Notes from the A2 conference – Religious Language

What is it?

The language of worship and dogma

Description of god such as omnibenevolent

Descriptions of beliefs such as Second Coming, Judgment Day

Descriptions of concepts such as Sin, Grace, Atonement, Salvation

 

Problems

Human vocabulary inadequate

God removed from our experience so how do we talk sensibly about Him?

Is it meaningless to try?

 

Two types of language

Cognitive –realist – factual, true or false statements

Non-cognitive – anti-realist – not to be taken actually, but interpreted symbolically

 

How do we find out if this claim is true? ‘Jesus died for me.’

Try the verification principle – 3 types of statements analytic, mathematical, synthetic

 

Religious language tends to express fundamental truths hence myths

Symbols enable us to participate in a shared experience or belief e.g. baptism, marriage

 

Bultmann felt that to believe in modern science (the light bulb) and the Bible, was incompatible.

 

Braithwaite: religious language claims mean something to the adherent; they express ‘an intention to follow a certain code of behaviour.’

 

A J Ayer – talk of a soul is meaningless because it cannot be verified

Talk of religious experience is meaningless, no empirical verification.

But emotional, ethical ‘be good’ statements are not verifiable which would make them meaning less. Did man walk on the moon in 1969?

Hick- some religious language, particularly historical claims, could be verified

Falsification principle – Hick believes if potentially falsifiable it is meaningful.

Flew felt believers would never allow anything to count against their faith e.g. Job

RM Hare – blik meaningful to the person in the context and it affects their life

Hick’s story of the toys in the cupboard is presented as an example of the kind of assumption we take for granted, that toys do not get up and dance around our bedrooms at night.

Notes from the A2 conference – The ontological argument

This argument is based on a definition of God.

If we can agree on a definition we should be able to agree on a conclusion.

 

No based on evidence and therefore more rational.

If the premises are sound we must accept the conclusion

De dicto – by definition

In intellectu – in the mind

Critics say existence doesn’t add anything to our understanding of God however Anselm says yes it does – to know of his existence is not the same as knowing him and one cannot know him if he does not exist.

Gaunilo‘s island – if the island is perfect it must exist because existence is a ‘perfection’ BUT it doesn’t!

Anselm said contingent things can always be added to there fore can never be perfect; only a non-contingent being cannot be added to therefore the onto argument only applies to necessary beings.

Gasking: the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement

  • The greater the achievement the more impressive if the creator is limited
  • The greatest limit would be non=existence
  • Therefore the creation of the universe by a non-existing creator is greater than by an existing one
  • Therefore God does not exist!!
  • Reduction ad absurdam!!

Malcolm

  • God can either exist or not
  • If he doesn’t then not most perfect conceivable being
  • If he does exist he cannot exist contingently
  • Therefore he must exist necessarily.

Plantinga‘s multiverse theory depends on ‘if…’

Hume – anything we can conceive of as existing we can also conceive of as not existing

He didn’t believe there was anything which was not contingent therefore God does not exist.