Ontological Argument Revision- With Norman Malcolm

Norman Malcolm - Knowledge and Certainty

Ontological argument revision

On Anselm

·         God is something a greater than cannot be conceived 'aliquid quo nihil maius cogitaripossit'

·         The fool of the Psalm who says in his heart there is no God Anselm believed that the fool understands what he hears and what he understands is in his understanding though he does not understand that it exists.

·         Anselm regarded it as tautological to say that whatever is understood is in the understanding. 'quidquid intelligitar intellectu est'

or

·         Whatever is though is in the thought 'quidquid cogitatur in cogitatione est'

Of cores there are many things which may exist in the understanding that do not exist in reality; for example elves.

Something a greater than which cannot be conceived exists in the understanding, however it does not purely exist here, if it did so then it would not be what it is (see above in red ). It cannot exist just in the understanding as if it existed there then a greater thing could be conceived: namely one which exists in both the understanding and in reality.  An example would be :

Out of two apples, the apple which has the predicate of existence is the greater of the two apples. This is because the apple exists in both our understanding and reality . Yes I know the criticism of this and they will be addressed later.

The problem when Anselm states that we conceive of God is that we cannot know the full concept of what God is. St Thomas Aquinas stated that we could never know God in full, the epistemic distance states that there is only so much that we can know about God. Thus proving Gods existence through analytic or a priori (though reason alone) is impossible as the concept of God is simply beyond human understanding. Indeed Aquinas believed that the only way in which we come to know God through experience of the world he created since this is the were the limits of our knowledge lie and this is seen in his arguments for God existence which use a-posteriori synthetic reasoning

Sight side track

·         Malcolm brings up the point to whether Anselm would accept that it is greater to exist in reality by itself than to exist in the understanding

·         This is something that Aquinas would definitely accept as earlier stated he believed that we could not contain God in our understanding and that we could only know him through our experience of his existence.

·         Descartes apparently also agrees. In mediations 3 Descartes suggest that the mode of being by which a thing  is ''objectively in the understanding is imperfect''

This prompts two key half related questions for me.

1.       Does the experience of a thing give us an understanding that cannot be gained by being told the properties ? For example if I tell you about every property an apple has, does someone who has direct experience of that apple know something about the apple that I do not. For this we can ask the question of the importance in language to describe religious experience and the use of reason alone in order to learn about God.

2.       Is there such a thing as an object in the first place? when we say that God has the predicate of existence we ascribe a quality to God. But try and imagine that object without its properties , is this still God ? The answer is no and this was an idea put forward by David Hume called 'Bundle theory'. If there is no such thing as an object but rather just the properties of it then this has large implications on the work of Rene Descartes and maybe more importantly the existence of God.

In any case Anselm holds that something is greater if it exists both in the understanding and in reality than if it exists merely in the understanding. Again this is greater as if it exists in the understanding alone this means that it could be greater, and thus for it to be that which greater cannot be thought it must exist in both the understanding and reality.

Malcolm then starts to examine the idea whether adding existence to an object makes it any greater.

·         A king might desire that his next chancellor should have knowledge, wit and resolution. It would be ludicrous (http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4aa657392ada776d70d8d01b-480/ludacris-luda-surprised.jpg) to add that the king desires his chancellor to have the quality of existence.

·         Suppose that the king asks two royal councillors A and B to draw up the descriptions of the most chancellor. A and B provided identical lists but A says that the chancellor exists.

·         Malcolm's point is that any person who satisfies A's description would necessarily satisfy B's description and vice versa.

(Existence essentially adds nothing to the descriptions they are the same)

Malcolm believes and accepts that he is repeating much of Kant's criticism of the ontological argument. Kant believed that existence cannot be a real  predicate of an object.

We do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this is '

On Anslem's second ontological proof

·         And it (God ) so truly exists that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being that can be conceived to not exist.

·         For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived to not exist; and this is greater than a being which can be conceived to not exist.

·         Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived to not exist , then it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived nor is its non-existence conceivable. In other words that than which no greater can be conceived exists necessarily.

·         'And this being thou art, O lord , our God. '

Explanation

Anselm is saying two things:

1.       That a being whose nonexistence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose nonexistence is logically possible.

And therefore that a being for which no greater can be conceived must be one whose nonexistence is logically impossible.

(If this being is that than which no greater can be conceived then its nonexistence is logically impossible)

2.       That God is of who's nonexistence is logically impossible

Malcolm says that these statements can be used in the same way that 'God is the greatest of all beings can be used'

He also believes that these are logically necessary truths much in the same way in which the statement 'a square has four sides' is a logically necessary truth. If a square did not have 4 sides then we cannot accept it as a square as it does not fit the definition of what a square is. Slimily if God does not have necessary existence then that is not that than which no greater can be conceived, for God to be God he must exist.

This can be used as a response to Gaunilo's island in which Gaunilo's uses the same reasoning to prove the existence of a nonexistent island.  For Gaunilo's island there is nothing in the definition of that island that means that the islands nonexistence is logically impossible, it is not part of the concept of the island. Indeed the island, for it to be the greatest conceivable island must exist in both reality and the mind however it does not mean that I cannot conceive of its none existence, in other words it does not have necessary existence and so this is why the ontological argument works for God but no other.

Malcolm rejects Descartes' notion that existence is a perfection. Anselm maintains, not that existence is a perfection but rather but rather the logical impossibility of its nonexistence is a perfection. In other words necessary existence is a perfection.

On Kant's Criticisms. (it's a bit muddled as to which bit is which )

Malcolm believed that Part of Kant's criticism of the ontological arguments was incorrect.

What Kant does is say that when 'If I reject the predicate while retaining the subject, contradiction results; and I therefore say that the former belongs necessarily to the later.' But if we reject subject and predicate alike, there is no contradiction for nothing is then left that can be contradicted. To do otherwise would be the same as rejecting the 3 sides of a triangle and yet keep the idea of a triangle. Thus we must reject both triangle and predicate. The same holds for God. If we reject his predicate of existence then we must too reject God as it would be a contradiction to try and separate the two concepts.

The point of the ontological argument to Malcolm is that once the concept of God is correctly understood then one cannot 'reject the subject'.  The fact is to say 'there is no God is a necessarily false statement'.

This is probably best explained when on the context of Malcolm's ontological argument. Instead of using a series of points leading to the proving of Gods existence what Malcolm does is present us with 4 options.

The Argument

1.       If God does Not exist then his existence is impossible .

(God is immutable (unchanging ). If God doesn't exist then he couldn't or wouldn't change from none-existence to existence. Thus his existence cannot be contingent.

2.       If God Does exist the his existence is necessary .

It is in the very definition of God that he exists necessary.

3.       As a result of these statements it follows that Gods existence is impossible or necessary .

God can either exist necessarily or his existence can be impossible.

4.       God's existence is not impossible.

It is possible to imagine a world in which God exists only 'nothing exists' is impossible (which I shall explain in a later post).

5.       Therefore God must exist necessarily.

Therefore God existence is necessary.

The purpose of setting the argument out like this, is Malcolm's attempt to show the reader how when you accept or realise what the concept of God is, it is only logical that that he exists.

The set up of for statements is also so as it tries to avoid Kant's criticism (of which Malcolm excepts)  that existence is not a real predicate. Instead  of being told that God has the perfection of existence we are given options and shown that only one of them can be logically infallible. God existence is either necessary or impossible, it is not a predicate that he exists necessarily but one of two options of which only one of which is logically correct.

God I hate this..... I try and expand on Malcolm later and read a bit more of his book but for now this is making my head hurt. 

Coming Soon ! Hume and his bundle theory you nonexistent readers (see that works in two ways)  

William James- Varieties of religious experience podcast

In our time- Varieties of religious experience.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s9ftw

Unnecessary colour - Soren Kierkegaard

Soren Kierkegaard

Pre Notes:

Catholic natural theology claims that belief in God is not opposed to reason. Indeed the existence of God is something you can argue for-see Aquinas' Five ways and other ways such as Anselm's ontological argument.

Natural theology, it is claimed by the catholic church, is able to arrive at the existence of God and certain basic knowledge of Gods attributes by the use of the reason alone. Revealed theology (theology based on the doctrine that all religious truth is derived exclusively from the revelations of God to humans.) can further amplify the findings of natural according church.

This position however, was rejected by Kierkegaard and Karl Barth who in protestant tradition, rejected any attempt to arrive at the existence of God using reason.

Faith went beyond reason.

Kierkegaard thought that the entire premise of Christianity is based on an Absolute Paradox. This is the paradox of how Jesus is both man and God. He asks the question:

How can the creator be the created ? How can the infinite be finite   ?

Philosophy and reason he claimed, cannot understand why this paradox occurs. When reason comes into contact with the absolute paradox only two approaches are possible .  

1) Offense

In which case reason rejects the absolute paradox and says that this cannot be true. Jesus was one or the other but not both. This as a result is also a rejection of the key creeds of Christianity and ultimately the religion its self.

The above does not have to necessarily have to be true. Gnosticism is the heresy of Christianity believes that Jesus is a messenger of God rather than God himself. Gnosticism however has the problem of-  if Jesus is not the son of God. then is Gnosticism really Christian ?

There is the example of paradox in nature, the electron when not observed exists in a super position. This means it has no set state of matter it is a partial it is a wave and it is other things. If Aquinas' 5 ways comes from observations of nature then why can't God exhibit the same properties as something which is inside nature. If the creator created something which such a paradox then why can't he exhibit such a feature himself.

2) Faith

In which case reason accepts that it cannot understand something that goes far beyond reason i.e. God. This is where faith comes in it involves the acceptance that reason is limited and that it to believe in God you are always going to have to take a intellectual leap of faith.  

Kierkegaard would say that faith is not irrational but may however be Non-rational . The faith may be based within reason but this does not mean that it is reasonable. Faith goes beyond reason.

Mark Steel Lectures

Aswell as very helpful these are also funny so thats always a plus.

Karl Marx (Part one of three)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByOKZmQ72m4


Rene Descartes
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G_kHtfDdwc

Sigmund Freud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBdidos-xg

Atrisotel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMpJvt6b0I

Freud and God

Freud and God

Basic claims:

1.       Religion is a projection, an objectification, an externalization of subconscious desires. Once this desire is objectified into ‘’God’’ it is mistakenly taken to be an autonomous existence independent of its human creators

2.       Religion is therefore a coded way for human beings to talk about their desires. Human’s beings have desires and human beings with their desires invent Gods who are able to fulfil these desires. If the fundamental human desire is happiness then religion offers happiness- if not in this world then in the next.

3.       Religion is therefore born if wish fulfilment. It is desire fulfilled.

4.       Freud believed that by exposing these revelations he would liberate humans to act in a more informed freeway.

 Freud was interested in what the triggers for religion within the personality were, and what drove the subconscious motivations behind religious ideas, rituals and doctrines.

Freud believed his method of psychoanalysis could uncover these triggers. For Freud religion is nothing more than his product of a psychological process. Indeed Freud did not hate religion but rather view its time as having helped human society to developed and now it was inhibiting a new age of science and psychoanalysis.

Freud and Religion

Freud’s first attempt to explain religion in physiological terms can be found in Totem and Taboo (1915) where he suggests that religion arose during pre-historic man as an act of expiation (the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing; atonement.) for the primeval murder of the father by the male adolescents because they desire the mother. The adolescent males then begin to feel guilt about the killing of the farther and so erect a totem in his honour. The Totem takes on the attributes of the farther and the males in time worship it. In doing so the adolescent males are able to relive their feelings of guilt while future generations are prevented for committing such crimes.

For Freud the religious response to the world is neurosis which has its roots in childhood. If the problem area can be identified by psychoanalysis then the religious neurosis should disappear.

1.       Religion is the defence mechanism of the religious person to the experience of living in a hostile world. The world is a fearful place for a child and if learning how to deal with the world is not accomplished in childhood it reveals itself later in life in the form of religious neurosis. The child creates a great farther figure as he remembers from childhood how his dad represented the protector. God is therefore the magnified farther figure that the religious person wishes to depend on throughout the rest of their lives.

This is why, Freud argued, that young people often lose their faith in God when they realise that their own fathers are as perfect as they view God and to make mistakes.

2.       Religion is a form of wish fulfilment – This is the wish of the child for a loving farther in a hostile world who will look after them and upon they can depend leads them to create God. God is the ideal projection of what the farther should be.

The existence of God is therefore an illusion and religion is a mass delusion that shapes the reality for believers.  Individuals feel the need for one upon whom they can rely and create a God with whom they can share all their troubles. Religion enables people to feel comforted and secure as the God they worship is all-powerful, loving and total trustworthy so whatever happens during the individual’s life they can feel confident that it will work out in the end

3.       Freud noted that in religion there are repetitive patterns of behaviour in rituals and services. He considered these to be similar to the neurotic behaviour patterns that some of his clients exhibited. Freud believed that religious rituals provide a mechanism for man to work out early tensions which have developed as a result of the Oedipus complex.

The Oedipus complex is the male desire to kill his farther and have sexual intercourse with his mother; this like most things by Freud has its origins in the childhood. He said that babies developed very complexed feelings about their parents. They see their parents as a threat as the farther often takes over the priority which the mother initially gives to the baby and thus creates a feeling of jealously. The farther as a result is seen as a rival or a threat to the baby and the love given to it by the farther.

language

If in logic
A > C
B > C
then we can conclude that A > C

 However in language

Nothing is better than pizza
Stale bread is better than noting
then we can conclude that
Stale bread is better than pizza

To be continued....
Sometime next week !

Christian Creed, Heresy Keywords and Etymology

Christian Creed, Heresy Keywords and Etymology

1.     Ecumenical

·         Representing a number of different Christian churches.

·         Promoting or relating to unity among the world’s Christian churches.

               The word is derived from Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to the Roman Empire. The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24.14) as the concern of all Christians.

2.     Heresy

·         Someone who actively chooses a different interpretations of faith than that which is proclaimed in the creed of the church

From the Latin word ‘haeresis’ meaning ‘’act of choosing’’

3.     Incarnation

·         The embodiment of God the son in the human flesh of Jesus Christ

Etymology

The noun incarnation derives from the ecclesiastical Latin verb incarno,^[4] itself derived from the prefix in- and ''caro, "flesh", meaning "to make into flesh" or "to be made flesh".

4.     Modalism

·         The view that the Holy Trinity is like an Actor playing three different roles; this has the implications that when God was Jesus, he was not the father. The Godheads of the Trinity is made up of three different ‘’aspects’’ or ‘’modes’’ of a single God rather three distinct beings.

5.     Trinitarianism

·         The belief that God exists as three hypostases – The father, the son and the holy ghost but is still just one being with each of them having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

6.     Universalism

·         The belief that all humans may or will be saved through Jesus Christ and will eventually come to harmony in Gods kingdom.

7.     Gnosticism

·        The view that God is fully transcendent, the world was created by a demiurge. Jesus was a messenger of God but not actually God, the holy spirit was inside Jesus but left his mortal body shortly before his death.

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)

8.     Homoiousios

·         Meaning ‘’Similar essence’’. Although essence can be interchanged with ‘’substance’’

9.     Homoousios

·        Meaning ‘’Same essence’’ again with essence being interchangeable with substance

10.                         Hypostases

·         A Greek term which translates into Latin as ‘’personae’’ or ‘’persons’’. Example: God is made up of the three Hypostases.

Comes from the Greek word hypostasis which means ‘’sediment’’. Hypostasis is the result of the words ‘’Hupo’’ which means under and ‘’Stasis’’ which means standing. 

11.                        Personae

·         A Latin word which translates to persons. Example God is made up of three personae.

12.                        Substantia

A Greek word than translates to the Latin word Ousia which means ‘’True being’’ or ‘’True essence’’.

13.                        Ousia

A Latin word which translates to ‘’True being’’ or ‘’True essence’’

Early Christians used Ousia in defining God as one genus of Ousia with three distinct hypostasis.

The generally agreed-upon meaning of ousia in Eastern Christianity is "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another’’ (i.e. necessary existence)  - in contrast to hypostasis, which is used to mean "reality" or "existence".^[8]

Christian theologians began to use the greek term ‘’hypostases’’ which translated into latin as ‘’personae’’ or persons. They posited that God is three hypostases of one ousia 

Heresy’s of Christianity

Heresy’s of Christianity

The word heresy comes from the Latin word ‘haeresis’ meaning ‘act of choosing. A heretic is therefore someone who actively chooses a different interpretation of the faith than the one that the church has proclaimed in its creeds.

Arianism

Alexandrian Presbyter Arius (AD 256–336) first proposed this heresy after the writing of the initial apostle’s creed (see the creed and notes on it as well as relationship to the heresy’s in a coming post) . Arius proposed that Christ is not truly divine but created because    

·         God alone is self-existent and immutable; the son who is not self-existent, cannot be God

·         The son as of the Gospels is subject to growth and change (e.g. He is born a child and dies as a man )

·         The son must, therefore, be deemed a creature that has been called into existence and has a beginning.

 Arius’ opposition to Trinitarian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325.

Modalism

Modalism is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead, ,much like one actor playing three different parts.  Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Nicean doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

The heresy that modalism commits is that since there is no co-existence in the trinity. This means that when God was Jesus he was just Jesus not God which massively limits Gods power.

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is influenced by the philosophy of Plato and is the view that:

·         God is completely transcendent

·         The universe was not created by God but by a demiurge and therefore the existence of evil cannot be the fault of God

·         We are all little droplets of God or that we all hold a part of God inside our souls, salvation for humanity is to be returned to God and discard our worldly bodies (which are evil and corrupt) a view that is similar in ways to Hinduism. (expand)  

·         Jesus is a messenger of God not God. The Holy Spirit was inside Jesus’ body when he was on earth but left his body shortly before he died.

·         The incarnation is rejected because that would mean that God would no longer be transcendent, God is perfect and so cannot come into contact with the world which is evil.

This presents problems as if Jesus was not divine then his dying for our sins has no meaning, it stops Christianity being Christianity, Indeed Islamic belief accepts that Jesus was a prophet.

Massive problems are also presented as God is not the creator of the world, a heresy that completely contradicts the book of genesis furthermore it begs the questions- why would God care about humans and if God is omnipotent then why can he not come into contact with the universe, it also leads to the question why should we care about the world ? If God did not create the world then the concept of stewardship is complety removed.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's witnesses believe that the bible was inspired by God and that it is historically accurate. Jehovah's witnesses test any religious believe against the idea's or teachings of the bible if an idea or teaching doesn't agree with the bible then it is wrong. Jehovah's witnesses have their own translation of the bible known as 'The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures' which is divided into the Hebrew Scriptures (old testament ) and the Christian Greek Scriptures (new testament )

God

Jehovah's witnesses believe that :

·         God the father (Jehovah) is the only true God.

·         Jesus Christ is his son who Jehovah created and is inferior to God.

·         The Holy Spirit is not a person it is Gods 'active force'

Rejection of Nicene creed as well as parallels with the Arianisn heresy

The Father

·         God is a single being whose name is Jehovah (other translations such as Yahweh are accepted)

·         Jehovah is alone and above all beings.

·         Jehovah created everything that exists.

·         Jesus was Gods first creation (How did they get that from the book of Genesis ? It would be intresting to try to find a copy of the 'The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures' )

·         Jesus is not GOD and is not equal to GOD

·         Jehovah, after creating Jesus, created everything else through Jesus (Again where in the bible does it say/suggest this ? I'll probably do another post on the specific quotations)

Jesus Christ

·         Is a mighty being, but is NOT GOD

·         He is not equal to God in power or eternity

·         Jesus is inferior to Jehovah but superior to angels

·         Jesus Christ rules as part of Gods heavenly kingdom

·         Jesus is a lesser and SEPARATE SPIRIT being

·         When Jesus came to earth from heaven he was a perfect human being but not divine in anyway. His sacrifice while not divine was enough to make human salvation possible

·         Jesus' resurrection was a sprit resurrection not a bodily one

·         Jesus was appointed by God to judge each human being and decide upon their faith.

The Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit is not a person and is not part of a trinity but is Jehovah's active force. Jehovah's witnesses believe that the doctrine of trinity is inconsistent with the bible and contradicts what Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed.

Who cares ?

Probably the saddest and most heretical belief that Jehovah's witnesses have is there believe that Jesus did not die on cross but rather on a single stake. Witnesses believe that cross is a pagan symbol and while at first may not seem that significant but when you think about the how important the cross is as a symbol is for Christians then it seems a bit more significant.

Death Heaven and Hell

When a person dies, their existence completely stops. This comes from a quote for the bible in which Witnesses believe makes clear that human beings do not have an immortal soul which survives the death of the body.

The living are consciuos that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all... for there is no work, nor devising, nor knowledge nor wisdom in (the grave), the place to which you are going

Ecclesiastes 9:5,10

Finally witnesses belive that Hell in the traditional sense does not exist, There is no place where sinners are tormented after death, since death is the end of existence nothing can be done to them or for them. Witnesses also argue that it would against Gods nature to torture human beings  which is one of the criticism of Augustine's theodicy, if God is omnipotent then why did he create a world in which evil and suffering is already built in .  

I'm trying to think of some good philosophy puns but I can't Kant, oh well I'm sure I can Russell some up, I think people who find them very Humeorous. Oh dear them seem to have Plato-ed .

Holiday Reading

First Book- 'Unholy Night' by Seth Grahame Smith 

Picked it up in Waterstons for entertainment weekly's review 'Akin to fusing Game of Thrones with the Gospel of St Luke' which is basically what the book is in a nutshell. The story follows a thief in his quest for revenge and his encounter with Mary, Joseph and their baby but essential is a fantasy retelling of the birth of Jesus and his escape from King Herod and the Romans. It's pretty interesting as it takes the traditional story of the 3 wise men and it expands it, the wise men are not wise men but rather on-the-run convicts disguised as wise men. Miracles and magic happen in equal measure and you are never really certain of the validity of each event due to some very trippy epically written dream sequences. As a brief warning the book is violent and well very Game of Thrones in places.    

The setting is interesting (if not historically accurate ) and historical characters such as King Herod, the puppet king put in place by the Romans to rule over the Jews during the rains of Julia Cesar and then after the civil war Augustine Cesar.

Second Book 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein

I have no idea why I'm doing this it is so hard to read and just so annoying as a result of it also being so interesting.

Quote from the introduction

'The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence'

thus the aim of the book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather - not to thought ,but to the expression of thoughts : for in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought ).

Do I understand much of it ? no not really am I going to try to at the expense of sleep and sanity YES. I will attempt to read a bit at a time over till I believe that I understand it and then I shall blog about it and then hopefully Miss Price shall tell me what it actually means.

Interesting side note the book is written almost in bullet points which I think reflects greatly on Wittgenstein's nature.  

The Language of Faith

 The Language of Faith

Aquinas while writing in a time before religious language ever came into question none the less was aware that religious language was not quite the same as normal language. Aquinas knew that God was not a person, and so therefore couldn’t be communicated about in the same way that an object which is inside the universe can be communicated about. After all God is an infinite being who is also transcendent and necessary human language is used to describe things which are contingent and is something that we experience through sight, sound, touch, taste and smell and give in turn a sound which corresponds to its nature. Linking back to Ferdinand de Saussure’s Semiotics we would say that something we experience with give a sign  e.g. A device I experience which disperses ink in links a give the sign ‘pen’. Pen is made up of the signifier ‘P’ ‘E’ ‘N’ which in turns refers to the concept that the thing corresponds to which is as stated earlier something which disperses link in lines.

Bit off topic but anyway thus if we say ‘God is heaven’ it is grammatically similar to, but logically different from saying ‘Moses is on the Mountain’. If it were not then we would be accused of anthropomorphising God. It is also a form of literalism which is a mistake when things are taken literally instead of metaphorically for example creationists or biblical literalists.

Religious Use of Analogy

Aquinas proposed that to avoid committing logical error we use analogy. An analogy is a literary device by which one thing is compared to another. Aquinas held that this was possible because we are in some way related to God (i.e. made in his image and his likeness ) yet we must be aware that language about God is bound to be as limited and inadequate as our limited understanding of God’s nature (epistemic distance ).

For Aquinas there were two kinds of Analogy

1)      Analogy of Attribution

2)      Analogy of Proportion

When we say God is wise or God is love we are using the analogy of attribution. In other words we are giving God qualities that are highly esteemed by human beings

An analogy of proportion is when we realise that God is proportionately greater than human qualities for example God Is omnipotent or God is omnibenevolent.

To sum up

Aquinas concluded that there were three ways in which God is talked about.

1) Equivocal (WRONG) this is to speak of God in a different scene from how we speak if earthly things. This is wrong as we don’t know about none earthly things it is beyond our experience (link to Hume)

2) Univocal (WRONG) this is to speak of God is the same sense as we speak of earthly things – God is limited

3) Analogical (RIGHT) this is to speak of God cautiously by comparison with earthly things- There are two types Attribution and Proportion.

Ian Ramsy preferred to talk in terms of models and qualifiers. To say that God is wise is to employ model ‘wisdom’ from everyday experience. To say that God is ‘infinitely’ wise is to use the qualifier ‘infinitely’ to describe the uniqueness of God. According to Ramsey this ‘lights up’ the meaning of God and leads to a ‘religious disclosure’ which in turn leads to a religious commitment.

Ramsy wanted above all to show that religious language is above all not descriptive but more evocative, meaning that its purpose is not to arrive at an accurate description but evocative meaning. Religious languages purpose is not to arrive at an accurate description of God, but to instead to move the believer to make a religious response to a being who is ultimately beyond words and whose significance is ultimately beyond the grasp of human understanding.  

(And yes I will be linking Ramsy to religious art just as soon as I can dig myself out of the biology paper hole I am currently drowning in )

Location: Home

Music: The Front Bottoms- The Front Bottoms 

Start: ???

Finish: Too late

Basil Mitchell              

Michell states that Flew makes an error in his analysis of the religious believer because the Christian attitude is not that of the detached observer, but that of the believer.

Mitchell is different than Flew as he is saying essentially that there is a bigger picture. Just because of one aspect of God may be put into question such as ‘God is omnibenevolent ‘when there is the existence of evil it doesn’t mean that all other statements about God are meaningless.  

For example a stranger may see two friends fighting. To the stranger it may appear that the two friends are in fact mortal enemies however this is not the true. The stranger applying the falsification principle would say that the friends are not open to being wrong and so that there statement ‘we are friends’ is meaningless however this no correct. While the strangers reasoning according to the principle is correct he is still in fact wrong due to his inability to see the whole picture, it is not through any fault of his own but rather just lack of experience.

Mitchell agrees with Flew in that religious language is an assertion however unlike Flew, Mitchell sees these assertions as explanations rather than pure assertions. Mitchell believes that these explanations when out together give a picture of God they are parts of a picture that makes up God rather than meaningless vague statements that a theist will fall back on when trying to justify a position

 ‘God loves humanity’ is not conclusively falsifiable but it can be treated in one of the three following ways.

11)      As provisional hypotheses to be discarded if the experience goes against them.

22)      As significant articles of faith, something of belief (but not of meaning?)

33)      As vacuous formulae (help what does that mean!?) to which experience makes no difference and makes no difference in real life.

Mitchell Summary

Religious language makes truth claims about the world

Individual religious statements need to be put in the border context of the whole belief system

Religious language is not open to falsification because it is a matter of faith  

Falsification Notes Right Up

The Falsification principle

‘In order to say something that is possibly true about the world we must say something that is possibly false’ -Anthony Flew

The falsification theory is that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way in which it could be falsified. The falsification principle is not concerned with what may make something true, but with what can in principle make it false.

For example it is meaningful to say that it will rain tomorrow as it is also possible that it won’t.   

Karl Popper linked the falsification principle to scientific theory after all after a scientific experiment is complete the results must be tested against a null hypothesis, in other words it must be proven that the data is not due to chance.

 ‘The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability or testability’ – Karl Popper

For example Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was a scientific theory as it was potentially falsifiable; however the claims of mystic astrologers are so vague that they cannot be possibly wrong and so in the eyes of Popper or Flew are meaningless.    

So how does this relate to religion?

Well if the principle is drawn to belief statements such as ‘Jesus is the incarnation of God’ then they are meaningless as (most) believers are unable to accept that they are wrong. If these claims are too be ever verified than they must be put through the scientific method of testing… which we know will never happen  as God is outside the universe and so it is impossible to empirically prove his existence anyway.

Antony Flew goes on to say that even if there is evidence of Gods non-existence that it is near impossible to show it to a theist. It seems to flew that there is no event or series of events that would ever convince the ‘sophisticated religious person’ that there wasn’t a God after all. (Which I don’t believe is true as it is not unheard of for people to lose their faith after events of suffering)

Flew uses the Parable of the gardener to illustrate his point it goes as follows:

There are two explores out in the depths of the jungle when they chance upon a clearing containing many flowers. One explorer believes that the clearing is the result of a gardener while the other believes that it is merely a naturally occurring phenomenon. They decide to test the theory and so they set up their tents by the clearing and wait. No gardener shows, one explore says that they haven’t seen the gardener because he is invisible, and so they set up a barbed wire fence and electrify it (mabe that’s why they never find the gardener, because he come back to his garden and two men have put barbed wire round it not sure how I would react but I certainly wouldn’t try and go back in……) The men bring blood hounds to try and smell the invisible gardener but still they find nothing. The believer is not convinced he still insists there is a gardener just that he is now invisible, intangible, insensible (to electric shocks ) and also makes no sound nor gives off no scent. The sceptic at last despairs and says ‘But what remains of our original assertion?’

‘Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?’

What Flew is trying to demonstrate is that religious people are like the believing explore. Flew suggests that God dies a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’

By this phrase Flew meant that when a religious believer is challenged about any statement to do with God his response is to always modify the way in which they talk about God in order to respond to the challenge. Believers change and alter their explanations by responding with an equally vague and unfalisifiable statement.

Flew argues that believers end up modifying their statements about God so much when challenged that the statements no longer resemble the original claim about God. (in other words what was said before God dies a death from a thousand qualifications )

Problems of the falsification principle coming soon

location : Library

Start: 2nd 

Finish 3rd

Music: Favorite Worst Nightmare -Arctic monkeys