Religious language

Question 1

What is the difference between cognitive language and non cognitive language?

Answer 1

cognitive language is factual information and is shown to be true or false.

Non cognitive language - inappropriate to ask whether or not it is factual

Question 2

What is logical positivism?

Answer 2

All meaningful statements are verifiable:
1. they are analytic
2. or synthetic (confirmed by empirical observation)

Claimed metaphysical and theological language is meaningless because they are neither matters of logic nor provable by empirical evidence

Question 3

What did the logical positivists believe about metaphysical and theological language?

Answer 3

Is meaningless because they cannot be proven with empirical evidence.

Question 4

What is the Verification principle?
hint: what 2 things are needed for a statement to be meaningful

Who developed it?

Answer 4

A statement is only meaningful if it is either an analytic truth or can be verified by empirical (sense) experience

this is called the 2 pronged test
AJ Ayer

Question 5

What does AJ Ayer’s verification principle mean for religious language?

Answer 5

He believed there could be no empirical proof of a transcendent God.

Ayer argued that statements like: ‘God is love , God exists’ cannot be verified either in practice or principle there is no evidence by which we could show these claims to be true or false so they are meaningless

Question 6

what is verification in practice?

Answer 6

When there is direct sense experience to support a statement (weak)

Question 7

What is verification in principle?

Answer 7

When we know how a statement can be tested empirically one day in the future. (strong)

Question 8

What did Hume believe we could only have knowledge of?

Answer 8

1. matters of fact
2. the relationship between ideas

Question 9

what is a strength to the verification principle?

HINT: empirical evidence & society
V in principle allows for scientific theories to be…

What is the counter? : hint assumptions and karl popper

Answer 9

It takes seriously the importance of empirical evidence. In the modern world, people value ideas for which there is evidence’ (AJ Ayer).

Principle is consistent with contemporary exaltation of science and belief in epistemic empiricism.

It aligns itself with a scientific approach in empirical support if any statements are to be meaningful. Ayers allowance of the weak verification enabled scientific theories that cannot be empirically proved to be considered

COUNTER: it makes the assumption that science tells us everything of importance about the world. Many would disagree with this.

Karl popper said that verification method is flawed science. He claimed that science works through falsification.

Question 10

what is a strength of the verification principle?

Hint: can use it for other things

Answer 10

Ayers V in principle means we can still make statements about history,science and emotions but still not religion/ethics

Question 11

what is a strength of the verification principle?

HINT: simple

What is the counter hint : is it right?

Answer 11

the principle is straightforward, focusing on facts that can be directly or indirectly verified.

COUNTER: its straightforwardness does not mean its right.

Even ayer at the end of his theory about logical positivism said ‘the most important of all the defects is was that nearly all of it was false’

Question 12

What is a challenge of verification principle?

hint: fails

Answer 12

The VP fails its own test - it is neither analytic or empirically verifiable. Does not meet its own critera. Therefore, the principle itself is meaningless

To say that VP is in line with science is problematic

Much of science deals with entities that cannot be directly observed (quarks). So science does not work through verification.
According to Karl Popper it works through falsification

Question 13

What is a challenge to the verification principle?

Hint: too narrow

Answer 13

The demands of VP are too narrow
It rules out language as being meaningless including moral , ancient history statements. How do people see this as meaningless?

The VP only works as an argument when discussing matters of fact not those of interpretation
Eg. Abortion we take in account emotions not just laws.
So human engagement with the world is also as important as facts.

Question 14

What is a challenge to the verification principle?

Hint: hick , parable of celestial city

Answer 14

Hick supports the verification principle but argues that religious claims are verifiable.Religious statements are meaningful eschatologically.

He says Ayer is too limited in his approach; it’s still narrow. Religious statements are verifiable after death so they are meaningful because they can be eschatologically verified

Uses the parable of a celestial city to argue this.
After you die you will find out the truth for example if god is true or not. so religious statements are verifiable after death.

Question 15

What is a challenge of verification principle?

Hint: religion is clear

Answer 15

These are valid criticisms of some religious language. But religion makes a very clear proposition about God and the origin of the universe

The universe examples its own existence or else its existence is explained by an external creative mind.

This is a reasonable hypothesis based on our observation that minds are creative, so there could be one supremely creative mind.
Believing this mind exists is no more irrational then scientific assumptions about Quarks.

Question 16

What is the falsification principle and who created it?

Answer 16

Anthony Flew

A sentence is factually significant if and only if there is some form of evidence which could falsify it.

Question 17

What did Karl Popper argue about falsification and religious language?

Answer 17

Popper said a statement is scientific only if it is falsifiable. Religious claims are not falsifiable because believers do not allow counter-evidence,( Religious believers are unwilling to falsify claims about God.)

so they are not scientific (but Popper does not call them meaningless).

Question 18

Why are religious statements unfalsifiable according to Popper?

Answer 18

Because religious believers reinterpret or protect their claims so nothing can count against them, meaning no possible evidence could falsify them.

Question 19

What is Anthony Flew’s main argument about religious language?

Answer 19

Flew argues that theists refuse to let anything falsify their claims, so religious statements become empty and meaningless. They will always qualify there beliefs

‘dies a death of a thousand qualifications’ - Anthony Flew

Question 20

How does suffering illustrate Flew’s falsification challenge?

Answer 20

When faced with suffering, believers qualify claims such as “God loves us” rather than abandon them, making the claim unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. They will always try to qualify there beliefs

Question 21

How do Popper and Flew differ in their views on religious language?

Answer 21

Popper → religious claims are not scientific because they’re unfalsifiable.
Flew → religious claims become meaningless because they’re endlessly qualified.

Question 22

What is Anthony Flew’s falsification challenge to religious language, and how does the Parable of the Gardener illustrate it?

Answer 22

Flew argues that religious claims are meaningless because believers allow no possible evidence to falsify them.

In the Parable of the Gardener, the believer keeps adding qualifications to protect the claim that a loving gardener exists, even when no evidence supports it.

Flew says religious believers do the same with God, making statements like “God loves the world” unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

Question 23

What does Flew mean by calling religious statements “dialectical dud-cheques” in the context of the falsification challenge to religious language?

Answer 23

They become like “dialectical dud-cheques”: statements that look meaningful and truth-claiming, but cannot “cash out” any real facts about God. This means religious claims become unfalsifiable and therefore cognitively meaningless.

Question 24

what is a strength of the falsification principle?

hint: science

Answer 24

1. it is in accordance with science , it restricts the meaning to whatever we have scientist evidence for which reflects the emphasis on empiricism.

Question 25

What is a strength of the falsification principle? hint: tests

Answer 25

it tests meaningfulness of religious language it shows whether statements are cognitive or not for example 'God exists' is challenged because nothing can count as evidence against it

Question 26

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: fails

Answer 26

the falsification principle cannot be falsified so it fails its own criteria

Question 27

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: st paul

Answer 27

religious belief is actually falsifiable: st paul said 'if christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless '. this suggests flew is incorrect to think religious language is always unfalsifiable

Question 28

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: epistemic imperialism Wittgenstein's language games

Answer 28

'epistemic imperialism' - places too more emphasis on science. Why should a statement be seen as meaningless just because it is unscientific? Wittgenstein's language games show that statements can have meaning for those within a form of life , even if it is not verifiable or falsifiable

Question 29

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: faith alone

Answer 29

fideism : religious belief is about faith alone. religious statements are meaningful for those who have faith they are true, despite the fact they cannot be verified/falsified

Question 30

How does John Hick’s concept of bliks critique the Falsification Principle?

Answer 30

Hare argues that religious beliefs can function as bliks Even if these beliefs are unfalsifiable, they still have meaning and influence life, so the Falsification Principle is too narrow in judging all unfalsifiable religious statements as meaningless.

Question 31

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: too rigid

Answer 31

Falsificationism is too rigid in its understanding of the truth Theists assume that there is a truth to be known about the nature and origin of the universe, and that God is a reasonable explanation of that truth. Flew later in life also acknowledged this.

Question 32

What is the challenges to Flews falsification principle? hint: problem of evil

Answer 32

Flew's argument that religious believers will allow nothing to falsify their assertions is not really true Eg. the extent of the problem of evil in the world has led to many believers to question or reject their belief in God

Question 33

what is Hicks eschatological verification? what does this mean for statements?

Answer 33

hicks view that the facts of Christianity will be verified or falsified after death. everything and is meaningful in believers life. Because of the prospect of eschatological verification, religious statements can be considered meaningful when they are made during this lifetime. These statements have meaning for religious believers.

Question 34

What are the two things hick claimed for religious language?

Answer 34

1. claims are cognitive 2. they are therefore subject to verification

Question 35

what parable does hick use to portray this and explain how?

Answer 35

parable of the celestial city: used by Hick to explain eschatological verification, compares two travellers: one believes the road leads to a Celestial City, while the other thinks it leads nowhere. Despite experiencing the same journey, only at the end will it be revealed who was right. Hick argues this shows how religious claims, like life after death, though not verifiable during life, can be verified after death if true.

Question 36

what is a strength of hicks eschatological verification? hint: vp in principle , factual claim

Answer 36

Hick argues that statements about the afterlife (e.g., the Celestial City) are cognitively meaningful because they are verifiable in principle. The statement “there is life after death” must eventually be true or false, even if verification can only occur after death. This shows religious language is not automatically meaningless and can make factual claims

Question 37

what is a strength of hicks eschatological verification? hint: can find out if all are true , show they are cognitive

Answer 37

Hicks argument shows christian truth-claims are cognitive because if we do wake up in a resurrected body then not only will we know that christian claims about life after death are true but then also other christian claims are true eg. God exists

Question 38

What is a weakness of Hicks eschatological verification? hint: not strong what is the counter to this hint: evidence

Answer 38

The possibility of the celestial city being verified is so remote as to be not worth considering. If the believer and non believer are interpreting the evidence in different ways, Hicks argument is no stronger than that of an atheist, athiests would dismiss the parable COUNTER: Hick points out that there is a body of evidence in favour of life after death. Such near death experiences give some support for the possibility of continued consciousness after death.

Question 39

What is a weakness of Hicks eschatological verification? what is the counter to this HINT: verify-if-true, never falsify-if-false Whats the counter to the counter? HINT: Atheist can be proven wrong, never proven right — death ends verification.

Answer 39

Hick’s view isn’t a normal factual claim because it cannot be falsified if false. If resurrection is true, it would be verified after death—but if it’s false, the person never wakes up to discover this, so falsification is impossible. This means Hick fails to meet Popper’s requirement that meaningful claims must be falsifiable. COUNTER: Hick argues that some religious claims can be meaningful even if not verifiable now. If true (e.g., life after death), they could eventually be verified through experience. If false, we would never be able to disprove them because there would be nothing after death to show it. Example: Pi is infinite — a pattern could eventually be verified if it exists, but never falsified if it doesn’t. Therefore, statements like “there is life after death” are still factual and meaningful, even if they cannot be tested like normal scientific claims. COUNTER to COUNTER: Atheists argue that life-after-death claims are not normal factual statements. If the atheist is wrong and there is life after death, he will find out he was wrong. If he is right and there is no life after death, he can never know he was right because he’s dead. So the claim can be falsified but never verified, just like Hick’s religious claims.

Question 40

What is a blik according to Hare

Answer 40

a fundamental worldview or belief that is not based on facts or reason and cannot be falsified by evidence, and which serves as a framework for understanding the world.

Question 41

What is Hare’s “Parable of the Lunatic at the University” and how does it illustrate a blik?

Answer 41

A student believes all lecturers are plotting against him. No evidence can change his view—he interprets everything through this lens. Shows a blik is a worldview, not a factual claim.

Question 42

How does Hare’s idea of bliks relate to religious language?

Answer 42

Religious statements (e.g., “God loves us”) are like bliks: meaningful but not empirically verifiable. they are not to be falsified Express a worldview or way of interpreting life rather than factual proof. Challenges the view that religious language must be falsifiable to be meaningful.

Question 43

compare flew views of religious statements to RM hares

Answer 43

Flew: religious statements are claims about the world they are cognitive/factual they are not meaningful Hare: Religious statements are bliks, interpretations about the world , they are non cognitive and non factual Hare still believed they are meaningful

Question 44

what is flews counter to hares view that religious statements are non cognitive? e.g. religious believers

Answer 44

believers do see their statements about God as cognitive Religious believers truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead, there is an afterlife etc, they are not just a perspective but a truth for them.

Question 45

what is a strength of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: Different religions, different ‘truths’; meaning over facts

Answer 45

Hare’s blik theory explains why different religions make conflicting claims. Religious statements are expressions of deeply meaningful worldviews, not factual statements, so their value lies in personal significance rather than objective truth.

Question 46

what is another strength of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: its a counter to flews 'dies a deaths of 1000 qualifications'

Answer 46

Hare’s theory explains why people ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Evidence is interpreted through the lens of a blik, so deeply held beliefs remain meaningful even when challenged. its personal this is a response to Flew's argument 'dies a death of 1000 qualifications' and response to his counter that believers see there believes as cognitive

Question 47

What is a weakness of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: "Believers think God exists → not just a way of seeing."

Answer 47

Hares view that religious statements are non cognitive is false because Flew argues that most religious believers do not treat their beliefs as merely ways of seeing the world. For example, the claim “There is a God” is taken as a factual statement about reality. This challenges Hare, because if believers see their statements as cognitive (truth-claims) rather than non-cognitive, the blik model may misrepresent how religion is actually experienced.

Question 48

What is a weakness of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: Hare underestimates believers’ self-knowledge

Answer 48

Hare suggests that Christian beliefs are expressions of non-cognitive bliks even if believers are unaware of it. Critics argue this is odd: people generally know the content of their own beliefs. It seems patronising or inaccurate to claim believers are unconsciously holding non-cognitive views when they clearly see their beliefs as factual.

Question 49

What is a weakness of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: Reduces religion to psychological/sociological value

Answer 49

If religious statements aren’t factual, their significance is limited to psychological comfort or social cohesion. This removes objective or truth-based value from religion, which many argue is central to its purpose. Critics see this as oversimplifying religion, reducing it to personal meaning instead of addressing its claims about reality. links to st paul 'if christ has not been raised your faith is pointless'

Question 50

What is a weakness of Hare's theory of bliks? hint: Religious claims can be tested in principle

Answer 50

Some religious statements can be argued to be verifiable or falsifiable in principle: Verifiable: Design and Cosmological Arguments suggest we can infer God’s existence from the universe. Falsifiable: The Problem of Evil could challenge the claim that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. This suggests that not all religious beliefs are purely non-cognitive; Hare may overlook their factual aspect.

Question 51

what is Wittgenstein's language games?

Answer 51

Language games are ways of using language within a particular context or activity, governed by rules. Meaning comes from how words are used, not from a direct link to reality. Different forms of life (social or cultural practices) have different language games.

Question 52

How does Wittgenstein’s idea of language games apply to religious language? hint: meaningful to those of a certain game.

Answer 52

Religious statements are meaningful to those within the theistic language game. Those outside this language game should not seek to critique language within it. It has meaning for those who play this game ‘Don’t ask for meaning, ask for the use.’ statements are meaningful within the religious game. Solves problems raised by logical positivists or Flew.

Question 53

What does Wittgenstein mean by “form of life” and how does it relate to religious language?

Answer 53

Form of life - expression used by him to denote the habitual activities and responses which form the background to any use of language (christianity is a form of life) Language has a unique meaning and significance for those who belong to the form of life and therefore play the rules of that language game.

Question 54

what is a strength of Wittgenstein's language game? hint: shows religious language does not need to be verified or falsified

Answer 54

it defends religious language from challenges of verification and falsification. Wittgenstein recognises that religious and scientific statements are two different types of things that deserve to be treated different. Shows religious statements do have meaning for theists

Question 55

for paper 2 phil and science q how can u compare religious language to science using language games?

Answer 55

Religion is a matter of faith its a separate language game to science.

Question 56

what is a strength of Wittgenstein's language game? hint: it has meaning to other people... links to h h price belief in god religious statements express personal commitment/belief in God, capturing the heart of religious life.

Answer 56

Demonstrates how religious language has meaning for those who use it within their religious language game. This reflects the reality, religious people do believe that the religious statements that they make have meaning , even if those outside of the language game do not Wittgenstein recognises the meaning behind the statement of a Christian who says, 'There is a God.' To the believer, that statement affirms that there is H.H. Price puts it, believing in God rather than believing that God exists. They are confirming belief in God as a reality in their lives, and this does seem to capture the heart of what religious belief is about. so it is shows religious language is meaningful

Question 57

what is a strength of Wittgenstein's language game? hint: allows for a variety making it still meaningful

Answer 57

It allows a variety of meaning: artistic, poetic, musical, emotional, historical, ethical and religious (for example) rather than expecting all language to conform to an empirical or scientific norm.

Question 58

what is a weakness of Wittgenstein's language games? Hint: Understands only within the game → limits debate with outsiders. What is the counter? "Talking to outsiders → strengthens understanding, not just isolation."

Answer 58

Wittgenstein’s approach isolates religious language from external criticism. By saying we can only understand religious statements within their own language game, it discourages debate with secular thinkers. This may limit dialogue and critical evaluation of religious claims. Link to religious language: Shows a limitation: while religious language has meaning for believers, this approach can make it hard to assess or discuss religious claims meaningfully with outsiders. COUNTER: Explaining faith to outsiders can clarify and strengthen the believer’s understanding. or an atheists belief and faith Dialogue may enhance comprehension and articulation of beliefs. Suggests religious language can be shared meaningfully, not entirely isolated.

Question 59

Give a weakness of Wittgenstein’s language games applied to religious language regarding dialogue with outsiders.?

Answer 59

Many Christians actively engage with people outside their religious language game (e.g., Evangelical Christianity). Religion, as a form of life, often aims to communicate its message beyond its own community. It is unrealistic to claim all religious assertions are protected from external criticism while also claiming universal significance.

Question 60

Give a weakness of Wittgenstein’s language games regarding metaphysical/religious claims. hint: Hint: "God as explanation → metaphysical claims can have evidence.

Answer 60

Wittgenstein says religious/metaphysical statements (like “There is a God”) cannot be proven or disproven, so their meaning comes only from how believers use them in their language game. Critics argue this is wrong: some religious claims can be supported by reasoning or evidence. Example: “There is a God” could be a possible explanation for why the universe exists. Science works on natural laws, so it doesn’t make sense to say everything has an explanation except the universe itself. So, Wittgenstein’s view might wrongly stop people from arguing rationally about religious/metaphysical claims.

Question 61

What is a weakness of Wittgenstein’s language games regarding the perspective of believers? Hint: "Wittgenstein vs believers → they may disagree on meaning." what is the counter to the weakness that Wittgenstein misrepresents believers’ understanding of religious language.? hint: "Believers see right/wrong → truth exists in practice."

Answer 61

Wittgenstein assumes believers understand and use religious language in a certain way. In reality, many believers disagree with his interpretation of their language. There is a divide between Wittgenstein’s view of religious practice and what believers themselves think, so his theory may misrepresent how religion is actually experienced. COUNTER: Wittgenstein says religious statements don’t have to be true or false, but this doesn’t match believers’ experience. Some beliefs/practices have correct and incorrect ways of being followed (e.g., forcing conversions, forbidding same-sex relationships in some denominations). This suggests there is a “truth” or moral standard for believers, showing they do see their statements as having truth value.

Question 62

what are the other views of the nature of religious language?

Answer 62

* religious language as symbolic with reference to Tillich * religious language as analogical with reference to Aquinas * the Via Negativa.

Question 63

what did aquinas argue that language applied to God wasnt and was ? and what 2 types of analogy did he form?

Answer 63

Thomas Aquinas argues that language applied to God is not literal but is analogical. He proposed two types of analogy: 1. The analogy of attribution 2. The analogy of proper proportion

Question 64

What is the analogy of attribution?

Answer 64

The idea that the world that we apply to human beings are related to how words are applied to God because there is a causal relationship between the 2 sets of qualities Eg. Our qualities such as love and wisdom are reflections of those qualities of God.

Question 64

What is the difference between univocal language and equivocal language? and what did aquinas believe about these? as a result what did type of language aquinas adopt?

Answer 64

univocal - words applied to God have the same meaning that they have in their normal context equivocal language - words when applied to god have a completely different meaning from their normal use Aquinas rejected univocal because it limited God Aquinas rejects equivocal because it is meaningless , gives us no knowledge of God he adopted the language of analogy

Question 65

what example does aquinas give to demonstrate the analogy of attribution?

Answer 65

The idea that in the same way if the urine is good then the bull is good that the goodness in the world reflects God.

Question 66

what is the criticism of analogy of attribution? hint: evil and suffering

Answer 66

if we empirically observe the world around us it's not good we see evil and suffering so do we also attribute this to God too? Seems Aquinas is choosing what attributes he wants

Question 67

what is the analogy of proper proportion?

Answer 67

The extent to which a being can be said to have certain properties is in proportion to the type of being we are describing When we say that humans are good we are speaking of finite beings. When we are describing God we are speaking of an infinite being so the goddess is in proportion to that Same word to a different proportion , scale , degree

Question 68

How did John Hick develop Aquinas analogy of proper proportion?

Answer 68

John Hick develops Aquinas example of proper proportion by using the example of the term faithfulness Our faithfulness is smaller than the faithfulness of God

Question 69

what is the strength of aquinas focusing on analogy? hint: middle

Answer 69

Avoids the 2 extremes / errors of univocal / equivocal - it is a middle ground Allows you to speak about God in a positive way without reducing or disrespecting God and without risking anthropomorphism

Question 70

what is the strength of aquinas focusing on analogy? hint: helps understanding

Answer 70

Helps humans understand God whilst emphasising differences Especially the proper proportion it helps you understand that God is faithful but to a greater extent than we are faithful to each other.

Question 71

What is the criticism of aquinas view of religious language as analogical? hint: interpretation

Answer 71

Different people will interpret analogies differently Issues of subjectivity could lead to more confusing such as people may understand faithfulness differently.

Question 72

What is the criticism of aquinas view of religious language as analogical? hint: limited

Answer 72

Still only provides a limited understanding of God Doesn't tell us everything we want to know about God

Question 73

What is the criticism of aquinas view of religious language as analogical? hint: illusion

Answer 73

Brummer: analogy only gives the appearance of knowledge Does not tell us anything about God , does not help us, just makes us think we know something gives us an illusion . Eg. God is more loving us then us? What does that actually mean its beyond our understanding to explain that

Question 74

explain religious language as symbolic with reference to Tillich?

Answer 74

Tillich shows that religious language has meaning because it is symbolic, not literal: symbols allow believers to express and experience truths about a transcendent God that ordinary language cannot capture.

Question 75

What is the difference between signs and symbols according to Tillich? hint: Signs point → symbols participate + reveal deeper truth. what is the quote?

Answer 75

A sign simply points to something. A symbol goes further: It participates in the reality it points toward. It adds meaning and opens up levels of understanding we wouldn’t access otherwise. Like great works of art, symbols reveal deeper truths about reality. Tillich: “Every symbol is double-edged: it opens up reality, and it opens the soul.”

Question 76

Why can’t we speak literally about God according to Tillich? what is the only statement we can make about God? hint: "God = ground of being → literal language can’t reach God."

Answer 76

Human language is too limited to describe an infinite, transcendent God (ineffability). Therefore, religious language must be symbolic, not literal he only literal statement we can make is: “God is the ground of all being.” God is Being-Itself — the source of everything.

Question 77

How does Tillich use Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious? hint: Symbols work consciously + unconsciously (Jung)."

Answer 77

Symbols may arise from the collective unconscious—a universal layer of the mind. This means religious symbols operate on both: the conscious level, and the unconscious level This explains why symbols can feel powerful, universal, and deeply meaningful.

Question 78

How do Tillich and Wittgenstein agree on the meaningfulness of religious language, despite using different approaches?

Answer 78

Tillich and Wittgenstein both defend the meaningfulness of religious language by rejecting literal interpretations. Wittgenstein argues that religious language gains meaning through its use within a religious language game Tillich claims religious statements are symbolic and point beyond themselves to a transcendent reality. Although their approaches differ, both agree that religious language should not be evaluated by scientific criteria such as verification or falsification.”

Question 80

what is a strength of tillich view of religious language as symbolic? hint: preserves

Answer 80

Preserved the transcendence and mystery of god , better than analogy By saying the language about him is not meant to be taken literally so its not limited by human experience and the limits of human language but it still preserves transcendence of god

Question 81

what is a strength of tillich view of religious language as symbolic? hint: resonates with theists because..

Answer 81

Symbols are able to communicate deeply in a way that ordinary language cannot Resonate with theists and is emotional and important

Question 82

what is a strength of tillich view of religious language as symbolic? hint: stays relevant

Answer 82

Symbolic language can change with time - message stays relevant Religion stays relevant and symbols strengthen religion , reflect deep meaningfulness language to religious people

Question 83

what is a weakness of tillich view of religious language as symbolic? hint: because it can change over time it leads to..

Answer 83

Symbolic language is culturally dependent and changes over time - can lead to misunderstanding The fact its culturally dependent makes it subjective , does it just become non cognitive and a matter of personal opinion and does that undermine the credibility of the statements and the claims being made about God.

Question 84

What is via negativa? (apophatic way) who's view is it

Answer 84

its pseudo - Dionysius view the approach to religious language that describes God in terms of what he is not

Question 85

based on the via negativa why cant we speak positive about God - only speak about God negatively? (what God is not)

Answer 85

God is beyond our human language Trying to make positive statement about God risks anthropomorphism (Pseudo - Dionysius view) As you reduce God's love to a human like love , therefore making him human like figure (undermining his love) Apophatic way stops this because you want to preserve God's transcendence

Question 86

what is via positiva? (cataphatic way)

Answer 86

We can speak positively about God - we can talk about God's attributes in a positive sense. “God is love” - Gospel of John so we can speak positively

Question 87

what are the strengths of via negativa? (3)

Answer 87

Avoids anthroporphism Allows you to preserve God's transcendence and his infinite greatness More respectful in its approach Avoids developing a caricature of Gods and stops you from mis understanding God Fits with religious experiences - William James: Ineffability Idea that religious experiences go beyond what human language can articulate which links to the apophatic way.

Question 88

What are the criticisms of via negativa?

Answer 88

1. W.R Inge: Leads to the annihilation of God What's the point of believing in a God that you can't speak about positively, if you can't speak about God then you've lost the connection with God 2. Maimonides example still only givers very limited knowledge How much do we actually know about that ship by saying what it is not? Doesn't give us sufficient knowledge Won't satisfy a theist who wants to know God and who they worship 3. Separated God from the world - loss of personal connection Christians believe you can have a personal relationship with God but if you can't speak positively about God that relationship isn't there so it goes against christian beliefs

Question 89

what is maimondes example to illustrate via negative (apophatic way)

Answer 89

Ship to illustrate that the apophatic way can lead us to some knowledge and understanding of God. We gain some knowledge of what a ship is by saying what it is not Eg. A ship is NOT a plant