RECAP Odd one out Match them up 1. Hare 4. Hick 7. Flew 2. Swinburne 5. Ward 8. Mitchell 6. Ayer 9. Aquinas Match them up a. Via negativa d. blik g. Parable of the freedom fighter b. Falsification principle e. Eschatological Verification h. All experiences are ‘verifiable in principle’ c. Weak verification f. Toy cupboard analogy

The answers Scholar Idea Flew Falsification Hick Eschatological Verification Hare Blik Swinburne Toy cupboard analogy Ward All statements are verifiable in principle Mitchell Parable of the freedom fighter Aquinas Via Negativa Ayer – an interesting one here! Weak Verification

Directed Independent learning What you should have done/ need to do Complete the A3 summary sheet on Theme 2 Complete all essay plans on the progression exam Organise and revise all your work on Christianity – knowledge test next week Revise for CEDAR 1 – on Religious language

Does religious language have meaning Does religious language have meaning? The solutions presented by religious philosophers for the inherent problems of using religious language. The persuasiveness of arguments asserting either the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of religious language. How far Logical Positivism should be accepted as providing a valid criterion for meaning in the use of language. To what extent do the challenges to Logical Positivism provide convincing arguments to non religious believers.

AO2 - Starter Does religious language have meaning? No, it is meaningless – Problems facing religious language, VP and FP and strengths of logical positivists, Yes, it is meaningful – Challenges to LP, VP and FP

Thomas Aquinas: Analogy Learning Outcomes: Religious language as non-cognitive and analogical: Proportion and attribution (St Thomas Aquinas) and qualifier and disclosure (Ian Ramsey). Challenges including how far analogies can give meaningful insights into religious language. A consideration of how these two views (Aquinas/Ramsey) can be used to help understand religious teachings.

Which pictures can be grouped together? What is the key term that links each group? Are the words being used in the same way?

Different ways we use language Univocal – words have the same meaning Equivocal – words have different meaning in different contexts

Aquinas: why some language used of God is not univocal God is wise is not the same as saying that a human is wise. God is the cause of wisdom and is perfectly wise. In comparison to God, a human is not as wise (or perfectly wise). Aquinas states that words which indicate perfection (like “wise”) are not used of God and creatures univocally. It would limit God, anthromorphises God Complete Task 2 on page 4

Aquinas: why language used of God cannot be completely equivocal We would know nothing about God. Aquinas quotes the Bible, where the Apostle Paul states: “The invisible things of God are made known by the things that are made.”

Analogy consolidation task Extension – think of three other problems with using univocal and equivocal language to speak of God.

Aquinas was attempting to steer between two ideas about how language is used of God. Words have the exact same meaning when applied to God (univocal) Words have a completely different meaning when applied to creatures (equivocal)

The third way to use language is analogy An analogy is a comparison between two things. Healthy cheeks – a sign of health Healthy medicine – a cause of health In relation to religious language, we are thinking about when the same word is used of two different things in order to make a comparison between them. Aquinas believed we should use analogy to talk about God as there is a causal link between God and humans.

Do the words, good, wise, pure, and perfect mean the same thing every time? God is good God is wise God is pure God is perfect The creature is good The creature is wise The creature is pure The creature is perfect

Analogy: the middle way It is through analogy that words are used of both God and creatures. Aquinas developed two ideas of analogy when talking about God: Analogy of attribution Analogy of proportion

Analogy of attribution One word is used of two things because of how they relate to each other. Humans have good qualities as they were caused by God and God ‘attributed’ goodness to us A healthy look is not itself healthy but caused by health The medicine is the cause of health in the animal Animal is healthy animals urine is healthy Healthy

“We are unable to speak of God except in the language we use of creatures.” Therefore there is a relationship between the words we use of both God and creatures. For example, God is the cause and source of wisdom therefore it is meaningful to say God is wise. God is the cause of wisdom God Wise

Analogy of proportion We cannot fully understand God’s wisdom, as He is beyond human understanding. We can ascribe a quality to one thing because it points towards another thing which has that quality We can come to some understanding of what it means that God is wise because we have a human idea of “wise”. It is a proportional wisdom – on a different scale to God’s wisdom

Hick’s explanation Analogy upwards to God, the source Analogy downwards to animals