A02 Shortened

• Verification principle A02

  1. Ayer accepts more statements under strong and weak —> still does not view religious statements as meaningful. Even historical ones such as the resurrection which are recorded in the gospels
  2. Encourages believers to consider the claims they are making and the evidence they have —> Many question their beliefs eg the problem of evil. Science accepts non-observable entities such as quarks, God is similar
  3. Straightforward - either true or false by definition or experience —> demands are too narrow. Rules out ethical statements, doesnt mean that they don’t hold value
• Falsification principle A02

  • Death by a thousand qualifications and parable of the Gardner —> believers falsify their assertions, for example the evidential problem of evil has led many believers to reject their beliefs in God
  • Mitchell’s trust argument: you know when you would lose faith —> faith is not falsifiable. It is personal
  • Science follows a falsificationist approach —> statements about God are metaphysical not scientific, they’re not comparable
• Hick’s eschatological verification A02

  1. If the afterlife can be proven, then other religious statements such as belief in the resurrection can too —> you can only verify it if you reach heaven but if you don’t you’re unconscious, you still cannot verify it
  2. Interpretation is not straight forward. The theist and atheist have different interpretations, both valid —> Hick writes from the perspective of the believer. His argument is no stronger than the atheists
• Hare’s bliks A02

  1. Explains why different religions make different claims —> Believers see their beliefs as facts, not bliks. Calling religion a blik reduces it down to opinions rather than facts
  2. Explains why people are so reluctant to contradict their deeply held views —> If there are no factual truths about Christianity, its values reduces to its psychological and sociological beliefs
• Wittgenstein’s language games A02

  1. Avoids the confusion that results from mistaking what language is trying to do eg VP and FP —> makes it more confusing because non-cognitive language is based on guesswork. No two people can guarantee they are using the same words in the same way
  2. Allows a variety of meaning —> Statements no longer have to be true or false. A group of people could make their own beliefs and according to language games this would be correct
  3. Recognises how important faith is to language —> Discourages debate with secular thinkers. It isolates religion from external criticism
• Cognitive language A02

  1. Via negativa avoids anthropomorphising God and placing a limit on him. We understand his mysterious qualities —> Brian Davies says it does not make it any easier to understand.
  2. VP: proven true or false by sense experience or logic. People have to justify their claims —> VP rejects ethics and art too. Just because something is not factual does not make it invaluable
  3. FP: death by a thousand qualifications —> many religious believers question their faith because of the problem of evil
• Non-cognitive language A02

  1. Shared human experience or awareness enables people to communicate effectively —> leads to ambiguity. As evidenced by bliks, people do not hold the same beliefs and this can be confusing and lead to arguments
  2. Symbols reflect something beyond —> does that not diminish the factual aspects of religion? Are Church services not real?
  3. Allows open interpretation for beliefs about God. Does not limit him —> can the same not be said for cognitive language such as Aquinas’ analogy and via negativa
• Analogical language A02

  1. Allows God to remain a mystery —> Only works if you know both terms being compared, but we do not know God
  2. Avoids using univocal language which would limit God’s powers —> attribution has its flaws. If we say that God is good because of good qualities, we can also say he is bad
  3. Helps distinguish meaning of words. Shows the difference between God as Father and a human father —> guesswork is still used on language. Language is still equivocal because it is ambiguous
• Via negativa A02

  1. Avoids using positive language about God which could compare him to humans —> Brian Davies says it gives no indication of what God actually is
  2. God’s transcendence is supported by claims of those in the mystical tradition —> if someone says they experienced God but cannot describe it, how do we know it was not produced by the brain instead?
  3. Avoids anthropomorphism —> death by a thousand qualifications
• Tillich’s symbols A02

  1. Symbolic language can relate religious experiences to everyday things. Such as symbols participate like a flag —> There is more to religion than symbolism. Does this make marriage vows and funeral rites just symbolic when theyre actually rooted deep in meaning
  2. Reflects something beyond without limiting it —> How do we know what the symbol represents?
  3. Symbols and religious language engage the emotions —> VP and FP says this clouds our judgement. Belief should be based on facts