Ethical and religious language

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

© Michael Lacewing A priori knowledge Michael Lacewing
Empiricism on a priori knowledge
Descartes’ rationalism
Religious language: Flew, Hare and Mitchell
Meta-ethics. What do we mean when we say “stealing is wrong”? Is morality objective or subjective (up- to-me)? Is morality a natural feature of the world.
Verificationism and religious language Michael Lacewing
Pragmatism: metaphysics is meaningful only if it has practical consequences What we mean by reality is the product of our ideas and ideals, all of which.
Religious Language Michael Lacewing
Task: Take a look at the following statements: “I am the bread of life” “I am the true vine” “I am the way, the truth and the life” “I am the resurrection.
Malcolm’s ontological argument Michael Lacewing
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 6 Ayer and Emotivism By David Kelsey.
Metaethics and ethical language Michael Lacewing Michael Lacewing
Religious Language Speaking about God Part 1. Why Religious language? The concept of a God is: Something other Something timeless We talk of things using.
Michael Lacewing Emotivism Michael Lacewing
Knowledge empiricism Michael Lacewing
Aristotle’s virtue ethics: three issues
Divine attributes Michael Lacewing
Philosophy of Religion Michael Lacewing
“God talk is evidently non-sense” A.J. Ayer. Ayer is a logical positivist – a member of the Vienna Circle. Any claim made about God (including Atheistic)
Ludwig Wittgenstein EARLY: PICTURE THEORY LATER: LANGUAGE GAMES.
Ethical and religious language Michael Lacewing
Religious Language  Language is about communication  Religious language is a means of communicating about religion  This can be within three contexts:
Introducing metaethics Michael Lacewing
LO: I will know how thinkers have solved the problem of speaking meaningfully about God by making negative statements of what God is not.
Ethical non-naturalism
META-ETHICS: NON-COGNITIVISM A2 Ethics. This week’s aims To explain and evaluate non-cognitivism To understand the differences between emotivism and prescriptivismemotivismprescriptivism.
This week’s aims To practise planning and writing answers to past questions To set out written work in a clear, integrated, logical form To explain and.
Criticisms of Flew Possible responses Hare – religious statements are unfalsifiable and non-cognitive but still play a useful role in life (parable of.
Language.
Philosophy of Religion
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Meta Ethics The Language of Ethics.
Cosmological arguments from contingency
Religious language: cognitive or non-cognitive?
Michael Lacewing Ethical naturalism Michael Lacewing
Hempel’s philosophical behaviourism
Meta-ethics revision summary
Religious language: the University debate
Moral truth: relational properties
Michael Lacewing Mackie’s error theory Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
The denial of moral truth: Emotivism
Religious responses to the verification principle
Verificationism on religious language
Ludwig Wittgenstein EARLY: PICTURE THEORY LATER: LANGUAGE GAMES.
Michael Lacewing The attributes of God Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Religious Language Learning objective To know challenges to VP and FP
Introduction to Meta-Ethics
Religious Language as cognitive, but meaningless
Recap Task Complete the summary sheet to recap the various arguments and ideas of cognitive ethical language:
Meta-Ethics Objectives:
Symbol and Myth Starter: Draw
Religious beliefs, religious attitudes
4 B Criticisms of the verification and falsification principles
The Verification Principle
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE.
Flying pig spotted in Amazon Jungle…
Discussion: Can one meaningfully talk of a transcendent metaphysical God acting (creating sustaining, being loving) in a physical empirical world? Ayer.
OCR training programme Get Ahead - improving delivery and assessment of Units G581: Analogy Question.
01 4 Ethical Language 4.1 Meta-Ethics.
‘A triangle has three sides’
On your whiteboard: What is Naturalism?
Religious Language as cognitive, but meaningless
By the end of today’s lesson you will
Is murder wrong? A: What is murder? B: What is the law on murder in the UK? A: Do you think murder is wrong? B: Do you think murder is wrong? ‘Garment.
Verification and meaning
Recap task Think of fifteen key terms associated with analogy Choose nine and add to the bingo grid Play bingo.
Religious beliefs, religious attitudes
A guide for the perplexed (who think it is all meaningless)
Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Divine Names
Presentation transcript:

Ethical and religious language Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Aquinas on analogy We must extend our terms before applying them to God. Talk of God is by analogy.

Univocal language Talk of God is univocal. A word is univocal if it yields a contradiction when affirmed and denied of the same thing Objection: this doesn’t do justice to the transcendence of God. Duns Scotus

Aquinas on analogy We must extend our terms before applying them to God. Talk of God is by analogy.

Analogy of attribution Organisms are literally healthy (or not); food is healthy (or not) by analogy. Food that is healthy causes organisms to be healthy. To say ‘God is love’ is to say God is the cause or ground of all love. Two problems: Is God literally the cause of love? Does ‘love’ apply literally to us and analogically to us? Or does it apply literally and in the first instance to God?

Analogy of proportion A human father loves in the way and sense appropriate to human fathers and God loves in the way and sense appropriate to God. But if we don’t already know what God is, how do we know what it means to say that God loves in a way appropriate to God?

Tillich: Symbolic language Our understanding of God takes the form of symbols, e.g. ‘the Way, the Truth, the Life’, the Resurrection, the Cross. Religious language tries to express this symbolic meaning. Symbols ‘partake’ in what they express.

Three implications of symbolic language Understanding symbols and finding the words to express their meaning doesn’t follow any obvious rules. It is not possible to give a literal statement of the meaning of a symbol. We need to be sensitive to the fact that symbols ‘point beyond’ themselves.

Difference and overlap Many theories of religious language, e.g. symbolic, analogical, have not been applied to ethical language. But both religious and ethical language face the question of whether, and in what way, they are meaningful. A common debate began with the verification principle.

The Verification Principle Ayer: in order to be meaningful, a statement must either be analytic (true or false in virtue of the definition of the words); or empirically verifiable (shown be experience to be true). Because statements about God and statements about values are neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, they are not meaningful. The big objection: by its own standard, VP is not meaningful.

The big question Does religious and ethical language state facts, describe the world? Do we experience morality or God? How can we refer to God or values?

Expressivism Both types of language express personal commitments – to a way of life and a system of values. They motivate us to act in certain ways. Language that motivates does not describe. Any fact, on its own, doesn’t motivate. I need to care about the fact. Is this true? What does it show?

Wittgenstein Language is always social, and expresses a shared form of life. ‘God’ and ‘moral values’ are not ‘things’ in the world; the language that uses these terms is not like empirical language. The nature of religious faith and moral views supports this. Yet many ‘users’ think that religious or ethical language does state facts… Can’t it be both an expression of attitude and a description?

Realism Virtues and the search for the good life Human situation and human nature Overlap Matters of life and death Psychic ‘wholeness’