Religious Studies Summer Independent Learning Philosophy ... · Retrieval Practice Christianity...

1

Religious Studies

Summer Independent Learning

2020

Philosophy of Religion

4 a and b

Religious language

And

Retrieval Practice Christianity

Themes 1 and 2

Read the booklet and then

complete all the tasks.

Bring in on the first day back after the

holidays

Assume you have RS on that day

2

3

Philosophy of Religion

Theme 4: Religious language – Booklet 1 A and B

A.

Inherent problems of religious language: Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless; challenge to sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible; challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience; the differences between cognitive and non-cognitive language.

B.

Religious language as cognitive (traditional religious view), but meaningless (Logical Positivists' view): Verification (A. J. Ayer) – religious ethical language as meaningless; there can be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the propositions (e.g. God is good, murder is wrong); Falsification - nothing can counter the belief (Antony Flew). Criticisms of verification: the verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither can historical events; universal scientific statements; the concept of eschatological verification goes against this. Criticisms of falsification: Richard Hare – bliks (the way that a person views the world gives meaning to them even if others do not share the same view); Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger (certain things can be meaningful even when they cannot be falsified); Swinburne – toys in the cupboard (concept meaningful even though falsifying the statement is not possible).

C. In booklet 2

Religious language as non-cognitive and analogical: Proportion and attribution (St Thomas Aquinas) and qualifier and disclosure (Ian Ramsey). Challenges including how far analogies can give meaningful insights into religious language. A consideration of how these two views (Aquinas/Ramsey) can be used to help understand religious teachings.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:

The solutions presented by religious philosophers for the inherent problems of using religious language.

The exclusive context of religious belief for an understanding of religious language.

The persuasiveness of arguments asserting either the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of religious language.

How far Logical Positivism should be accepted as providing a valid criterion for meaning in the use of language.

To what extent do the challenges to Logical Positivism provide convincing arguments to non religious believers.

Whether non-cognitive interpretations are valid responses to the challenges to the meaning of religious language

Watch this video on the Inherent problems of religious language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pzGW1XfDTg&list=PL2ggVdhXSioxVEVyZsyinGanBhv5ywAL7&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pzGW1XfDTg&list=PL2ggVdhXSioxVEVyZsyinGanBhv5ywAL7&index=1

4

Inherent problems of religious language:

The key role of ‘Religious Language’ is God-talk, which is, being able to talk about God in a meaningful

and coherent manner. The problem of religious language arises when we consider ‘what can be said

about God?’

The religious language debate is not concerned with whether or not God exists, or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. It is solely concerned with working out whether or not religious language means anything.

Task 1 Key terms - write full definitions as you progress through the topic

a. Cognitive

b. Non-cognitive

c. Analytic (include your own example)

d. Synthetic (include your own example)

e. Anthropomorphism

f. Metaphysical

Religious Language has meaning

On the one side of the debate, you have the centuries old tradition of religious believers who believe that you can speak and write about God,

because God is a reality.

Religious Language does not have meaning

On the other side, are the Logical Positivists and those that they influenced who claim that

statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real.

5

Task 2 Complete the spider diagram below

Hick has identified two main issues related to the use the religious language

a. This relates to the unique way that religious terms are used when they are applied to God

b. This relates to the basic function of religious language e.g. do religious statements that

have the form of factual assertions (God loves humanity) refer to a special kind of fact –

different to scientific fact – or do they fulfil a separate function altogether?

Why and when is religious language

used and studied?

e.g. during worship . . .

To speak about metaphysical

concepts

6

Task 3 Examples of terms used in a special way to describe God identified by John Hick – explain what

you think religious people do not mean by these statements.

a. ‘Great is the Lord’ – It does not mean God is physically large

b. ‘the Lord spoke to Joshua’ – Does not mean . . .

c. God is good – Does not mean . . .

When words are used in a secular (non-religious) and theological (religious) context the secular meaning

comes first and is adapted to describe God.

Describing God using human terms runs the risk of anthropomorphising God. This means giving God

human characteristics. The problem with this is that it limits God and risks God being seen as some form

of super human. For example, believers might refer to God’s love but they would not see it as the same

as human love.

d. Give five examples of words that are used to describe God

_____________________________________________________________________________________

e. Using the example of love explain why its meaning is more complex in the theological context.

___________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

7

Task 4 Read the list of problems on page 8 and complete this table

Specification content Explanation and examples (a, b, c or d?)

1. Limitations of language for traditional conceptions of God such as infinite and timeless;

2. Challenge to sacred texts and religious pronouncements as unintelligible;

3. Challenge that religious language is not a common shared base and experience;

4. The differences between cognitive and non-cognitive language

8

Task 4 – use the information below to complete the table

a.

Some philosophers and believers assert that religious language is cognitive and

therefore something about God can be known. If religious language is classed as

cognitive then it communicates knowledge, information and facts about God.

The problem with this is that religious statements are not about objective facts that can be proved true

or false. The argument put forward is that if we are unable to validate religious statements based on

objective facts that are open to cognition then religious language is considered to be meaningless.

Others claim that religious language is non-cognitive. This is a view of religious language

which argues that its function is not to inform and does not contain facts that could be

proved true or false. Non-cognitive language includes ethical and moral propositions

(statements) linked to some theories of ethical language, or an expression of an emotion

such as a scream. This problem is further highlighed because religious stories can be

interpreted literally and non-literally, this could lead to problems if believers accept different

interpretations of sacred texts, for example, Biblical stories of Creation and The Fall in the book of

Genesis

b.

Some philosophers believe religious language is inherently problematic becasuse it is not based on ideas

that can be agreed upon by all as it is not based on a common shared base or experience. Human

language in based on experience or common truths, there is no commonly agreed experience of God, so

language about God is problematic. If a believer claimed ‘God’s hand guided me’, there is no empirical

or experience based means to establish the truth of that statement. In addition, religious language is

often specific to one religious community for example, the ‘work of the Holy Spirit’ in Christianity and if

it is used in more than one community then it might have different meanings. The term karma is used

with slightly different meanings in both Buddhism and Hinduism and in secular society.

c.

Religious language communicates ideas about religions, for example, it describes objects or places of

worship, sacred texts or physical actions. This is understandable and relatable because it is observable

and experienced in the empirical world. However, religious language that describes God or gods or

teachings about the afterlife may not be understandable and even seen as unintelligible. Some of the

words are abstract, metaphysical or puzzling. They are difficult to understand. An example could be the

concept of the Virgin Birth or an omnipotent God and truly free humans. The words used are

contradictory to our logic and everyday language to talk about God can lead to misunderstanding.

d.

Meaningful communication is based on the ability to relate to what we are being told. This means we

need to have an experience base upon which to build our understanding of the language we share

e.g. my car is black. Religious language is metaphysical and goes beyond our physical realities which

makes is difficult to understand e.g. ‘God is timeless’ is difficult for humans to understand and any

9

attempt to describe God will fail or be so partial that we are saying nothing meaningful.

Task 5 Memory aid on the problems of religious language - to complete in class

CATLICK

Cognitive

Anthropomorphic

Timeless

Limitations of language

Ineffable

Contrary to logic

Karma – not a common shared base

Stretch and challenge - to come back to during revision

Write out 5 religious statements that would be classed as meaningless under the verification principle.

Explain why they would be considered meaningless.

10

4 B Religious language as cognitive (traditional religious view), but meaningless (Logical Positivists' view):

Logical Positivism

A Philosophical movement that developed from the work of a group of philosophers known as the

Vienna Circle (because they met in Vienna and sat in a circle, honestly!).

They believed language to be the mean by which all human knowledge was transmitted and wanted to

develop a method to reduce all knowledge to basic scientific and logical formulations.

The Verification Principle

Verification (A. J. Ayer) – religious ethical language as meaningless; there can be no way in which we could verify the truth or falsehood of the propositions (e.g. God is good, murder is wrong);

Key Vocab

Verified – shown to be true, through the use of evidence

Falsified – shown to be false, through the use of evidence

Cognitive – conveys information

Meaningful – in this context it is not a psychological term, as when we speak of ‘a very

meaningful experience’ or to say ‘something means a lot to me’; it is a logical term. To say that

something has meaning is it say it is, in principle verifiable.

The Vienna Circle was a group of philosophers who gathered together at Vienna University in 1922. The

members of the Vienna Circle had two main beliefs about philosophy:

1. Experience is the only source of knowledge.

2. Logical analysis performed with the help of symbolic logic is the preferred method for solving

philosophical problems.

The ideas of the Vienna Circle were adopted by other philosophers throughout

Europe, and the philosophy that developed became known as logical positivism.

One development from logical positivism was the verification principle. This is the

idea that the meaning of a statement lies in the method of its verification, so that

any statement that cannot be verified, even if only in theory, is meaningless. The

logical positivists only accepted two forms of verifiable language:

Analytic statements or propositions (a priori) – propositions that are

necessarily true, independent of fact or experience. Knowledge is gained

though logical analysis (reasoning). These are propositions that are true

by definition, for example, ‘all quadrupeds have four legs’. We know this

proposition is true because a quadruped means a four-legged animal. It

would be a contradiction to deny an analytical truth, for example, to

‘A quadruped has four legs’ is a

meaningful analytic statement.

‘This cat is totally cute’ isn’t a

meaningful statement (according

to Logical Positivists)

This

Meow

11

refer to a ‘two-legged quadruped’. A two-legged animal would be a biped.

Synthetic statements or propositions (a posteriori) – propositions in which the predicate (the subject of

the sentence) is not part of the meaning or definition of the thing. These propositions are proved true or

false (verified) by some form of sense experience or experiment. For example, the statement ‘a cat is a

quadruped’ could be verified by discovering whether or not cats have four legs. I can use by eye sight, look

at a cat and see that it has four legs.

Task 6

Identify which of the following propositions are analytic statements and which are synthetic statements.

i) Every widower has lost a spouse.

ii) Most widows do not remarry.

iii) The Moon is made of green cheese.

iv) 9 + 2 = 10

v) It is raining outside

All the above propositions would be accepted as meaningful statements by the logical positivists as it is

known how to verify them. The principle is stating that we know the meaning of a statement if we know

the conditions under which the statement is true or false. The statement, ‘the moon is made of green

cheese’, is false, but for the logical positivists it is still meaningful as we know the conditions under which

the statement is proved true or false: that is, astronauts visit the moon and bring back rock samples to

verify whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. ‘9 + 2 = 10’ is the wrong answer, but it is still

meaningful for the logical positivists as we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false:

that is, in mathematics 9 + 2 = 11.

Even if we are not able to verify a statement as true or false at the moment, but know the conditions under

which the statement could be verified true or false in the future, then for some logical positivists the

statement is still meaningful. For example, ‘there is life in other galaxies’ cannot be verified as our

spaceships are not capable of reaching other galaxies, but we know that if we had such ships then we could

prove the statement true or false.

If the conditions are not known under which a statement may be proved true or false, then the statement

is meaningless. This is because, according to the method of verification principle, it is not logical to make

such a statement.

A sentence is factually significant to any given person if, and only if, he knows how to verify the

proposition which it purports to express – that is, if he knows that observations would lead him, under

certain conditions, to accept it as being true or reject it as being false. Meaning was also accorded to

sentences expressing propositions like those of logic or pure mathematics, which were true or false only

in virtue of their form, but with this exception, everything of a would-be indicative character which

failed to satisfy the verification principle was dismissed as literally nonsensical.

A. J. Ayer, The Central Questions of Philosophy, 1973

Task 7

‘This cat is a quadruped’ is a

meaningful synthetic statement

12

Why does the verification principle regard any statements about the existence of God, the attributes of

God and life after death as meaningless? Read the information above very carefully.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Ayer realised that there is a problem if synthetic propositions are only accepted as meaningful based on

our own observations. There are statements whose meaning no one would wish to deny.

Consider, for example, the case of the general propositions of law – such … as ‘arsenic is

poisonous’; ‘all men are mortal’; ‘a body tends to expand when it is heated’. It is of the

very nature of these propositions that their truth cannot be established with certainty by

any finite series of observations.

Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1936

In other words, the number of observations of such propositions is limited as we can only observe it a finite

(limited) number of times. For example, if I drink the arsenic and die, I will no longer be observing the

arsenic’s effects. Ayer accepted that such statements are not limited to finite observation. Arsenic remains

poisonous even though I am dead and no longer observing it. Therefore, such statements have been

verified by others with certainty.

Strong and Weak Verification

This led Ayer to develop a distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification.

Strong verification occurs when the truth of the statement can be established with

certainty, practical verifiability.

Weak verification occurs when there is a possibility of error in what is currently

accepted as true. This applies to many scientific and historical statements. For

example, a physicist might develop a theory to explain something, but this theory is

later proved to be wrong. An historical event that has been accepted as accurate may be brought into

question when new evidence is uncovered. Verifiability in principle.

Here are two examples of weak verification: propositions that were accepted as true but now, in the light

of new evidence, are doubted.

1 The steady-state theory was accepted for many years as an accurate description of the universe. Now it

is rejected by most physicists in favour of the Big Bang theory.

2 It was accepted that the first European to discover America was Columbus in 1492. New evidence has

been found that supports the view that America was discovered much earlier.

13

These are examples of weak verification because the conditions are known under which these statement

may be verified true or false, but it has to be allowed that evidence may change whether the statements

are true or false.

Task 8 – start the summary below (or on paper) using pages 10 -13

Verification

The Vienna

Circle

Rejected language

The Logical Positivists Rejected language

Ayer – Strong and

Weak

14

Task 9 The Verification Principle – a summary

Fill in the missing terms – experience, weak, picture, verification, Vienna, God, meaningful, historical, probable

Who Wittgenstein (1889-1951)

What He influenced the Logical Positivists as he initially set out a narrow

view of what could count as being a meaningful proposition. He said

the function of language was to ___________ the world. Therefore

every statement needed to correspond to some information about

the world itself (verifiable through sense __________). The statement

the cat sat on the mat is meaningful if you can observe the mat sitting

on the mat.

Who Vienna Circle (R.N. Carnap, Moritz Schlick)

What They held the belief that theological interpretations (using God as an explanation) of

events and experiences belonged to the past, to an unenlightened age when ___ was

used as an explanation for anything that science had not yet completely mastered. They

wanted to find a way of showing statements to be ____________ and either true or false.

They attempted to apply the theories of maths and science to language statements.

The meaning of statements comes from the method of ___________. A statement is only

meaningful if it can be proved to be true or false through such evidence. Experience is key

to determining whether a statement is meaningful or not.

Friedrich Waismann (one of the __________ Circle) ‘Anyone uttering a sentence must

know under what conditions he calls it true, and under what conditions he calls it false. If

he is unable to state these conditions, he does not know what he has said. A statement

which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any

meaning.’

Who A.J. Ayer (Language, Truth and Logic, 1936)

What Strong and ______ Verification

Strong – There is no doubt the statement is true – verified using sense experience. It excludes things

that people considered to be true, such as ____________ statements and general laws of science.

Therefore, philosophers started to reject the strict form.

Weak (developed by Ayer) He rejected the necessity of conclusive verifiability and instead argued that

for meaningfulness it was enough to know what sense experience would make the statements

___________. However, even this is not possible with religious statements since ‘the notion of a person

whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all’. Through the misuse of

language people assume that because a word existed there was some corresponding reality.

15

Implications of the Verification Principle for religious language

Statements about God are neither analytically true nor open to verification by

observation, and are therefore meaningless. Claims such as ‘The Lord is my

shepherd’, ‘God created the world’ and ‘God has a plan for all of us’ cannot be

shown to be either true or false using the senses.

Claims to have experienced God are subjective, not universal and therefore are not

reliable grounds for testing them; hence they cannot be the basis for empirical

propositions about God.

The question ‘Does a transcendent God exist?’ is rejected because although is seems to

be cognitive (asking a question about an objective reality), our sense experience of the world

does not include any transcendent beings.

Wider implications of the Verification Principle

All statements that express unverifiable opinions and emotions are invalid

Universal statements ‘All ravens are black’ cannot be conclusively verified because one day

someone might see a white raven.

such as ‘The Battle of Hastings happened in 1066’ can’t be verified as we can

have no sense experience of it happening

The status of the verification principle itself can be called into question. What

observation could be made to verify or falsify it?

Task 10

a. Explain how Wittgenstein influenced the Logical Positivists.

b. What were the aims of the Logical Positivists?

c. Why does the Verification Principle seem to cause a problem for religious believers?

d. How can the wider implications be turned into criticisms of the Verification Principle?

Meaningless

Meaningless

Meaningless

16

The Falsification Principle - nothing can counter the belief (Antony Flew).

Who: Anthony Flew

When: 1955 article ‘Theology and Falsification’

What: A rule that the meaningfulness of a statement lies in the method of falsification. This would mean

that any statement that could not, even if only in theory, be falsified, was empty of meaning.

Why: An attack on the meaningfulness of religious language. It is a response to the Verification Principle.

Summary

Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, argued that when conducting experiments, we

should not look to verify theories, but to falsify them. Only in that way does science

progress – we recognise, through continual criticism, weaknesses in our existing

theories, discard them, and try to produce better ones. Popper claimed that

statements gained meaning if you knew how they could be falsified and gave the

example of astronomy and astrology to demonstrate this.

Task 12 – add a definition of astronomy and astrology to the table below

Flew, influenced by Popper, revisited the debate started by the Logical Positivists

however, he insisted that religious statements should be falsifiable rather than

verifiable. He reached the conclusion that religious statements were meaningless as

there is nothing which can count against them. Religious statements can neither be

proved true or false because religious believers do not accept any evidence to count

against (falsify) their beliefs. For Flew, there is no difference between non

falsifiability and meaningfulness.

Astronomy Astrology

Astronomy is . . . Astronomy is meaningful because . . .

Astrology is . . . Popper said astrology is meaningless because . . .

Task 11 Cornell

Method

What questions could

you write to help you

remember this

information?

17

Flew referred to John Wisdom’s parable of the gardener; in this parable two

explorers come across a clearing in the jungle, in the clearing there are both flowers

and weeds. One explorer is convinced that there must be a gardener who comes to

the clearing to look after it, but the other disagrees.

The two explorers decide to settle the debate by lying in wait for the gardener, but

he never appears. The believer claims that there is an invisible gardener. So the two

explorers set up traps, and no gardener is found. The believer still qualifies his assertion that there is a

gardener, by saying he is ‘invisible, silent, intangible’ until the sceptical explorer asks ‘But what remains

of your original assertions? Just how does an invisible, intangible and eternally elusive gardener differ

from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?’

Flew draws a parallel between the believer and a religious person who makes claims such as ‘God loves

us as a father loves his children’ and ‘God has a plan’.

Flew said that these beliefs about God are challenged by evil and suffering, but religious believers don’t

accept they are wrong and God doesn’t love us or have a plan. Believers then qualify their claim by

saying ‘God’s love is not like human love’, ‘we can’t understand God’s plan, and it is a mystery’.

Believers meet every challenge to faith with qualifications and modifications until eventually there is

nothing left of the original assertion.

Extract from Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’

Many people, who are not religious, often believe that there is no way to convince a religious individual

that his or her religious beliefs are incorrect, that “‘There wasn’t a God after all’ or ‘God does not really

love us then’”

Instead, when a religious individual sees a frantic father who is concerned about the health of his child,

yet they cannot see an apparent concern coming from God, they are not swayed into believing that ‘God

does not really love us as a father loves his child’, rather that God’s love is slightly different then what

was originally asserted.

What then, Flew asks the religious, “would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a

disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?” Is there anyway to show you that your assertion is

incorrect, and that the opposite is true? Flew believes that there is not, and therefore, that their

‘assertions’ can never be disproven, and are therefore, merely utterances.

But what is an assertion? Flew next gives the basic idea of what an assertion is. An assertion typically

asserts that “such and such is the case”.

Anything that negates this assertion, that proves that such and such is not the case, would be proof

against the assertion.’

Flew said believers claims about God die a ‘death of a thousand qualifications’.

18

He claimed if a statement is to have any meaning it has to;

assert something, for example ‘x is y’

deny the opposite of that assertion ‘x is not true’

For example - ‘I am standing on a mountain’ rules out ‘I am sitting’ ‘I am lying down’.If you were asked

‘Under what circumstances would your claim to be standing on a mountain be false? You could say ‘if I

were weeding in my garden’.

Flew argues when theists talk about God they refuse to rule out any state of affairs, if you asked them

‘Under what circumstances would your statement that God loves us be false? They would not think of

any, as they claim their belief can’t even be falsified in principle their belief is meaningless.

19

Task 14

Complete in detail

a. Complete your own summary of the FP including ‘Who, when, what and why’

Who

When

What

Why

b. What point is being made by Flew in the parable of the gardener?

c. Think of three examples that could be used to argue against God’s goodness. Link to the

Problem of Evil and Suffering topic.

d. List reasons that a believer might give to argue why a good God would allow this to happen?

Link to the theodicies and the Free Will Defence.

20

Criticisms of the verification principle: the verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither

can historical events; universal scientific statements; the concept of eschatological

verification goes against this.

Are, therefore, religious statements to be considered meaningless?

The verification principle should give no reason to believe this; it is one of the most

discredited theories of the twentieth century.

1.It is suggested that the verification principle is not in itself verifiable (there is no sense experience

that could count in its favour); it is meaningless, therefore cannot be verified using the verification

principle.

2. Richard Swinburne in ‘God-talk is Not Evidently Nonsense’ challenges

verificationism giving the example ‘All ravens are (at all times) black’. Swinburne

points out that whilst people generally accept ravens are black, there is no way to

ever confirm this statement, as however many ravens you look at there is always

the possibility of there being one more raven that is not black. Therefore,

according to verificationism, the statement is meaningless. Also, universal

scientific statements cannot be verified but they do have meaning. For example,

all humans are mortal – we can’t test this – but we accept that it is true.

3. John Hick - Eschatological verification

Hick challenged the verification principle on the grounds that there are some propositions that cannot be verified by everyone, or that to be verified it is sometimes necessary to take action.

Sometimes it is necessary to put oneself in a certain position or to perform some particular operation as a prerequisite of verification. For example, one can only verify ‘there is a table in the next room’ by going into the next room; however, it is to be noted that one is not compelled to do this.

Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 1990 To verify whether or not there is life after death then it is first necessary to die. If there is life after death then the truth of ‘continued conscious existence after bodily death’ is proved, but, as Hick points out, if there is no life after death then the fact that such a belief is false can never be falsified as the fact that it is ‘false can never be a fact of which anyone has experiential knowledge’. This fact does not undermine the meaningfulness of the hypothesis of life after death for, as Hick states, ‘if its prediction is true, it will be known to be true’.

Hick calls this idea ‘eschatological verification’ and uses the parable of two travellers on the road to the Celestial City to support his argument.

Two people are travelling together along a road. One of them believes that it leads to the Celestial City, the other that it leads nowhere; but since this is the only road there is, both must travel it. Neither has been this way before; therefore, neither is able to say what they will find around each corner. During their journey they meet with moments of refreshment and delight, and with moments of hardship and danger. All the time one of them thinks of the journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City. She interprets the pleasant parts as encouragements and the obstacles as trials of her purpose and lessons in endurance, prepared by the sovereign of that city and designed to make of her a worthy citizen of the place when at last she arrives. The other, however, believes none of

21

this, and sees their journey as an unavoidable and aimless ramble. Since he has no choice in the matter, he enjoys the good and endures the bad. For him there is no Celestial City to be reached, no all-encompassing purpose ordaining their journey; there is only the road itself and the luck of the road in good weather and in bad.

Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 1990 The believer expects to experience the Celestial City at the end of the journey whereas the atheist does not. When they turn the last corner, it will be clear which one of them is right. What they believed to be the destination at the end of the road affected the way that they felt about the road and the way that they behaved on the journey. Similarly, believers and atheists have very different expectations about what will happen after death, and therefore live their lives differently. If the believer is right, according to Hick, there will be ‘continued conscious experience’ and knowledge of the existence of God.

In conclusion, the Logical Positivists did make a distinction between a statement that was meaningful

and a statement that was true (or false). The criterion of meaning was concerned to distinguish

statements that were meaningful. The issue of whether the statements were true of false was a

different area of discussion.

4. Many philosophers actually disagree with the verification principle because they argue that in trying

to verify statements, concepts or beliefs, it relies on the abilities of the individual trying to verify the

experience. An example: think of the case of a blind man who is asked to verify that the sky is blue, or a

young deaf girl who is asked to verify that the sound of pop music is enjoyable; does the statement not

appear to be meaningless in both cases? Why is this?

5. Yet what about people who have normal visual abilities and people who have no hearing difficulties;

what does the statement mean to this group of people? Hence whilst it could be claimed that

statements about God cannot be verified by a person who does not have a faith, to people who share a

common faith, religious statements are meaningful to them.

6. This has brought about the conception of an idea to prove that religious language does have meaning

even if it cannot be verified or falsified. Some philosophers argue that it is wrong to classify religious

statements in the same way as other statements. They propose that religious statements are non-

cognitive; they do not contain facts that could/should be proved true or false.

7. When a verification is weak; then it can actually support some religious statements,

e.g. the statement God is the creator of world, can actually be supported by the

evidence that there is some design to the world; in other words the statement is not

meaningless unless the possibility of the evidence (in this case-from design) is

meaningless.

6. There is also historical evidence which supports many statements, i.e. St. Peter was the first Pope of

Christ’s Church; Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilot and rose from the dead on the third day (despite

ones beliefs, because of the fact there are many people in the world who do believe, this allows for

verification for all of those believers).

This idea is supported by R.M. Hare who claims, “...although religious language cannot make

factual claims, it still has meaning-not because it imparts knowledge, but because it

influences the way in which people look at the world..”

22

8. Keith Ward (Holding Fast to God 1982) stated that the Verification Principle excluded nothing, since

all experiences are allowable because of the criterion of ‘verifiable in principle’. He argues that the

existence of God can be verified in principle since ‘If I were God I would be able to check the truth of my

own existence’.

A further challenge to the Verification Principle – useful for AO2

Talking about God through negatives - The Via Negativa

The via negative uses only negative terms to speak of God, as a way of

avoiding belittling God by attributing human qualities to him

(anthropomorphise)

It is the idea that it is possible to talk about God by saying what he is not. It is

often used by mystics such as St John of the Cross.

St Augustine and others claimed that positive attributes of God should be

countered by the recognition that human language is inadequate when

describing God. In particular scholars have frequently appealed to the importance of negation and

analogy. The appeal to negation is easy to understand and is best thought of as an attempt to prevent

people from misrepresenting God. It emphasizes the unknowability of God and argues that though one

can talk significantly about God one can only do so by saying what God is not.

Some examples of statements that via negativa Christians might make about God are:

God is not light or darkness

God is neither human nor divine

God is not visible and not describable

God is ineffable

23

Task 15 AO1 Criticisms of the verification principle (also useful for AO2 questions)

The verification principle cannot itself be verified; neither can historical events; universal scientific

statements; the concept of eschatological verification goes against this.

Criticisms Explanation of the criticism and any counter arguments

The verification principle is not verifiable

Historical evidence

Historical events can‘t be verified e.g. This means according to the VP they are ______________________

Universal scientific statements Swinburne

Universal scientific statements e.g. all bodies expand when heated, the sun always rises in the east become meaningless according to the VP because . . .

The concept of eschatological verification

How did Hick’s idea of eschatological verification challenge the verification principle?

Religious language as Non-cognitive

24

The most convincing criticism of the Verification Principle is..................

This is because.....................................

The least convincing criticism of the Verification Principle is..................................

This is because..................................

Task 16 Complete the sentences below in preparation for AO2

25

Criticisms of falsification: Richard Hare – bliks (the way that a person views the world gives meaning

to them even if others do not share the same view); Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger (certain

things can be meaningful even when they cannot be falsified); Swinburne – toys in the cupboard

(concept meaningful even though falsifying the statement is not possible).

R. Swinburne – The toys in the cupboard (the concept is meaningful even though falsifying the

statement is not possible)

Swinburne has claimed that we don’t have to specify what would count against an assertion for it to

have meaning.

For example; we can’t specify what would count against scientific theories of the beginning of the

universe as we don’t know enough about the scientific theories involved. It doesn’t make the theories

meaningless as we accept, hypothetically at least that something could count against the theories.

For Swinburne’s objectives to work we have to allow that something could count against the existence

of God, even if we can’t specify what it means.

Swinburne shows us how we can understand some statements even though we cannot falsify them;

the example of the toys in the toy cupboard:

We cannot prove that the toys do not come out of the cupboard when

we are asleep at night; yet, although we cannot falsify the statement

that the toys do not move around, we still understand the meaning of

the statement. Perhaps we understand the statement through our

visual and mental perception?

R. M. Hare and bliks (the way a person views the world gives meaning to them even if others do not

share the same view)

The philosopher R. M. Hare writes: “I must begin by confessing that, on the ground marked out by Flew,

he seems to me to be completely victorious.” Hare thinks Flew’s conclusions follow if you accept Flew’s

assumptions, particularly Flew’s assumptions about what counts as verification and falsification. Hare

agreed that religious statements are non-cognitive.

But, Hare says, Flew does not realize that different people have very different standards for verification

and falsification. What counts as falsifying evidence for one person might not count for another. In

Hare’s terms, not everyone has the same blik. A blik is a frame of reference in terms of which data is

interpreted – a mental filter in terms of which the notion of evidence is defined. Hare says: “ ... without

a blik there can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we decide what is and what is not an

explanation.”

Hare illustrates this with the parable of the paranoid man. “A certain lunatic is

convinced that all dons want to murder him. [A “don” is a tutor at a British university.]

His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can

find, and after each of them has retired, they say, ‘You see, he doesn’t really want to

murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?’

But the lunatic replies, ‘Yes, but that was only is diabolical cunning; he’s really plotting

against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it, I tell you.’ However many

kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.”

26

The paranoid man’s entire frame of reference is paranoid. Any evidence that might count to falsify the

claim that dons are all killers (e.g. a large number of mild, kindly dons) simply does not count as

evidence in a paranoid’s frame of reference. Many kindly dons would eventually convince a non-

paranoid man that not all dons are killers. But for the paranoid man, the kindly dons only serve to

reinforce the paranoid belief.

What does this have to do with religious belief? Hare says religious people have a religious blik. Once

you accept the religious blik, you have a brand-new way of looking at the world. Your frame of reference

is radically altered, and with it, your evidentiary standards. Suddenly all sorts of things that previously

did not count as evidence for God begin to count. Your evidentiary filter becomes much more porous.

The existence of God becomes so obvious that nothing can falsify it.

In other words, Hare is implicitly agreeing with Flew that meaningful assertions must be falsifiable; he

tries to avoid Flew’s trap by arguing that what appear to be religious assertions aren’t really assertions

at all (rather, they are expressions or affirmations of frames of reference for interpreting data). As

frames of reference, they aren’t falsifiable, and can’t be falsifiable (because verification and falsification

occur only within frames of reference). But this seems odd. Consider what this would mean. For a

religious person, “God exists” expresses a fact about the universe. When a religious person says “God

exists,” he means that the universe is actually different from how it would be if no God existed, i.e., the

claim is falsifiable. So when Hare depicts religious “assertions” as non-falsifiable, he is actually far

removed from Christian orthodoxy. As Flew says, “If Hare’s religion really is a blik, involving no

cosmological assertions about the nature and activities of a supposed personal creator, then surely he is

not a Christian at all?”

Furthermore, although Hare is probably right when he says explanations explain only within a blik, Hare

gives no way to rank-order bliks. Religion is a blik, science is a blik, paranoia is a blik. But surely we don’t

want to leave it there. Some bliks are surely better than others. Surely Hare does not want to say

paranoia is every bit as legitimate a blik as science or religion. Paranoia is a sick blik.

Basil Mitchell – partisan and the stranger (certain things can be meaningful even when they cannot be

falsified)

Often a person would accept a statement as meaningful simply on trust. Although evidence might be

against the beliefs, they continue to trust in God because the evidence in not sufficient to prove them

false.

Rather than religious believers refusing to allow anything to count against their belief, Mitchell was

arguing that the believer’s prior faith maintains their trust in God even when the evidence appears to

undermine that trust.

Basil Mitchell agrees with Flew that religious assertions are genuine assertions. However, Mitchell takes

issue with Flew’s implicit assumption that religion is a matter of being intellectually convinced of the

truth of certain propositions. Mitchell points out that the truth is not always cut-and-dried; we may be

more or less convinced that a claim is reasonable to believe; and we might reasonably believe claims

whose truth is objectively unknown.

27

Mitchell emphasizes that religion is a matter of relationship, rather than intellectual conviction. He

illustrates this in his parable of the Freedom Fighter:

“In time of war in an occupied country, a member of the resistance meets one night a stranger who

deeply impresses him. They spend that night together in conversation. The Stranger tells the partisan

that he himself is on the side of the resistance – indeed that he is in command of it, and urges the

partisan to have faith in him no matter what happens. The partisan is utterly convinced at that meeting

of the Stranger’s sincerity and constancy and undertakes to trust him.

“They never meet in conditions of intimacy again. But sometimes the Stranger is seen helping members

of the resistance, and the partisan is grateful and says to his friends, ‘He is on our side.’

“Sometimes he is seen in the uniform of the police handling over patriots to the occupying power. On

these occasions his friends murmur against him: but the partisan still says, ‘He is on our side.’ He still

believes that, in spite of appearances, the Stranger did not deceive him. Sometimes he asks the Stranger

for help and receives it. He is then thankful. Sometimes he asks and does not receive it. Then he says,

‘The Stranger knows best.’ Sometimes his friends, in exasperation, say, ‘Well, what would he have to do

for you to admit that you were wrong and that he is not on our side?’ But the partisan refuses to

answer. He will not consent to put the Stranger to the test. And sometimes his friends complain, ‘Well, if

that’s what you mean by his being on our side, the sooner he goes over to the other side the better.’”

What does this parable mean?

According to Mitchell, statements like “The Stranger is on our side” or “God loves us” are genuine

assertions, in that they can be falsified. But, given the partisan’s experience of the stranger, “The

Stranger is on our side” is not obviously false. The partisan has reasons to believe it; the partisan has

met the stranger and been impressed by him. When the partisan asks the stranger for help and doesn’t

receive any help, the partisan is not logically compelled to say “The Stranger is not on our side.” The

partisan can say instead “The Stranger is on our side but he has reasons for withholding help.” In other

words, the partisan can give the Stranger the benefit of the doubt – just as you would give the benefit of

the doubt to a friend. The real question is: “How long can he uphold [this position] without its becoming

just silly?” How many times must you give a friend the benefit of the doubt? Mitchell’s answer: “I don’t

think one can say in advance.”

Mitchell is insightful here. He says the partisan can’t just “blow it off” when the Stranger appears to

betray him. If the partisan has faith in the Stranger, the faith is only really tested if the partisan feels the

full force of the apparent betrayal. The problem of evil is just as real for a believer as for an unbeliever.

There is no solution but faith. But it’s not unreasonable or illogical to maintain faith in a person with

whom you have a relationship.

For many Christians, the essence of their faith is a personal relationship with God. So Mitchell’s analogy

speaks to them. But there are numerous philosophical problems with Mitchell’s parable. For one thing,

Mitchell seems to miss the point of Flew’s argument. Flew’s point is that religious assertions are

nonsense. It’s not that we don’t know whether religious claims are true or false; in order to be true or

false in the first place, religious assertions must mean something, and according to Flew, they don’t

mean anything. When religious people say “Just believe,” Flew replies, “Believe what? There’s nothing

to believe; the claims don’t say anything in the first place!” Statements like “The Stranger is on our side”

28

or “God loves us” are potentially compatible with all states of affairs, especially since you can’t say when

to stop giving God the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore, there is the pesky problem of religious encounter. The parable of the Stranger works if

you’ve had an impressive encounter (religious experience), but not everyone has religious experiences.

Finally, Mitchell’s parable is especially weak as a “solution” to the problem of evil. The analogies do not

hold. The Stranger of Mitchell’s parable is a man; he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. “But suppose

the Stranger is God. We cannot say he would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say

he would like to help if only he knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for

the wickedness of others: God creates those others.”

Thus, Flew (who gets the last word in the exchange) thinks his case has been proved: religious assertions

can’t be falsified. Therefore they fail the verificationist test of meaningfulness, and fall into the category

of nonsense.

Task 17 Answer the questions using the information above – read it all again

1 Explain Swinburne’s toy cupboard analogy.

2 How does it challenge the falsification principle?

3 Why did Hare believe religious language had meaning?

4 Outline and explain Hare’s university parable.

5 Fully explain Hare’s idea of a ‘blik’.

29

6 Why does he believe religious beliefs are ‘bliks’?

7 Explain why Flew rejected Hare’s ideas.

8 What was Mitchell’s aim and desired result?

9 Why did Mitchell dismiss Flew’s theory?

10 Write a summary of Mitchell’s parable of the freedom fighter.

11 What is Mitchell attempting to demonstrate with this parable?

12 How did Flew respond to Mitchell.

30

AO2 Strengths of the Verification and Falsification Principle (Logical Positivism)

1. The Logical Positivists challenge people to give a good account of their religious language by applying

some sort of test for its truth or falsity. Truth and meaning are only given to those statements which

either logically fit together (analytic statements0 or those statements which are factually based

(empirically verifiable). This does allow us to separate sense from nonsense.

2. Religious language can be puzzling, abstract and seemingly contradictory,

and these principles can be ways of making religion observe similar rules to

other areas of life. After all, if I said that there is something living in my garden

shed which could not be seen, touched or heard, then I doubt that you would

believe me. Phrases such as God being omnipresent will strike us as odd and we

may find this impossible to understand. After all, if I said that I was everywhere,

I doubt you would believe me. In everyday life we are quick to pick up on

people when they make a contradictory set of remarks and so this shold be

applied to religion, too. So, the Logical Positivists emerge as having made some

strong points against religious language.

3. In everyday life we do look to verification and falsification as ways of showing

meaning. For example, if I said, ‘my cat is a great dancer’, you would surely ask me to

show you some evidence to verify this statement. Imagine that I said this in 2017. By

2030, after observation, no evidence of dancing skills had been found. Then my cat

becomes immobile due to old age, yet I still insist that I am right. My original

statement would not be considered meaningful as it is has neither been verified, nor

have I allowed it to be falsified.

4. The Logical Positivist base their ideas on a posteriori evidence. This is a strength, as many of the

classical arguments for God’s existence are based upon this type of argument, such as the design

argument. The Logical Positivists are simply asking religion to be consistent in its use of criteria to

demonstrate meaning.

5. Some would say that some religious events defy logic, such as the Virgin Birth or the

Resurrection. The Logical Positivists have a strong case when they ask for events to pass

certain tests before they are considered to be meaningful. They would argue that the two

events just mentioned would fail their test and are therefore meaningless. In an age of

testing and logic, their views stand firm.

6. Some would agree with Flew when he said believers will never give up their

religious claims. There may be those people who we know that seem to hold

beliefs (religious or not) when those beliefs defy logic, have little evidence in

favour of them and a lot of evidence against them. Flew may therefore be right in

observation thus providing the Logical Positivists with another strong argument.

Overall, the strength of the Logical Positivists is that they leave us with a warning about being careful

when we talk about God. They make religious language conform to rules that other walks of life have

to conform to. This has resulted in religion providing ways of talking about God in meaningful ways.

Extract from D. Ellerton Harris

Task 18 – Create your own summary notes on strengths of the Verification and

Falsification Principles

31

Sample questions for Philosophy Theme 4 A and B

AO1

19. Write and revise brief essay plans for the following questions.

1. Explain the inherent problems of religious language.

3. Explain the verification principle with reference to Ayer.

4. Explain the falsification principle with reference to Flew.

5. Explain how the verification and falsification principles challenge religious language.

4. Examine the criticisms of the verification and falsification principles.

32

33

Summer Independent Learning REP

Christianity Theme 1 ABC and DEF Retrieval Practice Booklet

1 A Jesus – His birth

Theme Matthew Luke

Characters

Locations

Perspectives

Audiences

Old Testament

prophecy

34

1 A Recall quiz

1. Which two Gospels tell the nativity story?

2. What term means that Jesus is both Fully God

and Fully Human?

3. Give one thing which might cause people to

question the historicity of the nativity story?

4. What does the visit from the Magi tell

Christians about Jesus’s nature?

5. What does “redaction” mean?

6. What is generally considered to be Matthew’s

main concern?

7. …And Luke’s?

8. Why do Jews and Muslims reject the doctrine

of the incarnation?

9. What is ‘kenosis’ in this context?

10. Name one of the three song in Luke’s birth

narrative.

AO2

The extent to which the birth narratives provide insight into the doctrine of the incarnation.

Three areas to evaluate

1. Scientific challenges and fiction –accounts are myths or historically accurate

2. Consistent with Christianity – virgin birth makes sense of incarnation, show Jesus was different to

everyone else

3. Biblical harmony of the birth narratives – fits with the bible BUT the word virgin could be a translation

error

The relative importance of redaction criticism for understanding the biblical birth narratives.

Three areas to evaluate

1. What’s the evidence? Redaction Criticism explains the differences in Matthew and Luke

2. One powerful story – both concentrate on different aspects

3. The Bible is a human book? Written by humans

35

1 B Jesus – Resurrection

The Bible

on . . .

Death Soul Resurrection Afterlife

Matt 10:28 Do not fear others

since they can kill

only the body, but

not the soul

The soul is

more

important

than the

body

God has power over

the soul; the soul

and the body can be

destroyed in Hell

John 20:

21

Physical death will

occur unless Jesus

returns soon; prior

to his death, Peter

is to serve the

Church

Jesus’ resurrection body was not

separate from his physical body –

because the tomb was empty, He was

transformed; there were still wounds,

but he could walk through doors and

prepare a meal. Jesus’ resurrection body

was not immediately recognisable by

those who knew him (i.e. Mary a the

tomb)

For Jesus the afterlife

involved (i) pre-

ascension afterlife

(the resurrection

appearances) and (ii)

his life with God and

the ascension

1

Corinthians

15

Death is the result

of the sin of one

human being

(Adam) and is the

last enemy to de

defeated by God.

Christ died for our

sins, Those who are

dead will one day

be raised again. In

this present life,

one can ‘die daily’

in the sense of

being alive to God

and dead to the

sinful ways of the

world.

Adam had a

soul but

Christ has

the power to

give life to

souls

Christ's resurrected body was seen by

many. It is a foretaste of our own

resurrection and shows that our sins

have been forgiven. Pauls uses the

image of a seed dying, falling to the

ground, and growing again – to compare

our earthly body to our heavenly body.

Our earthly body is physical and our

resurrected body is spiritual

We have hope for

our own resurrection

because of Christ.

Adam is the man of

‘dust’’ Jesus is the

man of ‘heaven’. All

things will eventually

be subjected to God

so that God will be

in everything

Philippians

1:21-24

For the Christian,

departing from the

flesh is to be be

with Christ

The believer desires

to live, but also

desires death

because he/she gets

to be with Christ.

36

Wright Bultmann

Bad arguments

Bible – full of myths e.g.

Swoon Modern people

Did not expect Demythologise

Mutation (ideas) Meaning behind –

Periphery – belief in resurrection moved from

periphery of jewish belief to centre

Facts vs. faith

Messianic expections Existential awareness – faith is moment of existential

awareness awakened by our own experience of Jesus

as a risen reality

Awaken - hope

37

1 B Recall quiz

1. Give one thing that is interesting about the

structure of John 20.

2. What is important about Thomas in this story?

3. What were the risen Jesus’ 3 commands to

Peter?

4. What does St Paul compare the resurrected

body to in 1 Corinthians 15?

5. How is Jesus’ resurrection different from Jarius’

daughter and Lazarus?

6. Which key scholar writes about the need to

demythologise the resurrection?

7. Why does he want to do this?

8. Which scholar speaks about trying to find the

‘best historical explanation’?

9. How did they say Christian ideas were different

from Jewish ideas?

10. What made the early Christians believe that

Jesus was the real messiah?

AO2 – use these brief notes to create mini plans

The historical reliability of resurrection

1. There are discrepancies/ differences– Mark, Matthew and Luke

2. There are alternative explanations – Swoon, disciples had to mutate faith Vs Wright

3. History doesn’t matter – Doesn’t need to be a historic event Bultmann

The nature of the resurrected body

1. Is it a transformed body? Paul, seed analogy, continuity and discontinuity

2. Is it a spiritual body? Wouldn’t need to believe empty tomb, but contradicts biblical accounts

3. Is it a mystery?

38

1 C The Bible as a source of wisdom and authority in daily life:

Complete this summary table

Moral advice

Ecclesisastes 12: 13-

14

This can be interpreted positively as ‘awe’

..

Luke 6:36-37 Mercy means

A guide for living

Psalm 119:9-16 Delighted to know God’s ways and not

just . .

Psalm 119: 105-112

Meaning and purpose of life

Genesis 1:26-28 This means ….

Ecclesiastes 9:5-9

Comfort and encouragement

Psalm 46: 1-3

Matthew 6:25

39

1 C Recall quiz

1. What does the word “Bible” mean?

2. Give two ways a Christian might use The Bible

in their life.

3. How many books in the New Testament and

Protestant Old Testament?

4. What is original sin?

5. What does the Bible say is the purpose of life?

6. What does Jesus say about the law in Matthew

5:17-18?

7. What might this mean for Christians?

8. Give one passage which may comfort Christians

who are feeling their life isn’t very good.

9. Why according to St Paul have the scriptures

been written?

10. Why might someone think the Psalms doesn’t

give a practical guide for Christians today?

AO2 – use these brief notes to create mini plans

The relative value of the Bible as teaching on the meaning and purpose of human life

1. Meaning through narrative of human history– origins of life, God’s control throughout history Vs.

evolution Big Bang, history of victors, Jesus human

2. Meaning through morality – advice given to humans – counter arguments

3. Value through influence – Culture and laws, rituals, calendar Vs. modern moral issues, culture changing

and secular rites

The extent to which the Psalms studied offer a guide to living for Christians

1. Irrelevant context? – for use in Temple in Jerusalem, reflect Old Testament values Vs. Jesus quoted Old

Testament, Christians view Bible as one

2. Most important inspiration? Model of worshipful living, frequently used VS. Christian worship has many

sources, Gospels more important

3. Missing issues? Ancient, irrelevant Vs. addresses questions such as ‘why are we here’ …

1 D The Bible as a source of wisdom and authority:

40

Use this mark scheme to create your own plan to this question in five bullet points

2018 A Level 2. (a) Explain how the Christian biblical canon was established. [AO1 20]

Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant responses will be credited.

Deciding on the canon was, in some ways, not difficult since most early Christians came to see that the Hebrew

Scriptures, the letters of Paul and the four Gospels were invaluable for their churches. However, disagreements

about some books emerged and there were different versions of the Hebrew Bible in circulation at the birth of

Christianity. There were also some books that claimed to be written by figures important to believers, but which

were falsely using names to gain authority.

The Jewish canon was not closed at the time of the New Testament. Since the New Testament writers used the

Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint) some Jewish writings written only in Greek and excluded from

the Jewish canon remained in the version adopted by the early church. Generally speaking, the opinion of

Augustine and others prevailed and the following books made it into the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2

Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch – as well as additions to Daniel and Esther. With regard to these books,

differences in the Roman Catholic canon and the Protestant canon exist today. Protestants use the term

Apocrypha to refer to this collection, a term that came to take on the meaning of ‘false, heretical’ for many

Christians. Martin Luther raised doubts about their inclusion. He viewed 2 Maccabees 12.46 as giving support to

the doctrine of purgatory. This doctrine, in turn, undermined the theme that was most important for Luther:

justification by faith, as a gift of God – not something to be earned through purgatory or other means. Protestant

Bibles soon began to put the Apocrypha into a separate section – or omitted these altogether from the Bible. The

Roman Catholic canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546. As with the Hebrew Bible, there is no

written list of criterion to guide the selection of books to the New Testament Canon; however there are 3 factors

that clearly guided the early church: (i) books considered ‘Scripture’, had to have a connection to the Apostles,

either being written by them or by someone in direct contact with them, (ii) the writings had to have a connection

with churches, recognised as supporting faith and practice by Christians in diverse places, (iii) the books had to

conform to the faith of Christianity.

Even though there was wide consensus on the books that came to be in the New Testament, there were

disagreements. In the 2nd Century, a church leader named Marcion created a Bible composed of only the Gospel

of Luke (without the birth narratives) and the letters of Paul. Despite popular belief about the Constantine, he had

nothing to do with compilation of the Bible. By looking at the writings of the Apostolic Fathers in the late first

and 2 nd centuries CE we have a very good idea which books in the New Testament were universally accepted as

well as which ones were debated. There was some debate about both the book of Hebrews and the book of

Revelation, for example, because of a lack of clarity about apostolic authorship as well as the fact that some

Christian groups considered to be heretical favoured some teachings from these books. Eventually the church

came to believe that these books had apostolic origins and affirmed the Christian faith and so they were included.

Summary of different views about the Bible

Objective view – Athenagorus flautist analogy –Author or producer?

Subjective view – Enlightenment, human inspiration

Fundamentalism – inerrancy or plenary verbal inspiration. Problems for poems or stories?

Propositional and non-proposisitional

Subjective – Barth – Jesus is the ‘word of God’. Inspiration comes from the readers experience

II Timothy 3:16 the Bible is ‘useful for teaching . . . And training in righteousness’

Accommodation – Calvin - nurse analogy

1 D Recall quiz

41

1. What is the literal translation of “Canon”?

2. What are the 3 parts of the Jewish Canon? (1

for each)

3. What language is the Septuagint written in?

4. How was the Christian canon decided?

5. Name one book that is in the Roman Catholic

Bible, but not (normally) in protestant Bibles.

6. Why did the early church want to create a

canon?

7. Is the metaphor of a flautist playing a flute

emphasising the objective or subjective view of

inspiration?

8. What does inerrancy mean?

9. Which scholar said that God used “baby talk”?

What name is this given?

10. Where in the Bible would you find ‘All scripture

is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness?

AO2 – add three brief arguments under each ‘issue’ for evaluation

1. The extent to which the Bible can be regarded as the inspired word of God.

2. Whether the Christian biblical canonical orders are inspired, as opposed to just the texts they

contain.

1 E The Early Church (in Acts of the Apostles)

42

Fill in the 6 aspects of the Kergyma and your own summaries/explanations of the quotes

1 E Recall quiz

Kerygmata Example

1. Fulfilment . . . Acts 2:16 ‘this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel’

25 ‘David said about him . . . .’

Acts 3:22 ‘For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet

like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells

you.’

2. Jesus – .. . Acts 2:22 ‘Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles,

wonders and signs.’

Acts 2:24 ‘put him t death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from

the dead.’

3. A…………………. Acts 2:33 ‘Exalted to the right hand of God.’

4. …… ………………… Acts 2:33 ‘received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured

out what you now see and hear.’

5. ………….. and …………. Acts 3:21 ‘until the time comes for God to restore everything.’

6. Christians must …………… and

……………………………..

Acts 2:38 ‘Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised’

Challenges to the kergygma

43

1. What other book did the author of Acts write?

2. When was it written (aprox)? And what impact

does this have on its historicity?

3. Which scholar had a 6 point summary of the

kerygma?

4. How did he come up with this?

5. What is realised eschatology?

6. What did Rudolf Bultmann want to do to the

Kerygma?

7. What is one of the myths that he said was

irrelevant to contemporary society?

8. What is left after Bultmann’s process?

9. Give one reason why Christians might think

that the speeches in acts are important today.

10. What is the difference between kerygma and

didache?


1. The extent to which the kerygmata (within the areas of Acts studied) are of any value for

Christians today.

2. Whether the speeches in Acts have any historical value.

1 F Two views of Jesus

44

Complete this table with brief summaries of the key ideas of Crossan and Wright

Wright: Jesus the true Messiah; critical realism; texts as ‘the articulation of worldviews’; seeks to find the best explanation for the traditions found in the Gospels.

Crossan: Jesus the social revolutionary; using apocryphal gospels; seeing Jesus as a product of his time; what the words of Jesus would have meant in Jesus’ time.

1 F Recall quiz

45

1. Which scholar claimed Jesus was the “real

Messiah”?

2. What is the name of the process he uses?

3. What does he think is important about the

context at the time?

4. What is a name of one of the “failed”

messiahs?

5. Which scholar claimed Jesus was a “social

revolutionary”?

6. What types of sources does he use?

7. Name one of these sources.

8. What makes his method unusual?

9. What is meant by “meals and magic”?

10. What did he teach which was socially

revolutionary?


The validity of using critical realism to understand Jesus.

The validity of using apocryphal gospels to understand Jesus

46

Answers to Recall quizzes

1 A

1. Matthew and Luke

2. Incarnate/Hypostatic union

3. Luke’s dates don’t seem to match Matthew's/supernatural events/census isn’t mentioned elsewhere.

4. Jesus is the saviour of more than just the Jews in his area/Christianity is beyond just Judaism/Jesus is royal

5. Finding out about the theology and motivation of the gospel writers.

6. Jesus fulfils Jewish prophesy

7. Jesus helps the poor and gentiles

8. Because it goes against the transcendence of God.

9. Jesus ‘set aside’ some of his divine properties when he became incarnate.

10. Benedictus or Nunc dimittis

1 B

1. Chiasm, a mirroring structure (evidence, individual recognition, HSp, individual recognition, evidence)

2. Thomas says he will only believe when he touches the wounds

3. Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.

4. A seed being planted and growing into a plant.

5. It is not resuscitation, there is some change.

6. Rudolf Bultmann

7. Because the NT myths are too different from our own.

8. NT Wright

9. More consistent view on resurrection more definite.

10. That he resurrected.

1 C

1. The books.

2. Bible study /worship/ veneration/ prayer/ discussion etc…

3. 27 and 39

4. The Sin of Adam and Eve which all humans inherit.

5. The purpose is connected to God.

6. “I have come not to abolish the law but fulfil it”

7. The key message of the laws still apply but specific laws (like dietary requirements and cleanliness do not apply)

8. …almost any quote

9. “for our instruction” “we might have hope”

10. Because it was written ages ago/ because it is Temple Judaism/ vagueness.

47

1 D

1. Ruler or measure.

2. Torah (Law) / Nevi’im (Prophets)/ Kethuvim (Writings) (TNK/TaNaK).

3. (Koine) Greek.

4. In Church councils.

5. Tobit/ Judith/ Wisdom of Solomon/ Sirach/ Barzuch/ 1&2 Maccabees

6. To avoid heresy like Marcion’s canon and Gnosticism

7. Objective

8. Without error

9. Calvin, Accommodation

10. 2 Timothy 3:16.

1 E

1. Luke

2. 80-90 AD. About 40-50 years after the events so may not be accurate.

3. CH Dodd

4. Looking at Paul’s writings then comparing to Acts

5. That “heaven” can exist now on earth.

6. Demytholgise it

7. Virgin birth/ 3 tiered universe

8. The existential truths

9. Teaches how to preach/ summarises beliefs / …

10. Kerygma is preaching, direct proclamation; Didache is moral teaching.

1 F

1. NT Wright

2. Critical Realism

3. There was a world view with a desire for a messiah and background in temple Judaism

4. Simeon ben Kosiba, Judus the Galilean

5. JD Crossan

6. Apocryphal Gospels

7. Gospel of Thomas

8. He dates sources specifically and ranks them.

9. Jesus shares collective meals breaking social barriers and preforms actions which heal social injustice

10. That people should change society, give up family life, avoid hierarchy etc.

48

Christianity Themes 2 ABC and DEF Retrieval Practice Booklet

Topic 2A The Nature of God

Add as many ideas around the image as you can think of, without using notes to the box in one colour.

Then look at your notes to add in a different colour anything extra you didn’t originally come up with:

God should be described using male imagery and terms

49

God should be described using female imagery and terms

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://shop.arianagrande.com/products/god-is-a-woman-world-crewneck&psig=AOvVaw1WQXhx9G8LmXlO5xzxyaNj&ust=1591448786833000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCIiumffe6ukCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAF

50

God is gender-neutral and all imagery and terms should be approached with caution

https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/oxford-college-for-priests-calls-for-gender-neutral-god/965070



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.clipartkey.com/view/wwwTio_area-text-symbol-gender-neutral-symbol-png/&psig=AOvVaw3KiCCPLrdu4UwChpufMjkC&ust=1591449273692000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCODpjNng6ukCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

51

God can suffer God can’t suffer

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://thenounproject.com/term/impassive/817543/&psig=AOvVaw25kvjZZmHpDUUAv3AK7PbT&ust=1591449392267000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCPjNl53h6ukCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/494410865318688906/&psig=AOvVaw1AQupHtawIVXcUBwTx1N0O&ust=1591449469984000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJDI8rbh6ukCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

52

2A Recall quiz…

1. Who is the key scholar who claims Christians use the wrong metaphors to speak of God?

2. Give one problem the scholar has with using only male language about God.

3. Why does the scholar decide “mother” is more appropriate than “father” for speaking about God?

4. What are the three metaphors the scholar uses about God?

5. Give one criticism of this scholars view.

6. What word is used to describe God’s inability to suffer?

7. Which scholar talks about identifying with the crucified Christ?

8. What does this scholar see as being important about “Medieval mysticism of the cross”?

9. What is Docetism?

10. What is Jesus’ dying cry according to Matthew?

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:

The validity of referring to God as mother.

The theological implications of a suffering God.

53

Topic 2B The Trinity

Draw a model that explains the Trinity without notes, then using your notes add more and annotate it

fully:

THE TRINITY EXPLAINED

54

Create 280 character TWEETs about the following:

1. Christian Doctrine of Trinity

2. Heresies that lead to formulation of Trinity

3. Filioque Controversy

4. Barth on Trinity

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.twitter.android&hl=en_GB

55

2B Recall quiz …

1. What word means the idea that there is only one God?

2. What are the 3 co-’s of the trinity?

3. When was it formalised?

4. What heresies was it designed to counter?

5. What clause did the Eastern Church dislike in the Toledo adaption of the Nicean creed? BONUS: Why?

6. What word refers to the trinity as what God IS?

7. What word refers to the trinity as what God DOES?

8. Which scholar talks about God being revealed in the objective an subjective manner?

9. What is Moltmann’s criticism of this scholars ideas?

10. What is the literal translation of Logos asarkos? And why is it relevant?

Issues for analysis and evaluation

The monotheistic claims of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Whether the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to understand the God of Christianity.

56

Topic 2C The Atonement

Explain these terms to a 10 year old

Write what you can remember about these three

models/theories of atonement in one colour, then

using notes add anything you may have forgotten in a

different colour (how will you remember these?)

Christus Victor inc. Sacrifice and Ransom

Satisfaction and Substitution Moral example

57

2C Recall quiz

1. What is meant by original sin?

2. What does the word atonement mean?

3. What does it mean to expiate something?

4. What is propitiation?

5. What is one criticism of the Sacrifice (or Ransom) model?

6. Which theologian wrote the book Christus Victor?

7. What group preferred the Penal Substitution model?

8. Why might a pacifist object to it?

9. What is the key difference in the Moral Example theory?

10. Which monk is most associated with this theory?


The extent to which the three theories of the Atonement are contradictory.

The extent to which the three theories suggest that the Christian God is cruel.

58

Topic 2D Religious Life. Faith and Works

Explain what is happening by annotating the drawing

Add as many key words as you can think of for each column in ONE minute…use notes to add extra in

another colour…what did you forget and how will you remember?

Luther Council of Trent Sanders

59

2D Recall quiz…

Who is the key scholar who speaks of Justification “sola fide”?

Why does the Roman Catholic Church say priests have the ability to grant absolution?

Complete the quote from Romans 5:1 “Therefore, since we have been justified …..”

Which passage did this scholar struggle with?

What council did the Roman Catholic Church call as a response to Luther?

What is the Roman Catholic position on justification?

What is the Protestant criticism of this?

Which modern scholar writes about the Rabbinic context of Paul?

How do they see justification?

What is one criticism of this scholar?


The extent to which both faith and works are aspects of justification.

The extent to which the New Testament letters support arguments for justification by faith alone.

60

Topic 2E The Community of Believers

Look it up in your notes/Bible or www.biblegateway.com Learn it and then write a paragraph on what

Acts 2:42-47 tells us about the early Christian community…leave nothing out…

Check and see how much you remembered

Acts 2:42-47 is how Christians should live today

Agree Disagree

http://www.biblegateway.com/

61

2E Recall quiz

1. What does the word kerygma mean?

2. What does the word didache mean?

3. What 2 things could “breaking of the bread” refer to? (2 points)

4. What is the “body of Christ” on earth?

5. What is a sacrament?

6. Which quote from acts might show that the early church aimed to evangelise?

7. Give one way the church today is different to this NT model.

8. Give one way the church today is following this NT model.

9. Complete: “All the believers were__________ and_________________________________________.”

10. How might this statement be used to critique EITHER the concept of priesthood OR The Roman Catholic

Church OR Prosperity Gospel.


Whether the main role of the church is to provide religious teaching.

The extent to which contemporary Christian churches should follow the New Testament model.

62

Topic 2F Key Moral principles

There are TEN key texts that EDUQAS expect you to know…refresh your memory of these then test

yourself out by writing about and paraphrasing as many as you can remember:

1. –

2. –

3. –

4. –

5. –

6. –

7. –

8. –

9. –

10. –

Retell the story AND its meaning by annotating the image:

63

2F Recall quiz

1. What name is given to a moral theory where what is good is what God commands?

2. What does Leviticus 19:34 say you should love? (BONUS: Why?) [Bowie used the phrase]

3. How does Jesus reinterpret the Mosaic law in the Sermon on the mount?

4. What does the word “Agape” mean?

5. Why is God’s Omni-benevolence important to Christian morality?

6. Complete the quote from Ephesians 4:25-27 “Speak the ________________________for we

are______________.Be angry but do not sin; do not ___________________________________” (3

marks)

7. What word means an inner sense of right and wrong?

8. What develops the conscience for Christians?

9. What does the Lords Prayer (Our Father) claim is the reason why Christians should forgive?

10. How many times does Jesus claim you should forgive others in Matthew 18?


Whether love of neighbour is the most important moral principle in Christianity.

The extent to which God’s behaviour towards humans is the basis for Christian morality

64

Answers to self-tests

2A

1. Sallie MacFague

2. It supports the patriarchy/ it does not fully consider the nature of God/It can be taken too literally….

3. Because it emphasises the caring and involved side of God, rather than seeming domineering or

controlling.

4. Mother, Lover, Friend

5. Specific instruction to address God as Father, OT rejects Goddess culture of the East, God as a father

allows transcendence and immanence, better reveals God as powerful.

6. Impassability (apatheia)

7. Jürgen Moltmann

8. It recognised the suffering on the cross and saw it as an identification with the oppressed.

9. The heresy that Jesus did not suffer on the cross because his body was not human.

10. “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

2B

1. Monotheist

2. Co-existent , co-eternal, co-equal

3. 325CE in the Nicean creed.

4. Adoptionism (Jesus becomes God at baptism), Arianism (“Highest among the angels”) Sabellianism (Jesus

was not human at all)

5. Filioque (because it seemed to the Greeks to create a hierarchy in the trinity.)

6. Immanent trinity

7. Economic trinity

8. Karl Barth

9. Disliked the use of the term Seinsweise instead of Person because it tended to modalism.

10. Word without Flesh. Pre-incarnation Jesus.

2C

1. The sin of Adam and Eve which all humans inherit.

2. “Being at one” or “reconciliation”

3. To make amends for something.

4. Making an offering to turn away anger.

5. God is not loving/ increases Satan’s power / God lacks control

6. Gustaf Aulén

7. Protestant Reformers

8. God is seen as vengeful / violence is central / punishes the innocent cruelly.

9. The aim is to guide people to God, not to make up for wrongs. Humans are empowered to act.

10. Peter Abelard

65

2D

1. Martin Luther

2. Because they act as a conduit to God, so can act on God’s behalf.

3. …through faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

4. James 2:24 (a person is justified by works, not faith alone”)

5. The Council of Trent

6. Justification is in 2 parts. 1st: through Grace at Baptism. 2nd:through works

7. Biblical support for sola fide/ salvation produces good works.

8. E.P. Sanders

9. Justification is EARNED by Jesus, but MAINTAINED through works

10. Non-biblical / uses rabbinic texts / doesn’t consider contradictory evidence.

2E (Q 10 has 3 parts…hence 10,11,12)

1. Proclamation or preaching.

2. Teaching, or ethical instruction.

3. Eucharist/eating together

4. The Church

5. An outward visible sign of God’s inner grace.

6. “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”

7. Not following Jewish prayer rituals/not having everything in common/not always following only apostolic

teachings/use of sacraments (?)

8. Still teach and worship/use Eucharist/ involved in mission/give to charity.

9. Together. Had everything in common.

10. 10 a Priesthood: All together means no separate special place for a priest.

11. 10 b RCC: not having all things in common/ priesthood/less joyful (?)

12. 10 c Prosperity Gospel: they sold property and possessions

2F

1. Divine Command Theory

2. The Alien, “because you were also Aliens in Egypt”

3. “your neighbour” is extended to all and hatred is no longer acceptable for your enemies

4. The highest form of love for all people.

5. Human Agape is based on a mirror of God’s love for all.

6. “speak the truth to our neighbours, for we are members of one another. Be angry but do not sin; do not

let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil.”

7. Conscience

8. The Holy Spirit and the Bible

9. Because you have been forgiven by God

10. 70x7 (or 77)

66

.

Date post:	14-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	24 times
Download:	0 times

Religious Studies Summer Independent Learning Philosophy ... · Retrieval Practice Christianity...

Documents