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;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Article Summary |
No way of Proving the Existence of God: even to a Probability. The term God holds No Literal Significance. Atheistic and Agnostic views hold No Significance. Use Religious Language Analogously to describe the awe of a natural event. God is not a genuine name. A Mystic who speaks of the ineffable is bound to speak nonsense. Genuine knowledge should be expressible. A religious Experience is Not the same as a sense content experience. Interesting from a Psychological Point of View. Experience does not Imply Knowledge: is Meaningless. |
|
|
No way of Proving the Existence of God: even to a Probability.
|
God Cannot be proven: a transient being that has no empirical premise for belief: A posteriori Arguments rejected: Design, Cosmological, Miracle, Experience Possible to say that God is a regularity in nature, but no more than that: Theist would reject this. implication being that religious Practice and belief are Meaningless |
|
|
The term God holds No Literal Significance.
|
God has no definable, empirical definition: it is a Metaphysical Term: holds a transient, abstract idea that can not be empirically verified. Implications being that Anything that discusses god is meaningless: Marx/ Freud, much of Modern day science is discussed through Metaphysical term's; atoms. |
|
|
Atheistic and Agnostic Views hold No Literal significance
|
An Atheist holds that it is least probable that god exists and an agnostic argues that there is no good reason to either believe or disbelieve gods existence but does not reject the premise as a genuine question: Ayer dismisses both views arguing that to even consider god in any significant capacity is to talk Nonsense. Implications against those who discuss the Non existence of a divine being and its effects: Marx/ Dawkins, Wittgenstein: Meaning as use: Religious language is Meaningful in its own context: coffee. |
|
|
Use Religious Language Analogously to describe the awe of a natural event.
|
Jehovah is angry can be understood as it is thundering: no more significance than that. not applicable with sophisticated religion: god is transient, beyond the natural laws: incomprehensible: however this means he is non-empirical and therefore Nonsensical! Implications: inadequacy of language: Aquinas, Problem with transience: inexperience-able/ unverifiable: Hume/Logical Positivist's |
|
|
God is not a genuine name.
|
God is too subjective a term with no Definable feature: Transient. Implications: should we abandon the word as it holds no literal significance. subjective Value Judgements also become meaningless: beauty ect: same with ethical and moral values... |
|
|
A Mystic who speaks of the ineffable is bound to speak nonsense.
|
God is a transient being: religious experiences are often described as ineffable: to talk of an unverifiable object that's actions and motives are beyond comprehension can not adequately be described with language: it is meaningless to attempt to do so: Mystics the Apothic way (silence). god can only be viewed as an object of faith: a mystical intuition that holds no meaning. Implications: any knowledge based on intuition is meaningless (contradicts Donovan): No right or wrong merely options: ethical theory's hold no meaning as they mistake Options for facts (utilitarianism, kantianism) |
|
|
Genuine knowledge should be expressible. |
if a mystic obtains meaningful comprehensible facts/knowledge (R.E's are Noetic: William James) then they should be able to express an empirically verify this information: there fore R.E's are Nonsensical. Implications: inexpressible knowledge is meaningless: emotions etc: all those who have had an R.E are either lying or mistaken (Hume), theology should be abandoned as it is an imperfect expression of Religious experience. |
|
|
A religious Experience is Not the same as a sense content experience.
|
A true perception experience is true to reality: the Yellow patch: is a synthetically verifiable experience as it is based of an existential, physical and observable premise. A religious Experience is based around meeting a transient, intangible metaphysical being that has not empirical Presence in Physical reality: is Unverifiable. Implications: it denys all other arguments from R.E: Swinburne: our perception of other people are also unverifiable: any judgement we make of them is meaningless. |
|
|
Interesting from a Psychological Point of View.
|
An internal Psephological event with no external factors: in line with the Freudian view that a religious experience is a portrayal of ones psychological condition. Implications: Religious belief/ experience should be treated as a psychological illness; yet cannot be seen to hold any objective value: Wittgenstein, or truth (William James) |
|
|
Experience does not Imply Knowledge: is Meaningless. |
Intuition cannot reveal truth: no religious assertions from religious experience can hold any truth or meaning.
Implications; any knowledge based on intuitions is false: Kant's intuitive morality: false: moral truths: false perception of people: false: perception of Values: meaningless. Anything from religious experience/ testimony is false: hope for life after death: religious assertions: purpose to life: gods existence. |
