DEC24

• What is the via negativa?

  The via negativa argues that it is best to speak of God in negative terms because human language is inadequate to describe God's attributes.
• What is the argument in support of using the via negativa to speak about God?

  Saying what God is not can help avoid limiting God with inadequate human concepts.
• Explain Maimonides' ship example.


  Maimonides uses the example of describing a ship by saying what it is not (e.g. it is not an accident, it is not a mineral, etc). He argues that, similarly, we can approach an understanding of God by stating what God is not.
• What is a criticism of the via negativa?

  Simply saying what something is not does not give a clear indication of what it is.
• What is the cataphatic way?

  The cataphatic way argues that it is possible to speak of God in positive terms, but that this language should be understood analogically or symbolically.
• What is Aquinas' analogy of attribution?


  In an analogy of attribution, we ascribe attributes to God based on the effects we see in the world. For example, we can call God "good" because we see goodness in the world, and God is the cause of this goodness.
• What is Aquinas' analogy of proportion?


  In an analogy of proportion, we use words to describe God that are also used to describe humans, but we recognize that the meaning is different in proportion. For example, we might say God is "loving", but God's love is infinitely greater than human love.
• What is a criticism of using analogy to speak of God?

  Analogies can be unclear. In order for an analogy to be meaningful, we need to understand how the two things being compared are similar, which may require us to already have some understanding of God.
• How do symbols function in religious language, according to Paul Tillich?


  Tillich argued that religious language is symbolic rather than literal. Symbols point beyond themselves to a greater reality that cannot be fully expressed in words.
• What is a criticism of using symbols in religious language?

  Symbols can be interpreted in many different ways, which can lead to misunderstandings.
• What is the difference between a sign and a symbol, according to Tillich?

  A sign stands for something else in an arbitrary way. A symbol participates in the thing it represents. For example, a flag is a symbol of a nation because it is not simply an arbitrary representation, but is actually involved in the expression of national pride and identity.
• What is cognitive language?

  Cognitive language makes truth claims and asserts facts. It can be determined as either true or false.
• What is non-cognitive language?

  Non-cognitive language does not describe facts and cannot be determined as true or false.
• Give examples of the two types of language.

  - Cognitive: "God created the world," "The Lord is my shepherd."

  - Non-cognitive: "I am feeling unwell."
• What is the verification principle?

  The verification principle states that language is only meaningful if it can be verified using empirical evidence (evidence that can be observed with the senses).
• How is the verification principle used to argue that religious language is meaningless?

  Religious claims, like "God exists", cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, according to the verification principle, they are meaningless.
• Name some criticisms of the verification principle.

  Swinburne: Statements like "all ravens are black" are meaningful even though they cannot be conclusively verified.

  History: Statements about the past cannot be empirically verified, but this does not make them meaningless.

  The verification principle itself is unverifiable. The statement "statements are only meaningful if verifiable by sense observation" cannot itself be verified by sense observation.
• What is the falsification principle?

  The falsification principle argues that a statement is only meaningful if it is possible to conceive of evidence that would disprove it.
• What is Anthony Flew's criticism of religious language?


  Flew argued that religious believers refuse to accept any evidence that could count against their beliefs. They constantly modify their beliefs to avoid falsification, meaning their claims become meaningless.
• Explain Flew's parable of the gardener.


  The parable involves two explorers who find a clearing in the jungle. One believes there must be a gardener, the other believes there is not. They set traps to find the gardener, but never find any evidence of him. The first explorer continues to modify his belief, saying the gardener is invisible, only comes at night etc. Flew argues this is analogous to religious belief; believers will constantly change their claims about God to avoid falsification.
• What is R.M. Hare's response to Flew's criticism?


  Hare argued that religious language is non-cognitive, so the falsification principle does not apply. Instead, religious language expresses a "blik" - a fundamental way of seeing the world that is not falsifiable.
• Explain Hare's parable of the lunatic.


  Hare describes a lunatic who is convinced his university lecturers are trying to kill him. No amount of evidence can convince him otherwise. Hare uses this to illustrate the concept of a "blik" - a way of seeing the world that is not susceptible to falsification.
• What is Basil Mitchell's response to Flew?


  Mitchell agreed with Flew that religious language is cognitive, but argued that believers do allow for the possibility of falsification. He uses the parable of the partisan and the stranger to illustrate this: a resistance fighter trusts a stranger even though there is evidence that could suggest he is a traitor.
• What are language games, according to Wittgenstein?


  Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of words is determined by the context in which they are used (the "language game"). Different areas of life have different language games with different rules.
• How does the concept of language games apply to religious language?

  Religious language operates within its own language game. It is meaningful to those who participate in that game, but may appear meaningless to outsiders.
• What is strong verification?

  Strong verification is the idea that a statement can be proven true through evidence.
• What is weak verification?

  Weak verification is the idea that a statement can be considered meaningful even if it can't be proven true.