherence' and the individuals who are outside the LG can have a 'category mistake' a misunderstanding/confusion. Therefore Ayer cannot criticise members in the LG, like Aquinas, as he isn't in the LG so Ayer is misinterpreting his argument and statements. |
| What did Hare mean about BLICKS? | Hare introduced the idea of Blicks, these are ways of regarding the world through the believers perspective. |
| Define the meaning of a Myth? | Myths are simply historical stories which are non-cognitive- cannot be taken for absolute certainty, but they do however have teaching in them so do have a meaning. |
| What did Ericka Dinkler Von-Schlubert argue? | She argued that symbols are patterns/objects which point to a metaphysical reality and the participants in it. They can mean different things to different people, they are spiritual and personal as well as being non-cognitive they go beyond our understanding. |
| What did Tillich argue? | He recognised like Ericka that symbols have meaning. He claimed that symbols are ways in which we can express the nature of God in a positive way. Symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate because it transcends the everyday and ordinary directly. |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.