Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
108 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Ideas
|
Ideas are concepts. Having a concept of something is being able to recognise it, think about it and distinguish it from other things |
|
|
Simple Ideas
|
Ideas that cannot be broken down into parts. eg. White/Cold
|
|
|
Complex Ideas |
Ideas that can be broken down into parts. eg. Golden Mountain/Unicorn |
|
|
Impressions |
Experiences/Sensations, like the experience of seeing snow or the sensation of pain
|
|
|
Outward Impression |
Experiences of the world outside us. eg. from sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell |
|
|
Propositions |
Sentences that make a claim about the way the world is/expresses a judgement or opinion. eg. There is a cat on the mat or i am thinking about a dragon |
|
|
Analytic Propositions
|
Propositions that are true by definition, true just in virtue of the meaning of the word. eg. all bachelors are male |
|
|
Synthetic Propositions |
Propositions that are not true by definitions but true or false depending on the way the world is. eg. all men are mortal |
|
|
Necessary Truths |
A truth that cannot by denied without contradiction. eg. 2+2=4, triangles have three sides, all bachelors are male |
|
|
Contingent Truths |
A truth that can be denied without contradiction. eg. The sky is blue, grass is green, Winston Chruchill was prime minister |
|
|
Arguments |
A series of propositions intended to support a conclusion. The propositions offered in support of the conclusion are called premises or reasons |
|
|
Deductive Argument |
Arguments where the truth of the conclusion is guarenteed by the truth of the premises. eg. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal |
|
|
Inductive Arguments |
Arguments where the truth of the conclusion is not fully guaranteed by the truth of the premises. eg. the sun has always risen in the past, therefore the sun will rise in the future |
|
|
A priori Knowledge |
Propositional knowledge that's acquired independently of experience (or PRIOR to experience). eg. 2+2=4, all bachelors are male |
|
|
A posteriori Knowledge |
Propositional knowledge that's acquired from experience. eg. snow is white |
|
|
Innate Knowledge |
Propositional knowledge that exists in the mind at birth and so is not acquired by experience |
|
|
Empiricism |
The position that all of our ideas, concepts, beliefs and knowledge are acquired from experience
|
|
|
Concept Empiricism |
All concepts are derived from experience. There are no innate concepts |
|
|
Knowledge Empiricism |
The theory that there can be no a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions about the world. eg. all a priori knowledge is of analytic propositions, while all knowledge of synthetic propositions must be checked against sense experience |
|
|
Rationalism |
The position that reason, rather than experience, is the most important source of ideas and knowledge |
|
|
Omnipotent |
All Powerful |
|
|
Omnibenevolent |
All Loving |
|
|
Anselms Ontological |
1. Everyone has an idea of god 2. This idea cannot be improved upon 3. If God existed only in the mind then he cannot be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived 4. As God is "that than which" he must necessarily exist in reality 5. Therefore God exists
Everyone has an idea of God, even the non believer has an understanding of the definition of God. Anyone who understands this definition cannot deny his existence since the term is included in his definition. The idea of a non existent greatest possible being is a contradiction. |
|
|
Guanilo's Ontological Criticism - Perfect Island |
Perfect Island, if existence is a predicate of perfection then a perfect island must necessarily exist in reality as it's "that than which". |
|
|
Plantinga's Ontological Argument - Possible Worlds |
A hypothetical situation in which worlds consist of the logically possible. If it is possible for God to exist in one of these worlds then God must necessarily exist in every possible world as he has maximal greatness |
|
|
Aquinas' Criticism of the Ontological Argument - Transitional Error |
Aquinas argues that God's nature cannot be defined before his existence has been proven. We must have good reason to believe that God exists before we can discuss his attributes |
|
|
Anselm's Perfect Island Counter-Criticism |
Even a perfect Island relies on other factors around it however God is aseitic (self existent) and relies on nothing.
Also everyone has an idea of God however not everybody has an idea of a perfect Island |
|
|
Descartes Ontological Argument |
1. Everyone has an idea of God 2. This belief is of a supremely perfect being 3. An imperfect being is incapable of conjuring up the idea of a perfect being 4. The idea must have originated from the perfect being himself 5. A perfect being must exist in order to be perfect
Descartes existence belongs analytically to God, God's immutable nature informs us of his existence. We cannot conceive of God's divine perfections whilst excluding existence. Existence as a predicate only applies to God as God is the only supremely perfect being |
|
|
Malcom's Ontological Argument |
Gods existence doesn't depend on anything else. It is impossible for Gods existence to be contingently true or false, it must be necessarily true. Saying God is necessarily false would be a logical contradiction to his definition and therefore God must be necessarily true
|
|
|
Leibniz's Ontological Argument |
An addition to Descartes Ontological, he argued that we need a better understanding of perfection. For this he clarified the co-existence of God's divine perfections stating each perfection must not be incompatible with any other perfection. |
|
|
Humes Fork |
1. Relations of Ideas - Analytic truths 2. Matters of Fact - Synthetic Truths Something is only meaningful if it can be judged by one of these categories. The Ontological argument fails to succeed since it can only tell us about the definition of words and nothing about the world |
|
|
Kant's Ontological Argument Criticism
|
Firstly opposed Descartes claim that God has necessary existence, disagreed that God's existence is synonymous to a triangles three sides: 1. A triangle, if it exists, has three sides 2. If there is a God, it's logical to assume his existence is necessary 3. However if there was no triangle then there would be no three sides 4. It's not illogical to accept there is no God as we don't have to accept Descarte's first premise 5. God's definition only tells us about the word not God himself Secondly he opposed Anselm's statement that existence is a predicate of God. He stated a predicate should tell us information regarding the subject (eg. omnipotence shows God's all powerful) however "existence" adds nothing to the concept of God. eg. if you were to say "there is a cow" saying "that cow also exists" would be unnecessary and add nothing. |
|
|
Schopenhauer's Ontological Criticism |
Calls the ontological argument a "conjuring trick" as it conceals the claim that God exists in its premises in order to reveal it in the conclusion. Its a circular argument as Descartes claims that God necessarily exists from the outset and merely reveals it. It proves nothing other than what is assumed at the outset. |
|
|
Malcom's Ontological Argument |
Agrees with Anselm so conceives God as a being whose existence cannot depend on anything else. He says that Gods existence cannot be contingently true or false (reliant on the state of the universe) and must be either necessarily true or false (cannot not be). As God being necessarily false is a logical contradiction God must be necessarily true. |
|
|
Leibniz's Ontological Argument |
Admired Descartes Ontological said we needed a better definition of perfection. He said Descartes didn't clarify the possibility of the divine perfection coexisting. |
|
|
Russell's Ontological Criticism
|
"Exists" is not a genuine predicate as it does not refer to any real property. Frege says that "exists" is shorthand for "there is some object in the world that this concept refers to". For example, "all cows eat grass" tells us something about the cows but "all cows exist" is unnecessary. |
|
|
Teleological/Arguments from Design |
A posteriori arguments concerned with specific details of the universe, why they possess the particular qualities and how can we best explain them |
|
|
Aquinas/Archer/Arrow Teleological |
Aquinas identified the way that "natural bodies" act in a regular fashion to accomplish their end provides evidence for a creator. He stated that whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end unless its directed by something endowed with knowledge aka God. eg. the arrow is directed by the archer, the archer being God. Everything in the world was directed to a purpose or end by God. |
|
|
Criticisms of Aquinas/Archer/Arrow Teleological
|
The key premise is that things that lack intelligence cannot move towards their end without being directed by an intelligent being. Yet we observe most acorns/embryos grow on to develop without any intelligent being interference. |
|
|
William Paleys Teleological/Watch analogy
|
Paley used the analogy that you find a watch laying on the ground, something with such purpose and complexity would cause you to assume it has a watchmaker/creator/intelligent designer as it is so organised and fit for its purpose. The universe is far more complex than a watch so surely we'd assume a designer for it too rather than chance |
|
|
Paleys Natural Phenomena Teleological/Design qua Purpose |
Paley used the example of the eye and the way its parts cooperate in complex ways to produce sight. He argued that it was designed for a specific purpose and assigned this design to an intelligent creator. He applied this also to the universe showing that an external agent must have imposed this order evident in the universe |
|
|
Paleys anticipated responses of Watchmaker/Design qua Purpose |
1. There are problems in the functioning of the watch, however we would still observe the details and assume it has a creator due to its complexity 2. Some parts of the watch have no apparent purpose, paley suggests that these parts have some function even if we dont know it and would stop the mechanism if removed |
|
|
Paleys Watchmaker actual criticisms
|
Vulnerable to the discoveries of science which have since found what they believe to be the origin of the sophisticated living creatures back to "unorganized mechanized substances" and evolution |
|
|
Humes Teleological Criticisms/Apparent Design
|
Hume argued its a fallacy to assume the universe is designed just because it seems so. He said the universe is nothing more than a random association of atoms but in line with the principles of the universe to resemble order. This however is contradictory as science has shown its isn't just random
|
|
|
Humes Criticism of Paleys watch analogy
|
Accuses Paley of anthropomorphizing God by comparing him to a human designer. As well as this, he argued that paleys analogy was too assumptive, just because a watch has a designer doesn't mean the universe does. The universe should instead be compared to a carrot as they're both organic. In response, science uses analogies, the watch and world both have purpose and order |
|
|
Kants Teleological Criticism
|
Argues that although we assume the watchmaker combined the parts of the watch, they didn't create them from scratch. This shows an architect of the universe, not a creator. This doesn't prove any omnipotent/omnipotent/etc. being. In addition, although things appear to be designed,this may be our minds imposing order onto chaos as our minds hate chaos. However science does show order. |
|
|
Darwin's Evolutionary Teleological Criticism |
Darwins theory of evolution suggest that the universe can exist due to random chance and evolution through natural selection. However natural selection can only PROVE interspecies minor changes. The discovery of DNA further shows how complex the universe is.
|
|
|
Swinburnes Card Shuffling analogy
|
Compares the likelihood that the world was created by chance to a card shuffling machine producing 10 aces in a row. We would be logical to assume that it was rigged, the same is the case for the universe. The temporal order "cries out for explanation in a common source with the power to produce it" |
|
|
Swinburnes defence (from hume) of the Teleological
|
2. Swinburne rejects that the result of random processes could result in the fundamental laws of physics as he says it doesn't apply (gives no reasoning) 3.Concedes his argument doesn't prove a God but an extremely powerful being, but a God is far more likely 4. Concedes that its only an analogy 4. |
|
|
Cosmological Argument |
An argument regarding the cause of the universe assuming that the universe has not always been in existence and that an external being is necessary for it to come into being, this agent being God
|
|
|
Original (muslim) Kalam Argument
|
Seeks to disprove infinity, proposed by 9th century Muslim philosophers. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence 2. The universe exists 3. The universe must have a cause for its existence 4. If we have a sequence of events, each caused by another, then the sequence must be finite as their cannot be infinite temporal sequence as successive addition cannot add to infinity |
|
|
William Lane Craig Kalam Argument
|
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause for its existence. Universe is finite due to successive addition. If the universe had a beginning then it was either caused or uncaused/natural or a choice. As rules of nature and time didn't exist before the universe it cannot have occurred from natural causes and was therefore a personal being/creator, God |
|
|
Successive Addition/against infinity/Will Lane Craig/Kalam
|
A hypothetical infinite library consisting of red and black books placed on a shelf in an alternating pattern of black and red. If you were to take away one of the red books the number of red books would still be equal to the number of black books. This is not logically possible and therefore infinity cannot logically exist.
|
|
|
Arguments against infinity
|
1. Kalam Argument 2 Additional Succession (W.L.Craig) 3. Scientific support that the universe began with a burst of cosmic inflation 13.7bn years ago and is therefore finite. |
|
|
Criticisms of Kalam Argument
|
If everything has a cause then what caused the first cause. |
|
|
Aquinas' First Way - Change/Motion |
2. When applied to the universe, if we look down the sequence of time, the universe must have something that started its movement 3. Aquinas refers to this as the "unmoved mover" and "that which men call God" Aristotle used the analogy of a block of marble, it has the potential to become a statue but needs an "efficient cause" |
|
|
Criticisms of Aquinas' First Way - Change/Motion
|
2. Hume accused Aquinas of making an inductive leap of logic, moving from a first mover to this being God 3. Kenny argues that animals and humans move themselves and need no mover 4. Reaches conclusions of that outside of our experience 5. Kant argued we should only deduct from our experiences, we haven't experienced the start of the universe . |
|
|
Aquinas' Second Way - Cause
|
1. Everything in nature is subject to the law of cause and effect 2. Its impossible for this to be traced back infinitely 3. There must then be a "first cause" which is itself uncaused 4. There is nothing that can be the cause of itself 5. It must therefore be God as he's self-existent and the "efficient cause" 6. he spoke in terms of 1-efficient, 2-intermediate and 3- ultimate cause |
|
|
Criticisms of Aquinas' Second Way - Cause |
2. Russell argued we cannot deduce from individual parts of the universe the cause of the universe as a whole 3. Big bang theory serves as an alternative 4. To go outside of the world is to go beyond where cause and effect applies |
|
|
Aquinas' Third Way - Contingency
|
2. Going back, a necessary being must exist who is not dependent on anything for his existence 3. As infinity is impossible and everything has a beginning and an end. There then must have been a time when nothing existed unless something initially brought it into existence 4. Our existence is therefore dependent on the existence of a God 5. We are still constantly reliant on Gods existence for continuing the existence of the universe |
|
|
Criticisms of Aquinas' Third Way - Contingency |
1. Quantum Physics has shown how electrons come in and out of existence with no trace 2. Why must this necessary being be God |
|
|
Descartes Cosmological Argument |
|
|
|
Hume' Criticisms of Descartes Cosmological
|
1. Descartes cosmological is based around the idea that something must have caused his idea of God as a perfect being. Quantum Physics and Russell have pointed out that elements of modern physics don't seem to follow any causes. 2. Can we infer cause from effect? We've learnt to associate one kind of event with another and label this as causation rather than something that occurs in the world itself. |
|
|
Russells Criticisms of Cosmological
|
1. He attacks the concept of a "necessary being", only necessary statements which are analytic or true by definition. 2. Guilty of "the fallacy of composition", we learn of causation via observation and shouldnt make judgements about that total chain based off what we've seen (induction fallacy basically) 3. Disagrees that every event is dependent on a preceeding event, eg.quantum physics 4. Rejects that we need an explanation, says the universe is brute fact |
|
|
The Problem of Evil |
If God is omnibenevolent, then how is there so much evil and suffering in the world. |
|
|
Physical/Natural Evil |
The pain and suffering that occurs independently of human actions. eg. Hurricanes/Natural disasters |
|
|
Moral Evil
|
Evil caused by humans, acts of cruelty, viciousness and injustice carried out by humans upon fellow humans and creatures, including the concept of "sin". eg. Holocaust |
|
|
J.L. Mackie's Logical problem of Evil |
1. God is omnipotent 2. God who is wholly good 3. Evil exists There is a contradiction that needs resolving, if any two of these propositions are true then the third must be false, and all three are essential to what it is to be a theist He also adds 5. God is omnipotent |
|
|
Plantingas responce to Mackies problem of evil |
Disagrees over proposition 4. A good being eliminates evil as far as it can. Many believers believe that evil is necessary in some cases and therefore a wholly good being should not eliminate it |
|
|
Evidential problem of Evil
|
The amount of evil in the world weighs against there being a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good. Hume and Rowe proposed two hypotheses 1. There is an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world 2. There is no such God They argue the evidence is stacked towards the second, this isn't meant to be proof but makes it reasonable to believe the latter |
|
|
Jean-Paul Sartre's response to the problem of evil/existentialism |
Claims the realisation there is no God gives a sense of abandonment due to being told our life has a specific purpose for all of our lives. Its comforting to believe in a God to support us and dish out justice. Satre's philosophy of existentialism urges us to shed ourselves of our deceptions to live more authentic lives. This does mean there is no external set of morals and its up to us to create our own. |
|
|
Process Theology - Problem of Evil defence |
God does exist, the enormity of pain and suffering in the world is real but we should realise that God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Goes against the God of classical theism, God doesn't know the future only the past.
Completely unacceptable to most believers, but may be plausible to those outside of traditional theism. (see john hicks development) |
|
|
Afterlife Defence (Hick)- Problem of Evil defence |
God does exist and has all the divine qualities however we should realise that the enormity of pain and suffering in the world is balanced by an even greater good, the afterlife. A finite amount of suffering is infinitesimal compared to an eternity in heaven. Hell then exists to punish those who have committed injustice. However this simply defers the problem of evil to the next life with no evidence. And an eternity of hell amplifies the issue of evil. |
|
|
Free Will Defence/Augustinian Theodicy - Problem of Evil defence |
God does exist and has all the divine perfections however the pain and suffering we go through is the consequence of humans having free will. Evil is only prevalent due to adam and eve turning away from God. (see mackies defence). Perfection existed in the past and we've fallen from this state |
|
|
Soul making Defence/Iranaeus Theodicy - Problem of Evil defence
|
God exists and has all divine qualities but pain and suffering is necessary for humans to properly fulfil their potential which is an even greater good. Evil enables humans to to grow and develop. Perfection will come in the future.
|
|
|
Plantingas Free Will Defence |
1. A world with creatures who are free is more valuable than one with no free creatures at all 2. God can create free creatures but cannot cause them to do whats morally right without removing their freedom 3. God therefore created a world with free creatures capable of doing the morally right/wrong 4. Humans are the source of moral evil Natural evil is due to the curse of adam which includes the animal kingdom, this was a consequence of free will |
|
|
Criticisms of the Free will defence |
1. Dependent on the literal version of the bible/literal adam and eve story 2. Why should animals be punished for the sins of humans. eg. wasps which lay their eggs inside the victim to eat the host from inside out 3. Flew and Mackies criticisms |
|
|
Flews criticism of the free will defence |
Flew criticises the meaning of free will arguing freely chosen actions are those that have their causes from the person themselves not from externally. With this God could have created a world where people had good nature and could still make "free" choices (however these are merely puppets) |
|
|
J.L. Mackies criticism of the free will defence |
1. It's logically possible for me to choose to do good on any occasion 2. Its logically possible for any individual to choose to do good throughout their life 3. God's omnipotent and can create any logically possible world 5. God therefore could have created a world in which we were all genuinely free yet all choose to do good 6. God didnt create such a world 7. Therefore Gods either not wholly good or not omnipotent (back to prob of evil) |
|
|
Leibniz's Irenaean Theodicy |
God knew all the possible universes that he could create and is wholly good. He chose to create ours as it is the best of the possible universes with the essential amount of suffering. All evil that does exist in the world must exist to make it a better place
This is criticised by those which say it is hard to believe with the enormity of pain/suffering |
|
|
Hicks Irenaean Theodicy |
Identified two traditions which address the problem of evil; the augustinian theodicy and the iranaean theodicy, he addresses their similarities
1. Both agree human free will is central to explanations of evil 2. Both agree a greater good emerges from evil 3. Both agree that there are limits to God's omnipotence, cannot create genuinely free beings that solely do good Hick says the Augustinian theodicy is inadequate as it bears all responsibility on humans. The irenaean theodicy on the other hand gives God the responsibility as he wanted it to happen rather than it being chance. He says we must use free will to work towards achieving perfection in the next life. Agrees that evil and God's lack of interference is necessary for development of humans |
|
|
Criticisms of Hicks Irenaean Theodicy |
1. The distribution of evil amongst the world seems random and meaningless 2. There are many cases where no good has apparently come from suffering. eg. D.Z phillips uses the example of a child with cancer |
|
|
Univocal Language |
Words that have the same literal meaning. eg. hand of God is gods literal hand. |
|
|
Equivocal Language |
Words that have a different meaning. Not used in regards to God as they would be meaningless as they're not understandable |
|
|
Analogical Language |
Words that have a similar or related sense to the word itself. eg. God is good doesnt mean good in the sense that humans are good but wholly good
|
|
|
Analogy of attribution |
Words such as just and good may be applied to both God and humans but dont apply in the exact same way. "God is good" doesnt refer to human goodness but God's infallibility |
|
|
Analogy of proportionality |
Explains how a word refers to the qualities a thing possesses. Eg. saying "someone is good" means the person matches certain ideals of what good is. In the statement "God is good", god measures up to what it is for God to be good/living up to what he should be |
|
|
Logical Positivism - A.J. Ayer |
The scientific view, that for language to be meaningful it must be verifiable by sense experience, thus ethical statements are meaningless. This means metaphysics and theology cannot be verified as knowledge as they cannot be verified. Its an extension of Humes fork which was lead by A.J. Ayer, argued meaningful statements had to be verified synthetically or analytically |
|
|
Emotivism |
The theory that all moral statements are expressions of emotion, either approving or disapproving of actions |
|
|
Verification Principle/Hurrah Boo |
Only facts that can be verified analytically(true by def) or synthetically(tested via senses) are meaningful. Pushed by A.J. Ayer, moral/ethical statements serve no purpose and are really just saying hurrah/boo to whatever. Theyre therefore no more important than responding ow to pain
|
|
|
Criticisms of the verification principle/hurrah boo |
1. A huge amount of whats been written will be written off as meaningless (all religion/theology) 2. Ethical statements cannot be verified so are meaningless, theyre just expressions of what we feel 3. By its own rules, the verification principle is meaningless |
|
|
Cognitivism |
Argue that ethical statements express propositions and can therefore be true or false. eg. "its wrong to be dishonest" is making a factual claim about the world that there is a property in the world that is wrongness and dishonestly possesses this property. Argue our experience of morality suggests there are moral truths, the outside feeling of morality and that we have to be taught whats right and wrong as kids. |
|
|
Non-Cognitivism |
Argue that ethical language may be meaningful but does not consist of or express beliefs capable of being true or false. When we use "wrong" we're making a claim about the world but this is not refer to an actual property in the world but is an expression of a feeling of disapproval. |
|
|
Wittgensteins language games |
The idea that all language is a game and in every form of life words are used within the context of the subject. All forms of life therefore have their own language with their own rules concerning their meaningfulness. For example medical language is understood by doctors but not bakers. Language is therefore meaningful, even if it is not true for everyone but by communicating meaning to others in the same "game". eg. Cricket players criticising football rules |
|
|
Anthony Flews falsification principle |
A theory is held to be a working hypothesis as long as it is not falsified. If then, a statement cannot be falsified then it is meaningless. Parable: two explorers find an opening full of weeds/flowers, one argues a gardener comes and tends to it, the other disagrees pointing to the mess as evidence. The believer holds his beliefs for which there is no empiricle evidence. Flew uses the example that "god loves us", no matter how much evidence comes against it, believers will make excuses therefore it cannot be falsified. |
|
|
Responces to Flews falsification principle |
1. Its a natural part of faith to trust in God, this is not irrational. 2. There is sufficient evidence in life to support faith in Gods love 3. We need to be disciplined, as we do by our parents, this doesnt mean God doesnt love us |
|
|
R.M. Hares criticism of Flew/Bliks |
Agreed with Flew that religious language was non cognitive as it couldn't be falsified but disagreed it was meaningless. We all have bliks, beliefs we hold in spite of undermining evidence. eg. Lunatic that believes that murders are out to get him. Despite this belief being bloody mental it still has a sufficient impact on his life to be classed as meaningful. If it can impact a persons attitude then it is meaningful, cognitive or not.
|
|
|
Basil Mitchels Freedom Fighter |
Although its impossible to falsify it currently, at some point there would be something capable of falsifying belief, its just not happened yet. He argues that religious beliefs are held on trust and are meaningful as although they cannot be falsified in practise, they can be falsified in principle. Parable:"a freedom fighter meets a stranger who tells the fighter to trust hes on his side, even if at times he appears to be helping the enemy. The fighter trusts him then despite him appearing to help the enemy due to trust". Its impossible to say when the fighter would lose faith. Although many things may count against belief in God,nothing decisively undermines it. |
|
|
Richard Swinburnes toys in the cupboard parable |
We can never prove that toys do not come out and play when we're not watching. Although we cannot falsify whether they move or not, we still understand the idea of them moving, therefore the concept has meaning. |
|
|
Eschatological Verification - John Hick |
Criticism of Ayer, argues that religious statements can be falsified. Only statements that are factually significant are meaningful, this is judged by whether the truth/falsity of an assertion makes a difference to our lives. he says factual significance should be assessed by whether it can be verified Hick claims that verifiability should be judged by whether you can remove the grounds for rational doubt about the claims truth. As there is some evidence this removes serious doubts. Although religious statements cannot be falsified (as we need to die to find out), they can be verified due to their lack of rational doubt. eg. Celestial city, one sees purpose to obstacles, the other just endures them Their beliefs will be verified at their death, believers have to wait for verification as thats faith. |
|
|
Criticism of Hicks Eschatological Verification |
In order to verify we're now in heaven or experiencing God we need to be able to recognise them despite having never seen them before. |
|
|
R.B. Braithwaite
|
Attempts to show the meaning of religious language, says the verification/falsification principle treat religious language as cognitive when its non-cognitive. As an empiricist he believes religious claims cannot be verified but religious assertions are meaningful as they indicate a new way of life and can therefore be verified in a persons behaviour and attitude. Beliefs such as "God is love" can be verified by the effect they have in a believers life |
|
|
Tripartite account of knowledge |
Three conditions that have to be met if something is to be counted as knowledge. Justification, truth and belief
|
|
|
Propositional Knowledge |
A declarative statement, represented in regular language. (unlike how to do an action) |
|
|
Acquaintance knowledge
|
Knowledge gained from direct awareness of an object without any process, interference or knowledge of truths |
|
|
Ability knowledge
|
Knowledge of how to perform an ability that's difficult to encode in language eg. bike riding |
|
|
Epistemology |
The study of knowledge and related concepts including justification, belief certainty, and the possibility and sources of knowledge |
|
|
Primary Qualities |
Qualities that are inseparable from |
