General points to cover in atheism etc.

“It is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence.” Discuss

 

  • Introduction
  • Definition of atheism
  • Alternative to religious explanation: sociological – Durkheim –detail –functionalism –reason / purpose / need fulfilled
  • Counter-criticism of Durkheim
  • Marx : God as human creation – fulfils certain needs – opium of masses – man outgrown need
  • Counter to Marx
  • Psychological: Freud – primitive horde – dead chief elevated to God – Oedipus complex / sex – security – desire to recapture oceanic feeling – religion a crutch
  • Counter criticisms
  • Modern alternative explanations: neurological – brain chemistry / trance state / induce religious experience – religious gene – Russell man who starves himself…
  • Evaluation of ‘wrong’
  • Need for faith? –different category of experience
  • Need for sufficient evidence – nature of evidence – proof / probability – eschatological verification / Hick
  • Agnosticism preferable to atheism
  • Religious language: synthetic / analytic propositions – verification / falsification – phenomenon versus numenon – realms of experience / is concrete only one?
  • Overall logic and experience – we believe in plenty of unprovable things e.g. we exist – the nature of being human etc…

A2 Religious Language – part one

Topics comprise

Analogy
Language games
Myth and symbol
Verification and falsification

 

Introduction

Religious language has some substantial problems regarding its use and comprehension:

  • Difficulties of extending language from one context to an entirely different use
  • Some people claim it is meaningless
  • The difficulty of objectivity

 

The language of proof and evidence tends not to be much use when talking about God.

Poetry or myth or symbol might be better.

“The only thing we can understand about God is that he can’t be understood. If you can grasp it, it is not God.” ST John of Damascus

He is always totally beyond what we can knowSt Gregory of Nyssa

God does not name himself when asked by Moses – he replies, “I am who I am” i.e. I’m not telling, I can’t be named.

Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

Maintained that it is possible to speak about God in a meaningful way by analogy.

He understood language as having 3 different uses:

  • Univocal – where a word has only one meaning e.g. zinc, nutmeg
  • Equivoval – where a word has more than one meaning e.g. set, table, well…
  • Analogical – here e.g. approximations about God, like but not the same: Judge, shepherd, light of the world.

 

Ian Ramsey 1915-1972

Suggests that we use many models about God and each is modified by a qualifier:

God is not just a judge he is the supreme judge; the true vine; the good shepherd; the wise ruler….

Hence he is like but not!

We speak about God not because we know anything about him but because the alternative is to say nothing.St Augustine

Some groups have taken this to its logical conclusion and worship God in silence: e.g. some monastic orders and the Quakers.

A Zen story tells how a teacher specified two things for the search for God:

  • To realise that all efforts to find God are useless
  • To act as if you didn’t know that!

 

Apophatic Theology

Suggests that God is not any of the things he is called therefore even traditional theology tends to negative descriptions:

In visible

in comprehensible

in expressible

Im mutable

im mortal

etc

In effable

in finite

 

 

This is known as the Via Negativa.